Hello, Ottawahitech, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! Because you never got a welcome... :) ~riley (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the welcome. I especially like the last line which sends me off to w:wikipedia:Bold. Just wondering if there are enough contributors here who are interested in having his policy converted to a wikiquote space? The problem for me was that I did not realize at first that I was out of wikiquote, and it could have caused me a problem if I tried to inadvertently edit at enwiki. Thanks again. Ottawahitech (talk)
I'm not a big fan of re-inventing the wheel, but I do agree, it shoots someone off unexpectedly to another wiki and thats not beneficial. I think it should either link to a soft redirect (Wikiquote:Be bold) or have a note that it's located on the English Wikipedia. Just my 2 cents. See what some others say? The community isn't very active here. ~riley (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[]


@~riley: Problem is when I start asking questions I am busy doing that and not actually contributing content. Any suggestions? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]

If asking questions lead to improving content, then you're on the right track. ~riley (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
The best discussions I have witnessed were initiated by clueless newbies or trolls.It gets others to re-evaluate some of their core-beliefs. So- does this thread improve content? :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]

AOC WikiquoteEdit

Hello, hope you are well. You recently reverted an article I added a quote to on the grounds that it was not cited. This was not correct. Please review the source before doing this in the future. If you need help finding the quote for your own reference please let me know and I will be happy to help you.


I added a new entry, is that acceptable? FcoonerBCA (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

@FcoonerBCA: if you mean Leisure Suit Larry in The Land of the Lounge Lizards then you have probably made a first step that is a bit too big. The new article you created is not likely to attract new readers who are interested in video games to wikiquote, and will probably be deleted in short order unless you can can add more useful quotes to it.
Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Images with linksEdit

I found how to put an image and make it by default lead to a specific page rather than the image page description ! It is here : [1] Anthere (talk)

Thanks so much. Glad to see you are active here. Are you still working on #shesaid? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment removedEdit

I believe this user removed the comment you left at his talk page and called you a vandal. --My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair! (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[]

@Diasmanozy: Thanks for visiting my home on WQ, and thanks for letting me know that my comment has been removed on someone else's homepage talk. My view is that contributors are free to do as they like on their own turf, and that removing posts from others is their prerogative. I prefer to have my own talkpage in its natural state, and have rarely (if ever) removed comments left for me by others.
However, the fact User:DawgDeputy broke into my own home and removed your comment is not Ok, and I undid his action. Unfortunately since the legality of the image you left as part of your comment is disputed, I had no choice but to remove it since I do not want to be part of that dispute. I hope you do not mind too much. Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[]
... and now, back to work. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Millie Bobby BrownEdit

Hello, Thank you for your contribution to this page. I noticed that you removed the categories from the article, but they belong to the category. Also they are used in English Wikipedia. In that article it is properly cited with references. Therefore we can assume that everything in enwiki is correct. I hope you have understood and will be waiting for your response to the article. Thank you. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[]

@Saroj Uprety: I would be happy with categories that support information in the WQ introduction, no references necessary. If you feel sure about adding information to the WQ introduction to support a category, that's great, go ahead and do it. Those who have doubts can always check the references of the enwiki article that is linked from the WQ introduction. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Bluntly put, many enwiki articles are not accurate, so buyer beware. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[]

How to link to counterevidence?Edit

Hi! I noticed that you removed six Donald Trump quotes where I had stated "Claimed, contrary to evidence ...". You asked me to provide that evidence. In what way should I do this? In my view, I had already provided counterevidence by quoting a fact check that refuted all the claims in the quotes. Isn't this sufficient? When BBC refers to court decisions, isn't that sufficiently good counterevidence?

