Open main menu

Wikiquote β

Wikiquote:Village pump

(Redirected from Village Pump)


Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump
comment | history | archive
General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.
Reference desk
comment | history | archive
Questions and discussions about specific quotes.
All Wikiquote: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


Archive
Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works, please click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.



Contents

I don't suppose anyone has ever heard of a journal of video game studies, or a news paper that reviews video games?Edit

I've been trying to look for academic writing on video games to supplement interviews, unlike a news paper review for a best selling book, art exhibition, TV show or film, I don't think the reviews in PC Gamer, Nintendo Power or Electronic Gaming Monthly are sufficiently notable enough to include. I thought this worth discussing here for anyone interested in expanding out coverage of video games, or explaining why the medium is inherently non notable. From what I've heard and seen, even some of the more active editors here have stated they have played video games and our quote limit for games has been discussed as being overly stringent. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe: CiteSeerX, Google Scholar and Google Books give several results on the topic. Marsha Kinder, Mark J. P. Wolf and James Paul Gee among other academics have written books on the subject according with a quick search. Rupert loup (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was the births category deleted?Edit

I was under the impression good categories didn't need to immediately be populated if the applicability of them to numerous pages was obvious, so what is the rationale for why was this deleted, was it because I didn't add a certain number of entries by a certain point after the categories creation? The categories weren't actually empty, there just weren't many entries, exactly how many pages I need to add to avoid speedy deletion? The categories are used on wikipedia and apply to every person page, the deletion seemed rather arbitrary and counter productive. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Facebook articleEdit

I just noticed that the Facebook page suddenly disappeared. It broke the linked words to the page also. Though still it can be accessed by its url. Rupert loup (talk)

Would it help to have categories for video games by year or console?Edit

I think years would definitely help but I'm not sure if by console or developers is needed any more than categorizing films by the actors or cinematographers that appear in them, which we don't do because it would take up too much room to list everyone involved in a film. By film studio might be an acceptable category for movies given the large amount of creative control the studios have on the finished product. Do you think it would help? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the video game questions (although I am inclined to not have so many categories and do not really see the need), but as for the question regarding films by studio, this question has been considered before (see Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Films by studio) and found to be not needed. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The comparison to categorizing books by their publishers is apt for both. I think directors are unique for wikiquotes purposes in being useful creators of works to categorize films by, but I don't think more than one or two lead designers for video games have their own pages for quotations on wikiquote, so doing this for electronic game designers would be of much less help for learning more quotations. On a related note, I think screen writers can have almost as much of an impact on a film as the director, however based off the number of interviews I've read, people are generally less interested in hearing what they have to say compared to directors, or even the actors whom are not used for categories. Correct me if I'm wrong in this, but if I'm not mistaken, the reason films and TV shows aren't categorized by their actor on wikiquote is because they seldom wrote any of their own lines, (with the extremely rare exception of an improvisational program like Whose Line Is It Anyway? or reality television, but occurs with some frequency with famous lines in films.) Though a bad idea for a category, I think pages for the Hollywood studios and book publishers themselves could be interesting as their own pages, there's plenty of interviews and memoirs discussing the studios and we have a category for companies; I noticed we have pages for fast food restaurants but no book publishing companies, even those well known for their niche markets like Harlequin Enterprises or Tor Books, just individuals who were publishers. I'm surprised given there aren't more pages for the prominent newspapers like The New York Times or news networks like Fox News or BBC News as well, as unlike book publishers, their editorial stance is more frequently presented on a wide variety of issues, and they feature prominent in public discourse. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable descriptions for works.Edit

I was wondering what the consensus is on providing brief one or two sentence summaries for works, particularly video games. I recently had such a description reverted without explanation as to why, for the game Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! and as I don't particularly like reverting other editors, espescially administrators. I was hoping someone here might be able to provide insight as to the basis for this dispute and how best to resolve it. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That's correct, however normally there is an intro for pages though consisting of a single sentence describing the basic plot of the work. This isn't just for video games, TV and film either, just take a look at the pages for Ulysses (novel) or Tropic of Cancer which no one seems to have previously objected to the existence of the descriptions for as being too "encyclopedic" for wikiquote. This seems a rather uncontroversial move which is why this level of hostility to the notion seems rather unfounded, I would appreciate an explanation for the opposition. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Like DanielTom said: WQ is not WP. The lede already provides a link to WP where this info can be found. The fact that some articles may have this information doesn't change this fact. Using other articles as an argument (Whataboutism) is not welcome. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 13:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind having no descriptions for any works. Forgive me, but I'm confused why you call up the soviet era political tactic of "whataboutism" which is defined as, "a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world." The only world being discussed here is the world of descriptions on wikiquote, which was made clear from the title of this topic, no one is dodging any questions and I have not veered from that initial topic onto an unrelated tangent such as an ad hominem attack on a debating party: I am merely using the full sample set of descriptions on wikiquote, it is readily apparent wikiquote is not wikipedia, I fail to see what the relevance of that statement to WQs internal consistency is. I don't particularly care if we don't have any descriptions, I just think the pages should all be consistent in their use of or lack of descriptive text, otherwise some new editors will get the wrong impression of what we are looking for as we send mixed signals by some pages for works having descriptive texts and others not, sending editors off in two opposite directions. It's a minor issue either way as most people do not edit the article intros. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 mass-censoring pages againEdit

