UDScott
Wikiquote: Zanan Ahmad
editThe Zanan Ahmad page should not have been removed. While it may have lacked references for some quotes, it has been available for 10-11 months, and this seems unfair. There are many other pages with only one or two quotes that also lack references but remain active. I kindly request that the page be reinstated. Thank you. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zanan_AhmadRichardson-steeve (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I had previously deleted the page (in February last year), it was for the reason that it did not contain any quotes. The recent deletion was for a lack of notability (which has nothing to do with references for quotes). But I was not the one who deleted it in this case (I had nominated it for discussion for the same reasons it was deleted) - although I do not disagree with the rationale to do so. This person does not apear to be notable enough to warrant having a page here. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify the reasoning behind this? I’d like to compare it with the Wikiquote policies. Additionally, notability isn't a concern in this case, as the author has published numerous books. Georgia-Ernest (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the category "Socialists". I am puzzled as to why. He led a socialist party, PASOK... Panhellenic Socialist Movement. He also introduced in the Greek constitution that the Greek state is a socialist country, I am not mistaken. And, in general, advocated socialist ideas. Sure, there is criticism for being more of a technocrat and governing from the center, but the same argument can be made about Andreas Papandreou. I am just trying to understand on grounds this was done, as it looks weird to me. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I fully agree that this person fits within the category of Socialists - but he is also already in the category of Category:Democratic socialists, which is a subcategory of Category:Socialists. In practice, we don't usually include both a subcategory and its parent on a page. Since he is already within the subcategory, he is also already in the parent. Hopefully, that makes sense and is not confusing - let me know if not. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok got it. So the same thing should happen in the case of Andreas Papandreou, right? A.Cython (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, same for that page as well. Cheers! ~ UDScott (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok got it. So the same thing should happen in the case of Andreas Papandreou, right? A.Cython (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- ok, I removed the extra category. Thank you for clarifying. A.Cython (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
refs
editAre they supposed to come after the name of the person the quote is attributed to in the article? Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, although footnotes are used on Wikipedia, here we try to place the source of a quote with the quote. The only real exception is when there are a number of quotes from the same source. Rather than repeating the citation over and over, we place the quotes in a subsection, under the heading for the source (with the link to the source usually placed just below the section header). This all makes it easier to verify that the provided source(s) actually contain the quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
More questions
edit(see previous message on this page) I got more questions! 1. If the person or organization that a quote is attributed to has a page here as well as on enwp, which project do I wikilink to in the article's lead section here on Wikiquote (the emboldened text that is the subject of the article)? 2. I already forgot my other question, I'll get back to you. Lofi Gurl (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- For any wikilinks, if there is a page here at WQ for the object of the link, that gets first priority. If not, then we link the appropriate WP page. For the subject of the page itself, we link to the WP page. Make sense? Thanks for your additions (and questions!). Cheers! ~ UDScott (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh and take a look at some of the other minor cleanup I did for some of your new pages - try to include birthdates for people and try to follow what I did for the sources (having them on a separate line from the quote for example) and for the categories (including the use of DEFAULTSORT, which helps sort the pages properly within the categories). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, #SheSaid and Elon Musks's buyout offer
editI think that you, Kalki, Lemonaka, and HouseOfChange would all agree that Ottawahitech is a troll at this point and should be blocked, the only question is for what duration. I believe that indefinitely is too much, although we all know a block isn't actually going to change their behavior at all, we need to at least allow them to demonstrate that by giving them another opportunity to fail to cooperate, which they most definitely will. My interaction with them recently on the page for Batman: Mask of the Phantasm involved being told that the page had looked like that for years and shouldn't be changed, and that they were unfamiliar with the subject matter, which is an odd justification for becoming involved. Beyond that, my interactions with them have been strange, when I ask them simple questions like, "So what's your opinion on the "Wiki sisters?" or "Is My Immortal, really more notable than all those pages you've had deleted for female politicians?", I rarely get any kind of meaningful answer. A simple, good, bad, or I don't care would suffice but they don't seem very interested in communicating when they aren't the one asking the questions. Someone who thinks that the name Ignoble Prize is offensive to speakers of the Igbo language seems highly opinionated and easily offended, so I would expect them to state their opinions more readily, but they don't, I think it's all just an act. I wouldn't be surprised if Ottawahitech spent most of their free time on 4Chan laughing about us all being nerds, or worse words.