What if I instead of referring to counterevidence, rather point to the lack of evidence from Trump? "Claimed, without evidence..." ? Joreberg (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi @Joreberg:

I noticed that you removed six Donald Trump quotes

NO I only removed one, because I wanted to make the point that adding any commentary, one that is not supported by the quote itself, is not necessary. I trust the reader to be intelligent and draw the right conclusion when the evidence is right in front of them. You are doing a great job of collecting the quotes, and the quotes tell the story, no need to hammer it into the readers, in my opinion. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, to me it seems that somebody, using your name, removed one collection of six quotes. To me those six quotes seem important, because Trump repeated these talking points over and over in the phone call to the Georgia state secretary and they are very strong allegations. The link that I added, was to a fact check that seemed of high quality and corresponding well to what the Georgia state secretary said during the phone call, giving useful context and fact checking to the claims from Trump. When Trump claims that there were votes from 5000 dead persons, and the reality is 2, this is a serious discrepancy that should be made clear to readers. You commented "Please provide url/link to "contrary to evidence" - how should I do this if you don't think the BBC News fact check is good enough? Or could I just state "Claimed, without evidence"? Joreberg (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, you are right there were several quotes included on this edit. I just checked the first one regarding the 5,000 dead people voting in Georgia and the BBC said they had checked the claim of 10,000 dead people in Michigan, not Georgia I think. However it has been a long day and I may be missing something. Do you mind if we take this discussion over to the talkpage of Donald Trump? I prefer to include others in such discussions.
Oh and btw I really don't think you should repeat the "Claimed, without evidence" on almost every single quote. Those who pay attention already know that Trump cries wolf constantly, but those who don't, will only conclude that this information is biased when there is no support for it right in front of them. Just my $.02 Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[]
OK, points taken. Thank you for your advice! Joreberg (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[]


Hi Ottawahitech

You asked how to change your signature.

Did you try to change your signature? Did you see my comment on how this can be done?

Please let me know if I can be of more help with the signature. -- ~ #SheSaid 12:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes I saw your comment. I must confess I have been too busy to do anything about it. My problem is I cannot decide what to include: #shesaid/ please ping me/This user is proud to be trash/ or terms I often use when signing talk-page comments. Of course, since I also participate in other wmf-wikis, I would like to keep my sig as neutral as possible, so I'll be able to use the same sig on all wikis.
As I said it will take me awhile to do this, but now that I have a reminder on my talkpage, I know it will get done someday :-) Thanks again for your help. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[]

why was a reformat necessary?Edit

Well, "necessary" is a bit of a stretch. But I think it improved readability. Evidently you disagree. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[]

@Butwhatdoiknow:, Yes, you guessed it, I disagree. Do you feel strongly enough to try and get consensus to reverse my reverse? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Nope. But I do wonder why you felt so strongly about the change to revert it. Would you have made changes if the original editors had indented as I did? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Would I have made changes if the original eitors had indented as you did? - yes:
  • If I thought it was the kind of topic that may be revisited in the future and
  • If I thought that it was important that people understand the issue and
  • I had the time to do it (it is very time comsuming to re-indent an existing section with multiple previous contributors), and
  • there was not anything else I felt compelled to do at that time
Hope I have covered all the points? Cheers,Ottawahitech (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]
BTW since you mentioned the number of colons as the reason for your reformat which I had reverted, I wonder why you feel this way? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Did I mention the number of colons as a reason? I don't recall doing that. My rationale was a belief that outdents should occur when new topics enter a discussion. My hope is that this formatting helps those involved in the discussion not lose track of the multiple issues to resolve. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]
@Butwhatdoiknow:, Since enquote usually follows policy at enwiki, I took the liberty of moving some of the help guidelines to WQ's Help:Talk_page#Starting_a_new_thread. I guess the gist is that when discussion develops it is good to keep in mind that some readers will be visiting the discussion at a later date and may want to contribute to the discussion. Threading provides for discussions that follow ideas rather than dates, so that each new comment is indented below the one it is responding to, rather than built chronologically.
I doubt I am making any sense. Will have to improve this later. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]
@Butwhatdoiknow: I have decided to completely replace Help:Talk page, and to my surprise no one objected. I cannot decide if this is an improvement on my enwiki experience, where in frustration, after a couple of futile attempts to improve documentation, I simply stopped paying attention to those types of pages. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[]

An option for Chinese economy?Edit

Renminbi Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks good to me, but... Other than the copyrights question, I have been caught in the wiki-crossfire of "China" in the not too distant past. I am not sure but I suspect that there is disagreement between the mainland Chinese and Hong-Kongians about what China is. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[]
And, just to make things more complicated, don't forget Taiwan! Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[]

User talk pages policyEdit

@Butwhatdoiknow: In regards to your posting at: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=2922680&oldid=2922674

I believe this was the practice at enwiki when i was still allowed to participate there, but I cannot find the policy/guideline/essay. I found a nicely worded policy at: wiktionary:Wiktionary:Usernames_and_user_pages#User_talk but I personally do not agree with it.