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is mass-censoring pages again, without even discussion on the talkpage. Can someone please stop him? --Jedi3 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm only removing his non-notable and non-related quotes. Besides Jedi3 can discuss anytime when I'm free. Do remeber that this user while talking about discussion is still edit-warring at Somnath temple until a few days ago, where he still hasn't finished the argument at Talk:Somnath temple. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Even though I decided to stay away on admin advice, Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Not withstanding most of my edits aren't about Islam, they are mostly about Muslim rulers, Jedi3's disruptive edits have also extended to European Christian rulers and ancient India.

He actually made 6 reverts, another one without any reason : [6]. He has lied multiple times, but I don't want to edit-war.

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [7], [8], [9]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [10], [11]

Some false claims of "massive blanking" despite only one quote being removed: [12], [13], [14].

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [15]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [16], [17]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

Action needs to be taken against this disruptive person otherwise it's a mockery of moderation and the Wiki policies. I didn't edit-war with Jedi3 and reported him to Kalki and UDScott too. But no action has been taken. That's why i was forced to remove his non-notable quotes. Please take action against him. I haven't stopped him from discussion. It is he who often abruptly stops discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


MonsterHunter32 should be blockedEdit

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called a massive and almost indiscriminate removals and which as disruptive vandalism are surely a blockable offence.

He has been warned enough already.

He has been told enough times already that he should at the very least observe this rule:

All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.

Other editors have noticed the same, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Need_your_help_again and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:UDScott#MonsterHunter32 and other places.

Also see Daniels' latest comment here https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=2391342

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?

I will also gladly respond to any editor about any questions regarding the invalid and poor excuses that MH32 is giving for his massive censorship, most of which are deliberate misrepresentations or worse, including his most recent one at Babar (where he claimed that he couldn't find it in the source, even though the page of the source he linked does discuss the very issue MH32 is complaining about in the footnote). And what is needed, after the pages are protected and MH32 is blocked, is some input and comments from other editors about the deleted quotes, which I have already asked for many times, since the discussion with someone like MH32 who refuses to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion on any issue is unproductive and third party opinons are needed. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please block disruptive Jedi3Edit

User:Jedi3 keeps on falsely claiming I am "censoring him" despite me leaving intact many of his notable quotes no matter what they are. I've already explained to him that I won't remove any notable quotes. He must stop with his false bad-faith accusations

Jedi3 has been constantly edit-warring despite being warned by admins and told plainly some of his quotes aren't memorable and seem to be only meant for POV-pushing. While criticising me, Kalki criticised Jedi3 as well tating the biases are leading to "lapses of both logic and fairness".

Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeos calling them.

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [26], [27], [28], [29], [30].

In some of these cases there were only one quote or the quotes were not as Jedi3 had added them. Despite pointing out so, he doesn't accept it.

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring: [37], [38], [39].

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [40], [41], [42]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [43], [44]

His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [45], [46], [47] and [48]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [57], [58] and [59]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [60] and [61]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.

Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [62]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [63], [64]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result. He even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.

Please block this disruptive edit-warring vandal immediately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Table for a summary of some of the steps taken for dispute resolution.

Action Jedi Comments
Asking admins about observing rules, especially also Template:Remove. I did ask to confirm that Template:Remove should be observed by MH32 and should be enforced, to which it was replied "I agree that prior to removal, since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed."
Notifying admins of edit warring despite warnings and notifications about observance of rule (discussed above) and asking admins to enforce rules. I did do that. And I asked on your talkpage "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion?"
Notifications to MH32 on his talkpage I gave many notifications.
Using edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions) I did use edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions). See also please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes. I did use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes.
Moving quotes to talk per Template:Remove After MH32 refused to do it in almost all cases, despite being asked so many times, I moved quotes to talk for him.
Applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion I did apply Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion
Asking you what happens if MonsterHunter32 continues censorship and edit-warring. [65] And asking admins that they should enforce the rules per Template:Remove, and that if MH32 continues to refuse to observe Template:Remove, he should be blocked, or the page should be protected. On 22 March I asked you if what happens if MonsterHunter continues with his edit-warring and with the massive censorship of sourced quotes without moving the quotes to talk and without giving full reasoning for the censorship, as told to him is required just before and so many times before by multiple users.
Explaining all edits and restorations on the talkpage (following Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion) Jedi explained all edits on the talkpage. On many articles, MonsterHunter32 did not even once use the talkpage (including at Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Swami Vivekananda, Talk:Historical negationism). In other cases, where he used the talkpage, he did not give full reasoning why he removed the censored quotes. Only in very few cases did he address SOME (not all) of the censored quotes on the talkpage of the article. He used poor excuses like that explaining the deletion of sometimes 10 or more quotes in the same article with 3 word edit summaries is enough. But he was told please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Asking the community for opinions. I did ask the community for opinions and comments, see Admin noticeboard and many other places. Jedi: "I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? [66]
Asking you again what happens if MH32 again refuses to agree on the rule based on Template:Remove. Also asking you to please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes it. Also asking to please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of it.[67]
Notifying MH32 again that the rule must be observerd by him You have been notified of this rule dozens of times and you have chosen to ignore it dozens of times. But if you do not observe this, you will be blocked. Previous time he deleted the notification. This time he didn't delete it, but he ignored it again, as he also ignored your warnings.
Notifying you that MH32 has continued edit-warring, without reverting MH32 again. Jedi said "You said, I agree that prior to removal (by MonsterHunter32), since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Observing this rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:"
Notifiying MH32 that he must stop the edit-warring Jedi made again many notifications.[68] [69] [70] But each time MH32 ignored it and just continued.


