Open main menu

Wikiquote:Village pump

(Redirected from WQ:VP)

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


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.


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)

Categories of births are much less relevant here than on Wikipedia. If someone has a page here but not on Wikipedia, we will likely delete it as not notable.--Jusjih (talk) 03:19, 29 July 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 and and other places.

Also see Daniels' latest comment here

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)


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)


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)


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: 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:

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…, 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 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 appear today the quote-websites and 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

I did a short research on, 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/ 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)
@UDScott: the spammer keeps creating the page.
Warning:Now the quotation Zhu Ming(thinker) appeared,and User:Wirterss makes it.Please delete this quotation and give this user warning.(Maybe I don't convey what I mean exactly.)~ Joe young yu (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Zhu Ming(thinker) is created by User: again.User:Wirterss may make this ID to write the article.Therefore,please block this user and make sure that quotes of Zhu Ming are never created.~ Joe young yu (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Does WikiQuote have REVDEL?Edit

Hi! Hijiri88 here. (I felt introductions to be in order, since the last time I showed up on an English Wikipedia sister project -- on Japanese Wikipedia four years ago -- and started blanking content, I was initially mistaken for a troll or vandal. I'm not; I'm an established and respected contributor to English Wikipedia, and have some history of contributions to Commons, English Wiktionary, and Japanese and French Wikipedias.[93])

This page was created today by a single-purpose with the clear intention of defaming the subject of this page which I anticipate being deleted. I am not sure if the former page has any merit with the defamatory content removed, but on English Wikipedia if I encountered something like that I would ask an admin to remove it from the public logs -- can I do that here?

Also, any advice regarding how WikiQuote deals with accounts like Thebow (talk · contributions) would be appreciated.

Hijiri88 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you removed these quotes. Are you disputing that they were said by the people? If so you could move them to a 'disputed' section. If you have proof something is a joke, you could add a quote from the person explaining that it is a joke -thebow

Don't cite Hijiri88 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2018
Thebow (talk · contributions) Both Robert Mueller and Mark Harmon contain problematically long quotes. You can take quotes from sources obviously, but you cannot copy verbatim very large portions of other works, because it is liable to constitute a copyright violation. You need to trim those down, or trim them out to just a few shorter quotes.
The bottom quote here is not appropriate at all. Please note that the English Wikipedia editing policy page is an accepted standard on Wikiquote. This includes using an abundance of caution when dealing with topics involving living persons. Breitbart is certainly not an acceptable source for such a salacious quote, and I struggle to imagine where such a salacious quote would ever be appropriate regardless of the source. GMGtalk 18:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote investigation help neededEdit

On the Chinese proverb page there is this proverb: When the wind of change blows some build shelters, while others build windmills. It seems to never have been an authentic native proverb. The same could be said for the purportedly Japanese proverb "Vision without action is a daydream, action without vision is a nightmare". It would be swell if one of Wikiquote investigators could find the origin of these sayings, and could find out when they were first passed of as Chinese respective Japanese proverbs. Spannerjam (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

New user group for editing sitewide CSS/JSEdit

Issue about a persumed propaganda TV seriesEdit

Hello, everyone! I want to add a series of page about Xiang Cun Jing Cha Gu Shi (乡村警察故事, lit. Story of Villiage Polices), a special programe of CCTV-1 programe Legal Report (今日说法) which contains many persumed propaganda contents and it's still brocasted. (Although official page says that it only update at certain holidays) I am concerned about the copyright issue. Could someone introduce copyright of such offical Tv series. Mariogoods (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Zhu MingEdit

Since it is re-created and re-deleted repeatedly, maybe a filter could be done in order to prevent the creation of articles about "Zhu Ming" ("Zhu Ming (Zhu Zhe)", "Zhu Ming (Chinese philosopher)", "Zhu Ming(philosopher)", "Zhu Ming(thinker)", ecc.). --Superchilum (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Also "Ming Zhu(thinker)". --Superchilum (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Also "Zhu Min". --Superchilum (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Done by another admin. Thanks, User:Superchilum. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Pictures unrelated to quotesEdit