What is your opinion? Should we adopt this one at WQ? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Is this a problem that needs solving? If it is, I have found the community here to be rule adverse. So "adoption" probably isn't in the cards. An essay? Of course. A guideline? Unlikely. A policy? A million to one. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Butwhatdoiknow: You have been around here much longer than I have, so please enlighten me: Why do you believe the WQ community is rule adverse? What I have seen is that this community relies (maybe too much?) on the rules devised for enwiki. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I base that on, for example, a failed attempt to elevate WQ:Q to a policy and, more recently, this discussion: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Possible_big_change:_require_proof_of_notability_of_quote. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh, com'n @Butwhatdoiknow: you can do better than that. Everyone is busy, just because they won't drop everything they are doing to help promote one out of many wannabe-policies, or participate in public discussion at the Village Pump, does not mean there is no appetite for some basic rules.
Yes, I am sure people don't want to see the maze of rules created at enwiki, where one now needs a PhD to navigate their way from getting up in the morning to having a cereal for breakfast (or a bowl of rice, or whatever). But some kind of framework is absolutely necessary the more complex a society becomes to avoid the mob-rule that seems to have engulfed META.
Right now we have a nice little fiefdom at WQ, an island where there are only two(?) admins publicly setting the tone. The rest of the admins are either silently plugging away in their niche areas, or are part-timers putting in their quota for promotion into a larger, more respectable role elsewhere in the wmf-universe. Without any kind of written framework this ship may sink if one of these admins, currently setting the tone, is hit by a virtual-truck.
Even our little WQ paradise is starting to fray at the seams, when a certain registered member continues to simply remove everything his opponents post in public, apparently with impunity. It appears that all our 17 admins are either too busy or are afraid to make a move without a clear policy to stop this unsocial behaviour. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure why you are wasting your time discussing this with me. You clearly believe this is a problem that should be solved. Go forth and propose your solution (or, if you want to live life on the edge, do a bold edit). I'll join in any ensuing discussion if and when it comes to my attention and I have anything to say. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[]

==The ship is sinking==—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butwhatdoiknow (talkcontribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The ship is sinking: this wiki has lost 2/3 of the readers compared to the year 2019.--Ivalon Olavi (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@Ivalon Olavi: Not quite as dire as you paint it, but yes, all wmf-wikis are experiencing a drop in pageviews. See: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/siteviews/?platform=all-access&source=pageviews&agent=user&start=2019-01&end=2020-11&sites=en.wikiquote.org%7Cen.wikibooks.org%7Cen.wikinews.org%7Cen.wikisource.org%7Cen.wikiversity.org%7Csimple.wikipedia.org%7Cmeta.wikimedia.org Ottawahitech (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Looked at the statistics of the main page.--Ivalon Olavi (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Your thanks policyEdit


Many times I thank users for changes they made a long time ago, such as starting an important page. Some of the users I thank have not been active for years, I thank them just in case they ever check their account...

As you can see, it worked with me @Lem.

Btw, greetings from a fellow banned enwikipedian ;) : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zezen who rarely contributes here.

Bows Zezen (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[]

@Zezen: Thanks for letting me know - you are the first Wikiquotien who told me my thanks brought them back, yey! As far as being a fellow banned enwikipedian - you are also the first to admit openly being blocked (I think?). I guess this is the nature of WQ, which allows users to be open. I don't know if you are interested in other blocked users, but if you are I recommend going through the Babe kebab saga without trying to cram it all in in one sitting. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the link: will read. It may come useful for the my enwiki promised analysis, see the

Naïve essay on the changing nature and future of Wikipedias


For the record

entries on my enWikiTalk. (Maybe you want to collaborate?)