Jedi3's masive disprutive editingEdit

Here's the truth of Jedi3's disruptive actions. He is back to edit-warring now, see his latest revert: [71]. How can anyone be able to discuss amidst such a disruptive edit-warring?

Here you can see Jedi3's history of disruptive edit-warring in the past. While he keeps claiming censorship, he deliberately omits I've left many of his quotes untouched as well. This table I tagged earlier, but can come in handy. Some of its content is ouitdated. Theis differfence bvetween his comments and abruptly stopping discussion at It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result.

Also I've given reason for all removals in the edit summary. Also Jedi3 keeps talking about Template:Remove]. but here is actually what it says: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

Regardless of it not mandating every time, I still tried to discussed with him despite not being mandatory every time. But he even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.


Article Number of non-notable quotes removed Jedi3 stopped edit-warring? Last edit-warring revert? Jedi3's disruption allowed MonsterHunter32 to move quotes to talk? Template:Remove requires moving? Satisfactory reason given? Jedi3 completed discussion on one quote anywhere?
Aurangzeb No. Still edit-warring as of 29 march. Apart from now, he never discussed at Talk: Aurangzeb for 6 days Moved. The new 10 quotes he claims I "censored", were only removed due to his edit-warring. I've already said he could restore them if they are notable. Another quote he claims I removed is still there. NOT ALWAYS. YES. NO
Somnath temple No. Still edit-warring: [72]. 24 days of difference between subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple One moved. The other not, as I was too busy arguing on Talk:Aurangzeb with Jedi3. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Other given too in edit-summary. NO
Talk:Swami Vivekananda No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Historical negationism No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Slavery in India No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [73], [74], [75] NO
Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. Second one as already said is not about Qasim especially. NO
Malabar rebellion No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit-summary: [89] NO

What "cooperation" and censorship this edit-warring user is talking about? He himself doesn't care to cooperate and "censors" and berates when someone takes action against his disruptive edits. He is the most disruptive person I've ever comer across. The list above isn't complete with many other of his acts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone should also tell Jedi3 Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. You should not link a Wikipedia policy like Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion. Only add link of a Wikiquote policy here.

I suggest he also read from the same Wikipedia policy of STATUSQUO says that if your edit is reverted you should discuss instead of reverting - "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."

If Jedi3 can disprove what I said about his quotes, then no problem. But he won't stop edit-warring and keeps making bad-faith disruptive edits. I can't do anything anymore about it. His latest edit-warring reverts: [90], [91]. It seems he is hell-bent on getting either of us blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments about Jedi3Edit

Jedi3 (again) selectively omits his own criticism This is what other editors have said about Jedi3:

  • Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement - UDScott
  • Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. - UDScott
  • I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. - Kalki
  • * What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.
  • Even though another user removed his quote saying the article is about Ambedkar, not Elst, though he presumably made a grammar mistake. The reason used Jedi3 to revert? Falsely call the user a vandal.

Wikiquote certainly isn't a place for disruptors like Jedi3 who make false claims. He should be blocked.