On a connected note, I'm suspicious of #SheSaid, I think it's basically a way of allowing a certain group of editors to get away with trolling by presenting themselves as being better than everyone else, including the admins who aren't members who than become Big Brother or The Patriarchy for opposing them. It's a power grab and an attempt to create a New Guard in opposition to the existing administrators who will one day be replaced by factional loyalists. It's unfortunate because I'm one of their more prolific members and #SheSaid doesn't have bad objectives, just a couple of high-profile bad editors, of which I'm hopefully not one of.
Ultimately though, Wikiquote could do without it, I don't feel like I need to be told by an advertisement that I need to focus more on quoting women for three months out of the year because half the people I quote are women as that is the demographical makeup of most teams of scientists nowadays.
I hate to say this, but I think Elon Musk might actually have made a good point recently in questioning some of the Wikimedia Foundations initiatives. I would have liked for him to have elaborated on what he meant about spending 50 million dollars on "Woke" initiatives, because I think that's a poorly defined word that allows people to avoid stating what specific issues they are actually talking about. I'm sure it's accurate that the WMF spent that much money on something or rather, so depending on your definition that's not wrong, but a word that undefined it essentially not even a real word, it's New Speak.
I'm offended by the idea of renaming Wikipedia Dickipedia, because Wiki is a Hawaiin word for quick and unlike the Ignoble Prize being offensive to Igbo, that's actually culturally insensitive. I don't care that it's a dick joke, because given the gigantic gender gap, we kind of deserve to be called that as a warning to prospective editors for what they are getting into; but the people of Hawaii don't deserve to be dragged into this, they have enough problems to worry about, what with being underwater in the next hundred years due to global warming like most of the world's island peoples.
Sorry that took so long, unlike Ottawahitech I'm not trying to waste your time. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing. I'm always inclined to an indef, taking the previous behaviours into consideration, and looking around all the projects they acted, the next time when they act badly against other user, I will press the button.
This topic may be better on WQ:AN -Lemonaka 01:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- Sorry, you lost me a bit with some of the above, but as to the main point of the behavior of this particular user, I agree that it has been problematic and I would also agree with Lemonaka that perhaps a discussion at WQ:AN is warranted - in which a need for a block could be discussed. I am reluctant to impose an indef block for such a prolific user, but the aforementioned behavior is really making it seem more and more necessary. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have interacted with this user enough times that I can provide instances of their generally uncooperative behavior, should you need it. They seem oddly fixated on me, having posted on my talk page numerous times. Sorry about the speculation as to their motives and that of the group to which they belong, I went off on a bit of a tangent.
I am curious though how much, if any, money donated to the WMF goes to #SheSaid, and whether I could petition the WMF to fund my own initiatives for increasing participation on Wikis by marginalized groups. I would very much like to be part of the marketing department, Wikimedia's public image could use some work. Do we even have an official Youtube, Facebook or X account? It's not like we're competing with them, Citizendium is a very distant second to Wikipedia. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Okay, @CensoredScribe , the next time when User:Ottawahitech is doing something unlawful, please report them immediately on WQ:AN, and a final decision may be made among the sysops. IMO, recent edits from @Ottawahitech still looks Okay, at least they are not hounding sysops or other users with their numerous questions. So there's no reason for requesting a block against them. -Lemonaka 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone who asks that many annoying questions should be able to answer some, the term glass cannon comes to mind. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know... I know all of these, however, we cannot block a user when they did not do anything unlawful recently. -Lemonaka 03:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone who asks that many annoying questions should be able to answer some, the term glass cannon comes to mind. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, @CensoredScribe , the next time when User:Ottawahitech is doing something unlawful, please report them immediately on WQ:AN, and a final decision may be made among the sysops. IMO, recent edits from @Ottawahitech still looks Okay, at least they are not hounding sysops or other users with their numerous questions. So there's no reason for requesting a block against them. -Lemonaka 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have interacted with this user enough times that I can provide instances of their generally uncooperative behavior, should you need it. They seem oddly fixated on me, having posted on my talk page numerous times. Sorry about the speculation as to their motives and that of the group to which they belong, I went off on a bit of a tangent.
- Sorry, you lost me a bit with some of the above, but as to the main point of the behavior of this particular user, I agree that it has been problematic and I would also agree with Lemonaka that perhaps a discussion at WQ:AN is warranted - in which a need for a block could be discussed. I am reluctant to impose an indef block for such a prolific user, but the aforementioned behavior is really making it seem more and more necessary. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)