I am enwiki banned and quite "proud" of it, see also my topical meta contributions, e.g. on

Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Anti-harassment/UserBlind mode

BTW, re "wikiquotient": having learnt this term from you now, I enjoy its mellifluous vibe! (also as a member of another "quotient" society :).

Greetings from across the pond Zezen (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Update from a full screen PC: you wrote of a "Wikiquotien" not a "Wikiquotient" :), which apparently also exists, pacem https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wikiquotient (a cool game cum self-test, btw.)

Is this Wikiquotien used here on en-wikiquote or is it only a fr-wiki neologism? Google suggests the latter, a meta-quote from old en-meta:

Au moins on parle de WikiQuote ! At least we speak about WikiQuote (...) C'est un wikiquotien frustré qui a envoyé cette lettre pour faire parler de wikiquote...

Zezen (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]

OK, I have spent some 90 minutes on this discussion that you recommended, with random sanity check jaunts to the meta, simple wiki and even to an enwiki talk page via archive hacking, as per the links or advice given there.

Summary of my naive, hurried and intuitive take:

1. I will likely become globally banned too, one day :).

2. Deja vu, that is my enwiki lolcat profile pic, as per SheSaid's recommended Auerbach's article:

"the problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them, and Risto editing in hundreds of wikis increased the risk of this happening to him"

3. I may use some of these meta examples in my essay, in a generic way.

4. Another Polish wikiquote for us all:

Prawda leży pośrodku – może dlatego wszystkim zawadza?

(The truth lies in the middle - maybe that's why it gets in the way?) attributed to this guy and also to Aristotle. <meta self-irony> Which reminds me of another great quote... <self-irony off>


Zezen (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]

FYI, Ottawahitech, I have just used your method of thanking a random user for their old contribution there, on meta. And I creatively used his ideas re the upcoming UCoC, as well, see it there on my plwiki Talk page (prepare for a mixture of bad Russian, Polish and draft halting English, alas).

Zezen (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[]

ah the joys of wikiquoteEdit

thanks for your thanks I realise there isnt thanks here on wikiquote (or I cannot find it yet...) - the meta quote by someone else about the greatest lawyer the world has ever seen seemed just too good...( having been in the world of dogs, but not slept with them mind you - always the back yard or kennel, not on beds) - thanks for your reformatting - appreciated. No doubt the handler from the handler (now I am not going to explain that one on wiki..) who is still the handler of the knowledge of the bestest truth from the fake ruler, has more to give in the future, as long as there is something to drip...

Or something like that JarrahTree (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]

G'day @JarrahTree: Its an honour to have an oldtimer like you posting on my talkpage. I am curious: why do you say there is no thanks on WQ? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Indeed kind sir, most long-stayers on some wikis are looked at with a curious gaze like, you still here? - as for a thanks thingo, of course it is there... the return edit was, hahah too hurried an edit to realise... - very slow at picking up in old spaces like source, quote and voyage - sadly neglected (on my part) but creepingback in... JarrahTree (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Advice re RS formatting in WikiQuote neeededEdit

Hello again,

Can you take a look at my today's edit at Dr._Seuss#Miscellaneous? I tried to format it as per my enwiki habits, but there is no RS cite tool here and the community formatting guidelines are sorely lacking in this respect IMHO:

When sourcing, be as accurate as possible: specify the source, the place within the source (if reasonable) and if the source is online, link to it. 

- they tell us what to do, but do not say how nor provide easy copy->paste examples.

I have tried to follow the samples in Lem's, but even in that one article they are inconsistent, cf.