Also Jedi3 was again recently blocked for his disruptive and repetitive mass-postings at many talk pages which was removed by the aadmin Kalki, see User talk:Kalki#Brief block of massive posting actions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Accusatory comments, repeatedly in bad faith, are ad hominem WQ:PA. So please be WQ:CIVIL and assume good faith WQ:FAITH. Rupert loup (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

CategorizationEdit

There is a current discussion about categorization in Wikiquote here. Comments are welcome. Rupert loup (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't write edit summaries when you change the categories, so it's very hard to review your changes. I disagree with most of the category changes I've seen you make recently, but so far I've only seen very few (those that appeared on my watchlist – for example this, this and this; notice Wikipedia uses the category "Critics of Islam" in at least two of these very same articles). Some changes in categorization were questionable and I don't understand the motivation behind them (though I have my suspicions). In less than 2 weeks you've created 700 new categories (many overly-specific, others too broad) and made over 2000 edits to articles just changing their categorization. In general, I think that creating so many overly-specific categories, with just one or two articles each, is not helpful. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
DanielTom, to reach consensus about a policy on categories you neeed to comment in the discussion that I pointed. The people that you named are critics of religion in general, not only of Islam. What Wikipedia does is irrelevant here. Rupert loup (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
They are critics of religion in general, and of Islam in particular. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:ListenEdit


Problems playing this file? See media help.


How can I make this box appear on the right side? (Any other template that achieves the same effect would do.) Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@DanielTom: You can use {{listen|style=float:right|...}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Koavf. The problem is "style=float:right" won't move the box to the right-most side if images are in the way (as in here). ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hm. It is now but this is probably not the display you want. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Right. What I wanted was for it to be displayed just like any image on the page... but it doesn't matter much. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

A query as to whether some recent formatting alterations are actually functionally superior or notEdit

I have occasionally noticed various extensive alterations to pages by various accounts or IPs for which I know of no clear reason. I confess that for many years now I have not spent much time keeping up on many obscure technical options or updates, and thus I am not aware of any advice or directives that might possibly exist related to the desirability or superiority of replacing such formatting as "[[w:----|]]" with [[wikipedia:----|]] or {{Wikipedia|----}} or of replacing "[[s:----|]]" (or "[[Wikisource:----|]]") with "[[wikisource:----]]" — or normally displayed image names such as "File:Newton rings.jpg" replaced with use of the shift-space character to produce "File:Newton_rings.jpg", but if official indications of such desirability or superiority do not actually exist, I am inclined to slightly object to extensive formatting changes that have been done to various pages, where previously functional renderings have been totally replaced with different ones which are also functional, but which I do not perceive to be either necessary or preferable — as I believe that this has thus far been done without any clearly indicated rationale for such replacements — and for general editors forming links with fully formed words "wikipedia" or "wikisource" is certainly less convenient than such links with a simple "w" or an "s". ~ Kalki·· 22:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC) + tweaks

They may be useful to newbies who don't know that "w" and "s" stand for "Wikipedia" and "Wikisource", respectively, and who don't know that they can see (when they hover the mouse pointer over the wikilinked word) where it leads to at bottom of the page. The only problem I have with these recent "formatting" changes is that the editors making them often make content changes too all at the same time—that is, changes relating to content and not just to formatting—so the content changes become harder to detect. (For example, it's not immediately obvious that a spam link has been added here.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I had noticed various obscured problems with such pages — but don’t believe I had noticed such additions of spam linkages — at least not recently. Such is another reason to be rather wary of these. ~ Kalki·· 23:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Spelling out "{{w:}}" shortcuts is not technically desirable or superior in any way, and I do not approve of the changes. Replacing spaces with underscores in wikilinks as if they were hyperlinks is technically incorrect, and I am not sure it can be expected to work consistently. I had also noticed the phenomenon of small content changes masked by large edits full of these superfluous markup changes, which may indeed be a sneaky way to obscure spam and other vandalism.

It appears that some semi-automated process is being used to generate these markup changes. I recommend asking people to stop making the changes, and consider blocking unauthorized bots or other automata that persist. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am glad other people have noted the irregularities and problems that such edits can mask — and I agree that we should recommend that people stop making them. ~ Kalki·· 00:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

AdvancedSearchEdit

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Prohibited images and prohibited wordsEdit

Wikiquote has a list of bad images, would it be possible either to create a similar list for words to be prohibited by technical means, or to vote to unban these images? Why is a particular image of a breast forbidden but cyber bullying is allowed, as are other images of exposed breasts? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixing vandalized pageEdit

The Wikiquote page for Max Weber seems to have been vandalized. There is repeated, all-caps text inserted under a few of the individual titles. I tried to remove the text but can't seem to find it when I go into the Edit page. I'm just mentioning this here for someone else who might know more about how the site works.

The full caps text does not appear to be vandalism. It is in fact, standard practice on Wikiquote. This practice has been the subject of heated debates, as I, along with others, feel that it is more confusing than helpful. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 19:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What can the Wikidata community do to make it easier for Wikimedia contributors to understand Wikidata?Edit

 

Dear all

Over the past year or so I've been working quite a lot on Wikidata documentation and have been thinking more about the needs of different kinds of user. I feel that currently Wikidata can be difficult to understand (what it does, how to contribute, what issues there are and what is being done to address them etc) even for experienced Wikimedia project contributors. To help address this I've started an RFC to try and collate this information together. It would be really helpful if you could share your thoughts, especially if you find Wikidata hard to understand or confusing, you can just share your thoughts on the talk page and we will synthesize them into the main document.