Why are there so many pictures that seem to have little to nothing to do with the quotes? It's truly bizarre, some of the images on pages like Neil Postman. There's some sort of connection in most cases, but the images don't really contribute to the page. They don't make it easier to find quotes, they don't shed light on what the quote is referring to (on the contrary, they are often misleading), and they don't really make any quotes more prominent because the captions are so small. So what is the point? What are the pictures for? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Those pictures do not belong here. See the WQ:IMAGE policy. What they were added for can be hard to say. Removing them may provoke some resistance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The third point of illustrating topics, unlike the first two, leaves some room for interpretation, "Pages on abstract concepts for which there are images or symbols closely associated with that concept such as Love, Judaism, and Law, should include at least one such closely associated image or symbol." Organizations like religions and corporations have specific symbols is use, so it's really the abstract concepts that are in question I think. We don't even have a page for rockets or missiles, and barely any quotes on Wikiquote actually mention those words, and yet images of them are numerous on the page for war. It would make just as much sense, if not more, to have images of a bunch of military leaders who waged wars instead, particularly when they are the source of the quote. However, I think a lot of Wikiquote readers would get tired of looking at portraits all the time, and many authors outside of religion and politics only have a small number of artistic depictions of them, particularly those from before photography, those whom were not popular during their lifetimes, or those who chose not to commission someone to paint them. To borrow a term from comic books, it would be a bunch of talking heads.
I'm guessing based on traditions in western religious art that the many images of the sky on the page for love seem to be relying on the idea of a monotheistic god being equated with both the sky and with love, where as the many localized forms of the ancient Greek religion typically associated Aphrodite the goddess of love with sea foam, or with the arrows of Cupid, so it's unlikely they would have had that connotation. This is contrary to what point four of relevance states, "Images that could connote a specific cultural meaning that differs from that of either the page or the specified quote should not be used." Point 1 of relevance might as well not even be listed because everything it says is effectively repeated in the second point but with greater clarification; compare "Images should directly support or embody the theme of the provided quotes", with "The connection between the images used and the subject matter of the page as a whole, and individual quotes on it, should be obvious and specific. The relevance should not be so ambiguous or abstract that it could refer to anything or nothing". Abstract art, much like an ink blot, can be interpreted many different ways, compared to say a landscape, a portrait, a still life or a historical painting where the subject matter tends to be less contested, the UN security council has Picasso's Guernica on display because it's pretty obviously about the town of Guernica being effected by war, embodying that concept well enough for world leaders to make use of it. An image also need not necessarily reflect the particular quote it is paired with, merely the page, though I think it's more effective when it represents the quote as well. I think point three of relevance is really the most important to because it's the one that runs afoul of soap boxing, "Images are used to illustrate the subject of a page or a quote, not to express an opinion, interpretation, or commentary by, e.g., introducing metaphors, analogies, comparisons, or relationships that are not explicit in the captioning quotation, or by highlighting arbitrary, literal meanings of words used in a figurative sense." For example, Kalki adds a lot of images associated with Donald Trump to the quote of the day for themes, which many other users have complained about.
Not to change topics, but there's actually quite a few rules/guidelines already in place here that should really be enforced in actuality more often, like the ones regarding civility; because right now it kind of just seems like open season for cyber bullying as long as you've made a certain number of useful edits. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

General policy and guideline enforcementEdit

@CensoredScribe: If you have more feedback to give on this, it would be appreciated. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me to provide further commentary. I'm not sure whether I should be adding this to the talk page for Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines, but until further notice I will post here.

I was once told that editing on wikiquote requires thick skin, which is true, however what wasn’t mentioned, but what was implied when I suggested another editor had deteriorated eyeballs that made them incapable of reading correctly was that you also can’t have such a sharp “wit” that everyone else bleeds to death upon making any verbal contact with you, metaphorically speaking, or in the unfortunate and hopefully as of yet unprecedented case of another editor’s suicide from cyberbullying, in actuality. If someone’s suicide note mentions Wikiquote, that would be very very bad for publicity, regardless of any actual legal responsibility, which I will not comment upon, as offering legal advice, like medical (which includes psychological), is clearly against Wikipedia’s rules, though I have no idea which of Wikipedias rules actually are in effect on Wikiquote. On RationalWiki doxing someone is forbidden and will result in a permanent ban, however I see nothing in the rules or suggested guidelines here that actually bans doxing. Hypothetically if someone had access to another user’s actual medical records, address, phone number, e-mails, combat record, and or their school schedule, I don’t think they would be blocked for any amount of time unless an administrator felt like enforcing an unwritten rule which like all unwritten rules is impossible to look up beforehand, creating an atmosphere of no transparency.