Zezen (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Zezen: I am sorry but I cannot spare the time for at least the next couple of weeks. I am currently very busy at Wikiquote:Village_pump#2021_Steward_Elections_updates. In my experience the VP is a good way to have such questions answered. Do you not agree? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Ok, ta. I ll format here in future using common sense then, as no time for posting and waiting for VP. The worst that may happen: I ll get blocked here too :). Zezen (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@Zezen: If my opinion counts, I think you are doing the right thing. In my experience using common sense at WQ is welcomed. I have been here for almost a year now, and so far I have not received too much negative feedback, have not experienced many reverts and not many page deletions. Most users have been friendly, too. Its early days, though... Ottawahitech (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[]

So have I here. See eg. the unexpected concrete advice: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Zezen#Sourcing

And ta for the fixes of my edit there! Zezen (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC), with some new magic wikiwords in his meta and quote profiles[]

Yes, user:UDScott is both helpful and attentive. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[]


What was your rationale for making this a redirect to White privilege? I would expect to have a page for White that contains quotes about the color itself (just as we do for Black). This appears to be pushing a specific POV. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@UDScott: Thanks for asking. As you probably know I built the white-redirect specifically for Life expectancy. I had no idea there are already so many articles on WQ that had red-links to "white", including Race and appearance of Jesus which is clearly not a link to the colour "white", but to the race. I guess someone (me if I get a chance) will have to build a disambig page to replace the redirect page. It will be even better if we had both "white colour" and a "white race" articles on WQ. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk)
Thank you - I didn't assume that you had intent to push a POV (it just gave the appearance of it). Thanks for changing the page - I agree that a disambig page is preferable. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Risto hot sirEdit

DanielTom has said that the only way Risto could get unlocked would be with help of others

From what I have seen, and experienced first-hand years ago, stewards globally lock accounts with little or no critical thinking, simply following requests (sometimes raised by overzealous admins or other users with personal vendettas). Global locks are very difficult to appeal, at least without the help of other users. The users that are globally locked are not so much as notified, thus they cannot defend themselves prior to the global lock. Needless to say, this is a great injustice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

and I believe only with the help of admins could it succeed. The WQ admins who have seen that this is a very constructive editor who may have been unfairly locked, could help making a proposal or request.

Do you think that a proposal or lock review with support of WQ admins could help? -- ~ #SheSaid 19:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Pinging @DanielTom: Make sure DanielTom realizes we are not talking about them behind their backs :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi. Maybe a local admin could unblock Risto on en.wikiquote? According to m:Global blocks it should be possible. I would agree. --Spinoziano (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[]


mw:Topic:W4ly1hec06st56pu. Hello. Yes, you can report a problem to me. Whats wrong?—Iluvatar (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[]

@Iluvatar Thank you for your VERY prompt reply. I apologize for dragging you here for nothing. I was going to ask you a question about SWViewer [1.4], but when I looked at the history of my usertalkpage again, I discovered that my question was invalid. Sorry, I promise to try harder not to waste your time in future. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[]


You've already fairly well been notified that this discussion has been closed by an administrator, and the close has been further endorsed by another (me). You cannot war to keep open a four month old discussion simply because you didn't get the answer you wanted. This is disruptive, as you've already been told. You may consider this a final warning. GMGtalk 15:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[]

  • I'm not sure how I can be more explicit in issuing warnings. If you reopen this discussion again, I will block you. GMGtalk 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[]


Please come back, the project needs You!--Funky kicker (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Your reversionEdit

I don't understand why you reverted my change here: [2]. Your edit summary does not make it any clearer. As this work is a graphic novel, it seems appropriate to have this specific category for it (which is already a subcategory of Comics). I assume you disagree, but I don't understand why. Can you elaborate? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

:@UDScott: Sorry, I thought I included an explanation in my edit summary (?).

Anyway if you look at the enwiki article w:Mercy (Vertigo) you will see the category w:Category:Comics by J. M. DeMatteis. Are we not using enwiki as the bible at WQ? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I apologize. I assumed too much and did not take the time to read your message carefully. I stand corrected - I should not have replaced Category:Graphic novels with Category:Comics. My action was wrong because Comics is the parent of Graphic novels, and categories should be as specific as possible. I hope to never repeat this kind of mistake again. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No worries - yes, that was my point. Just wanted to clarify. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

redirect to a non-existent articleEdit

Sorry. Redirects to non-existent pages are subject to speedy deletion.--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Jusjih: Thank you, I appreciate getting notices of deletion, even if it happens after the deletion. Can you please explain the rationale of deleting a redirect to a notable topic (Hungary). Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]