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Improving Wikidata documentation for different types of user

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with the about section for the character and comic book Batman?Edit

Considering the creator Bill Finger didn't even get his name on the title I'm confused how additions like these are PR or "chatter" and why interviews with creators are seen as inherently less valuable than critics, when both can have interesting things to say about a work, revealing more about it. I don't want to make a bunch of about sections no one wants, so if additions like these are a problem I'd like to know from more than a single administrator to get a view on the consensus. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Political sillinessEdit

Somebody, who I am sure was acting solely from benevolent incompetence rather than festering malevolent political partisanship, packed the pages for "Republican Party (United States)" and "Democratic Party (United States)" with a great many execrably-sourced quotes about how wonderful the Republican Party is and how terrible the Democratic Party is.

I have done this person a favor by removing these quotes (sourced to — among others — letters to the editor, random blog posts, and Amazon reviews of self-published books).

However, the images that illustrate those pages, and that have pertinent quotes as their captions? Through an astounding coincidence, all of the ones on the "Republican Party" page are pro-Republican, and almost all of the ones on the "Democratic Party" page are anti-Democrat. Clearly, this needs to be fixed; it is as unacceptable as the converse would be.

I see four possible solutions:

  1. each page should only have illustrations captioned positively
  2. each page should only have illustrations captioned negatively
  3. each page should alternate between images with positive captions and images with negative captions
  4. neither page should have any illustrations at all.

Thoughts? DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a month; no one has commented, either here or on the talk pages of the pages in question. I thereby take it upon myself to replace the illustrated quotes. Each page will alternate 1:1 between positive illustrated quotes and negative illustrated quotes; positive illustrated quotes will be first. There will be no quoting of official party platforms. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for a quote about reciprocityEdit

It goes something on the line like this, but with archaic language: A small service is meet by the same treatment, a middle service is meet by gratitude, and a great service is meet by ingratitude. Spannerjam (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Notability: Expanding the works section stub.Edit

I was wondering what the proper procedure would be for expanding the placeholding stub for the works section of Wikiquote:Notability, I've been told by at least one editor that no less than 10 sources making use of a direct quote are needed to establish notability, unless, like this page states, the quote is displayed on a wikipedia page, most of which don't appear to actually be quoted by more than one source, if that. That instruction also contradicts the instructions given on this page, "However, for theme articles in particular, quotations from notable people or notable publications that discuss the theme can be especially appropriate regardless of the frequency of the material having been quoted elsewhere, especially obscure or forgotten quotations that speak directly to the theme - this is one way Wikiquote is unique as compared to conventional compendia." Notably, notability is only categorized as an essay, not a guideline; what needs to happen to change that classification? Would I be correct in assuming a vote is needed? CensoredScribe (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Creating templates.Edit

How do you create templates? There are a lot of them on Wikipedia that would be helpful to have on Wikiquote. Is this restricted to sysops? J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 17:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminshipEdit

Important: No editing between 06:00 and 06:30 UTC on 13 JuneEdit

This is just to tell you that your wiki will be read-only between 06:00 UTC and 06:30 UTC on 13 June. This means that everyone will be able to read it, but you can’t edit. This is because of a server problem that needs to be fixed. You can see the list of affected wikis on Phabricator.

If you have any questions, feel free to write on my talk page on Meta. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Plans to graduate the New Filters on Watchlist out of betaEdit

Collaboration team is announcing plans to graduate the New Filters for Edit Review out of beta on Watchlist by late June or early July. After launch, this suite of improved edit-search tools will be standard on all wikis. Individuals who prefer the existing Watchlist interface will be able to opt out by means of a new preference.

The New Filters introduce an easier yet more powerful user interface to Watchlist as well as a whole list of filters and other tools that make reviewing edits more efficient, including live page updating, user-defined highlighting,the ability to create special-purpose filter sets and save them for re-use and (on wikis with ORES enabled) predictive filters powered by machine learning. If you’re not familiar with the New Filters, please give them a try on Watchlist by activating the New Filters beta feature. In particular, it would be very helpful if you can test the new functionality with your local gadgets and configurations. The documentation pages provide guidance on how to use the many new tools you’ll discover.

Over 70,000 people have activated the New Filters beta, which has been in testing on Watchlist for more than eight months. We feel confident that the features are stable and effective, but if you have thoughts about these tools or the beta graduation, please let us know on the project talk page. In particular, tell us if you know of a special incompatibility or other issue that makes the New Filters problematic on your wiki. We’ll examine the blocker and may delay release on your wiki until the issue can be addressed. - -Kaartic (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on page issues on mobile webEdit

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote can become much more accessible for searchers - just by a few little changesEdit

There exist an iron law for every individual web-page on the internet: describe your content literally and complete - to make yourself accessible as possible for searchers. If you don't, you create barriers for searchers! Wikiquote can become much more accessible than now by describing its content more literally and accurate. In a year, I believe sincerely, we can have more than a double amount of searchers - just by a few small changes in Titles and Heads.

In particular the search-engines demand this accurate and literally. They want to be able to check every webpage on cheating titles and fake-content - and they are right in that! Also the searching people need it, because they make their search-words to find a good match, in our case: quotes This description of the content must be written in every visible = readable webpage, but also in its invisible page behind the visible one: the html-page. This is the area where the search-engines search and verify for their ranking of each webpage.

In both areas Wikiquote can do much better then now. I estimate that Wikiquote can have circa a double amount of visitors in the 12 months. And maybe more in the years following. I shall give my arguments and proofs for that. The biggest proofs are of course the other quotes-websites on the internet who do better in this. Mostly they are commercial and offer a bad quality of quotes, but well-done descriptions of their content - on every page. So they win in the rankings of the search-engines. And that makes them much more accessible than Wikiquote for quote-searchers. It is a pity. I estimate that the total of individual visits in 2017 for Wikiquote was c. 25-30 million. The first 10 million is confirmed by the Wikiquote-statistics for the visits of the Mainpage: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page. But all the other individual webpages also attracted their direct visitors, and that amount is a guess of me: 15 million. Moreover, are in that amount the visitors coming via Wikipedia, of course!

First I want to give 3 practical proposals for improving Wikiquote regarding this question of more accesibility . These changes are rather small and rather easily to be done. They can also be done independent from each other. Then I give a much more detailed explanation and my shortresearch about differences in rankings of quote-websites by the search-engines. I give also my little proof for improvement in a better access; it took place since March 2018 for the Picasso-page on Wikiquote.

3 Practical proposals for changes in Wikiquote:

1. a. Change in the TEMPLATE for making the TITLE in People-pages more literally in words. Now the general TITLE of every web-page is only meant for 'Quotes'. Change this title-content into: 'Quotes of Beethoven' / 'Quotes of Albert Einstein', etc.. Now the TITLE makes a direct connection between 'Quotes' and the Person … That is how most visitors will search for their quotes, isn't it? And how the search-engines value a search 1. b. With templates of other pages on Wikiquote I have no experience – I hope other people have suggestions.

2. Change in the HEAD – the Head is located at the top of every webpage on Wikiquote. Now there is only given room there for the name of the Person. Makes it possible that the HEAD says: 'Quotes of Pablo Picasso'. So this valuable combination between 'Quotes' and name-Person enters in the HEAD of each webpage. Moreover the HEAD becomes now more accurate in fact; because that is the content of the page! The structure of the Wikiquote-website needs to be changed for that, I guess. So that the first two words 'Quotes of..' are already built-in as standard-content. And that with every new page the Person-name becomes added to this pre-edited 'Quotes of..'.

3. Change the (invisible) HTML-version of each page. This is most important for the search-engines, because they read there a lot first, to be able to determine their ranking! I take as example for my suggestions here the existing HTML Wikiquote-webpage of the Quotes of Picasso view-source:https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso

3. a. Change in the HEAD of each invisible HTML-webpage my suggestions: <!DOCTYPE html> <head> <title>Quotes of Albert Einstein – Wikiquote</title> <meta name="description" content="Quotes of Albert Einstein and About Albert Einstein, on Wikiquote.">…. </head>

3. b. Change in the BODY of each invisible HTML-webpage my suggestions: <body class = In h1: id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading" lang="en">Quotes of Albert Einstein . In h2: Quotes of Albert Einstein </span……></body>

more detailed argumentation for the proposed changes and my little research about rankings of Wikiquote-pages in the search-engines nowEdit

1. Wikiquote & Wikipedia compared, in relation to searching

I always thought that Wikiquote worked more or less the same as Wikipedia, in searching. Of course I realized that Wikiquote is more specified and much smaller. Last years however it became clear to me that almost everybody in the world knows Wikipedia bot not many people know Wikiquote. That makes searching and finding on-line very different. When I asked around me last year, not so many people know Wikiquote, many never heard of the name: 'uh… oh that is something of Wikipdia, perhaps..?' Much fewer people used it in fact as their tool for searcing quotes. The same was with students or pupils when I asked them. A pity really! Because they can use the sourced quotes very well.

Now I start to understand that searching online is very different with Wikipedia than with Wikiquote! You cannot even compare them, with respect to searching and finding! This learned me a lot abouty the accessibility worldwide of Wikiquote which I myself appreciate so much a a valuable source for people wordwide. To make clear what I learned, I give an example - to illustrate how the two Wiki’s operate in a completely different way online!

  • about Wikipedia

When people want to know more about Kennedy, most of them go directly to Wikipedia and search IN! Wikipedia for Kennedy or J. Kennedy. Very quickly they will meet there the link for John F. Kennedy and bingo.. They find the webpage in a very short and direct way and start reading about Kennedy! So Wikpedia is their search-engine and Wikipedia gives them the searched content.

  • about Wikiquote

With Wikiquote it goes completely different. Not so many people go directly to Wikiquote for finding quotes of Kennedy because most people don’t know Wikiquote at all! So, they go to a search-engine: Google, or Bing, or the new Microsoft Edge… Google.com, did last year 72 % of all searches worldwide and 90 % of all tablet / smartphone-searches. So I continue this with Google. In the search-window of Google most people will search for quotes with - at least - two words. In my example with 'Quotes' and 'Kennedy' for sure. They can make variations of course like 'quotes of Kennedy' or 'quotes' 'Kennedy' - maybe 'quotes by Kennedy' or quotes of J.F. Kennedy… But almost everybody will use in their search the two words: 'Quotes' & 'Kennedy'. Then the question arises: How well can the webpages of Wikiquote handle with these two words, including their combination?? And, how easily can they create a match between searching and finding, or creates it barriers for the searcher?

There is no problem if Wikiquote can deal with the two words: 'Quotes' + 'Person' The first problem however is: most Wikiquote-webpages don’t describe their content in two words, but only in one word! The HEAD of each webpage is now only intended for the Name of the Person. And the TITLE under the Head is only used now for the word 'Quotes'. So the two search-words, used by most searchers in Google.com are placed on different and so divided locations. They don’t appear together now, as a combination in words. So the search-engines can’t recognize this combination in the HEAD and in the TITLE of every webpage on Wikiquote. That is really a pity!

This fact of division does not only apply to the visible webpages of Wikiquote, but also to the invisible HTML-version of each webpage. (you can see the html-version when you click with the right on a selected web-page – and then you go to the ‘Source’). This fact is most important, because the HTML-version of each web-page is the place where search-engines operate and search, to value and conclude later the ranking of the webpage in question.

  • Many Quote-websites online

There is a lot of well-organized competition online in the field of quote-websites. As best results of searching for 'Quotes of a Person' in the rankings on Google.com appear today the quote-websites Brainyquote.com and Goodreads.com. Both websites are purely commercial wit ànd very smart. Their content they find on Wikiquote largely! In most quote-searches these two appear at the top in Google - in the first three rankings of the first link-page. Main reason for that: they can handle the two search-words Quotes & the Person very well, including their combination!!


My little Research of 10 searches for quotes in Google.com

I did a short research on Google.com, with 10 searches, using the two words 'Quotes' & 'Name of a Person'. The persons I choose from different times and different fields of activity. Here are the results for the ranking of Wikiquote in Google, on 20 June 2018:

  • Kennedy + quotes: ranking nr. 15 - bottom of 2nd link-page of Google - Bad result!
  • Stalin + quotes: ranking nr. 2 - above, at first link-page! - Good!
  • Einstein + quotes: ranking nr. 18 - bottom of second link-page - Bad!
  • Faulkner + quotes: ranking nr. 3 - above, at first link-page - Good!
  • Beethoven + quotes: ranking nr. 5 - at the middle of first link-page - rather Good!
  • Sartre + quotes: ranking nr. 4 - above, at the first link-page - Good!
  • Bernstein + quotes: ranking nr. 9 - at bottom of first link-page - Not so good!
  • Janis Joplin + quotes: ranking nr. 10 - at the bottom of first link-page - Not so good!
  • Walt Whitman + quotes nr. 6 - at the middle of first link-page - Rather Good!
  • Bob Dylan + quotes: nr. nd - third link-page - Very bad!

There are some very comprehensive webpages with very bad results, in particular the webpages of Einstein, Kennedy and Bob Dylan. A lot of work is done; they deserve better ranking, I believe! The results for Wikiquote can become much better, and rather easily! I estimate that they can double, in the coming next year. I did already some experiments with the web-page Quotes of Picasso on Wikiquote – which is the ground of my estimation.


My small proof: little change in the web-page on Wikiquote: 'Quotes of Picasso' - and the results of this change

On 23 March 2018, I changed the title of the webpage of Picasso on Wikiquote. The old title was 'Quotes'. I changed this title into 'Quotes of Picasso' (you can see it in the history of the page). It is a pity I couldn't change the Head! So only this little change in the title generated the results I give you here!

From the start of April 2018 the amount of visitors was growing; the Wikiquote-statistics of this web-page showed a considerable monthly increase of visitors up to and including May 2018. February: 2279 visitors March: 2661 visitors April: 3029 visitors May: 3644 visitors till 20 June: c. 2200

That means a grow of c. 1/3 of visitors in a few months time - just because of changing a few words in the title only. What will happen when also the Head of the web-page will change – and the head in the invisible html-page?? Now I only changed the title from Quotes into Quotes of Picasso.

On the long term my proposals can make Wikiquote useful and popular, so that more people shall start to search for quotes in Wikiquote directly Less wil search consequently via Google or the other search-engines. Then Wikiquote itself will become more a search-engine for the confined area of quotes online. Like Wikipedia now already is operating – it is used by many visitors as a search-engine itself! Without Google, without Bing… They go directly to Wikipedia and start searching there in Wikipedia!

Wikiquote is the only large website worldwide with sourced and reliable quotes! It writes in this way in a lively and convincing way an important part of human history. I am very glad to attribute, and I do it for years already in my area of artist-quotes. It is more motivating for me when Wikiquote becomes an accesible, useful and growing source of quotes for many people over the world. the world. User:FotoDutchFotoDutch (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@FotoDutch:, I have great admiration for all your efforts over the years to present quotes by artists and quotes about art and artists online (on your own websites and here on Wikiquote), and I am grateful that you (more or less) are transferring those quotes from your own websites to Wikiquote. Yet, there have been discussion before that in the process you are applying your own preferences (such as using double white lines, bolding all text, (and now) using alternative headers, subtitles and descriptions of sources), and with all your efforts creating some significant deviation to the standard lay out here on Wikiquote, see for example the current Cubism lemma.
Now I have no doubt that you are right about the search engine optimization by using those alternative headers, subtitles and descriptions of sources. My problem is those few little changes in the current Cubism lemma for example results in the mentioning of the word quote 63 times, were the standard uses none... Now this can be confusing, it can be distracting, and the experienced user can filter it out. I think however that this should be avoided to begin with. Our first priority should be the presentation of quotes in the most effective and efficient way on the page itself, with all the verbal and non-verbal (lay-out) tools we have. -- Mdd (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hallo Mdd, My proposals for more accessibility concerning Wikiquote are meant for all the web-pages on Wikiquote, c. 50.000, I guess!. If you really think my proposals are right about the search engine optimization by using more complete headers, subtitles and descriptions of sources, than please support it. Please, don't mix these proposals with more specified critic on my individual attributions on Wikiquote. These are two different discussions. Moreover, thanks for your compliments!FotoDutch (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

How can I add new author quotesEdit

Hi, I am very new here and I've seen that in here an author named Salman Aziz from Bangladesh, his valuable quotes are not included here. He is an artist, author, and activist. His quotes are available on IMDb, Goodreads and various sources. How to add his quotes in here? Or can anyone do it? Please help. You can find him and his works on the internet.-—This unsigned comment is by S Kahn (talkcontribs) .

I suggest you look at the links at Help:Contents, specifically Wikiquote:How to edit a page. Also, in the future, please remember to sign all posts. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Postponement of the deployment of the New Filters on WatchlistEdit

There was a recent announcement about the plans to graduate the New Filters for Edit Review out of beta for this Wiki. It stated that the deployment would happen by late June or early July. Since that announcement, we received feedback about a performance issue related to the change which is being actively worked upon. As a consequence, the deployment is postponed until further notice. Sorry for the inconvenience caused, if any.

Please let us know of any other issues or special incompatibility that you may face so that we could make sure they are solved before the feature gets deployed. Thanks, Kaartic (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Category introductionsEdit

I wanted to raise this issue (already under discussion at Category talk:Democratic Party (United States) politicians. I do not see the harm (in fact I see value instead) in having a short introduction to some Category pages - others disagree. What is the community's feelings on this? While I agree that it is not always necessary, I find that in some cases (e.g. Category:Film noir, Category:Dystopian films) it is quite helpful to the user to better understand the category, without having to leave our site for such clarification. What do others think? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think a good idea. Then visitors know directly they are on a place to read the things they are looking for, or not. Wikipedia is then useful for writing a short Introduction for the Category. Three lines or so.FotoDutch (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-scheduled deployment of the New Filters on WatchlistEdit

There was a recent announcement about the plans to graduate the New Filters for Edit Review out of beta for this Wiki. The deployment was stalled to fix the performance issue related to the change. The performance of the new interface has been improved significantly as an outcome of the work by the developers [92]. So, the deployment has been re-scheduled. The deployment is scheduled for this wiki on July 9th 2018, 18:00-19:00 UTC.

Please let us know of any other issues or special incompatibility that you may face so that we could make sure they are solved before the feature gets deployed. -- Kaartic (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences are availableEdit

19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Zhu Ming (thinker) and administrator reviewEdit

The person behind the page Zhu Ming (thinker) is very insistent that their page belongs on wikiquote. They have created their pages at multiple wikis, and you can see some examples at m:User:COIBot/XWiki/weixin765.com. The pages have been deleted at these otherwikis, and some multiple times. I have marked the page for deletion, or at least administrator review, and on each occasion the delete template has been removed. At Wikipedia, the existing article has been overwritten, turned into redirects, and at this stage the article person has not been deemed notable. I ask that local admins please review the page. If you decide to delete, please note that English Wikisource has had to locally utilise mediawiki:titleblacklist to stop the additions. sDrewth 11:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are correct regarding this page and I have nominated it for deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Consultation on the creation of a separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JSEdit