I saw little difference between accusing DanielTom of "defects of vision" and being accused of having the reading comprehension of a five year old, however one of us was temporarily banned for their bullying and the other was not, which makes no sense, unless for some reason bullying someone for mental disorders is acceptable but other medical disorders is not, in which case I presume we are allowed to accuse each other of being schizophrenic, autistic or psychopathic. From what I’ve gathered of Pizzagate and the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, it is apparently now perfectly legal to accuse other people of running a secret ring of pedophilia, and or ordering assassinations, which makes me wonder whether we can emulate this apparently acceptable behavior and simply accuse editors we don’t like of the most pornographically horrifying acts we can imagine in attempt to have them banned, doxed or worse by mentally unstable internet vigilantes who honestly believe our grade A (word that rhymes with “sharp wit”). It makes no sense why accusing someone of having a reading disorder is acceptable, but saying they are going blind isn’t. Right now Wikiquote is making less of an effort to stop cyber bullying than Melania Trump is doing, which is a criticism I hope puts things more in perspective for Kalki, who, were I to use an inappropriate colloquialism, given what I was blocked for, turned a blind eye to DanielTom’s behavior. My sincerest apologies to any editors with vision difficulties, both for my initial comment to DanielTom and the use of a colloquialism that is still in common use, even by major news agencies, suggesting it is politically correct to use.

Free speech has limits, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, or threatening the president, even in fiction via the police like Aaron McGruder learned from his editor when he had to change “bring nightsticks’ to “bring really tight handcuffs”; on one of the many occasions Huey Freeman called up the FBI to report there was a terrorist in the whitehouse. I think accusing people of felonies is best left to the police, not David Cavanaugh, and attempting to diagnose reading disorders should be left to a child’s parents and teachers, to be official confirmed by qualified psychologists. This is a roundabout way of calling someone mentally retarded without having the courage to actually say what you mean, like calling someone a google, a skype, a yahoo, a bing or a skittle instead of the words they actually stand for, so that you don’t get banned but still get to feel like a racist punk badass while taking cover behind technicalities in the rules and loopholes in an evolving language filter. What bravery in the name of hate.

If you are going to let DanielTom play doctor, than get ready for someone going by the username Dr. Black Jack and start diagnosing cancer and suggesting treatments for it via verbal descriptions on this wiki, because that’s the Pandora’s box of reckless stupidity and blatant disregard for the law that is being opened by allowing this kind of behavior to fly and assuming that reading disorders aren’t a medical disorder and that medical disorders aren’t quite clearly forbidden on Wikipedia to offer advice on. The only other alternative is that DanielTom is suggesting English isn’t my first language, which would be like me telling a non native English speaker to go back to ESL, which is an excellent way of implying someone shouldn’t be in the country they are in, without directly saying something overly anti-immigrant. Notably however, DanielTom did not specify it was just my English reading abilities but my reading abilities in general that were in question, so this does not seem likely.

I strongly suggest for both our sakes and those of every bullied editor yet to come that you expressly forbid me from guessing personal details about Daniel Tom’s medical record and prevent others from doing the same. Not that I would ever admit to or lie about having been diagnosed with a reading disorder or provide the evidence needed to refute that claim by blurting out what my actual education level is, making it that much easier to dox me and put an end to my unorthodox views; or that DanielTom would ever admit to me being able to accurately guess personal details about them either, as that would go against the narrative of me being an incompetent with the reading comprehension of a five year old that they have decided to story tell. It would be much more impressive if I was five and writing all of this, but alas I’m closer to Aaron McGruder’s age than Huey Freeman’s, but like Huey I’m ready to go toe to toe with DanielTom or any other bully who thinks they can take their own medicine if that’s honestly the example you want set here today. I’m thankful Kalki blocked me from playing amateur optometrist and expressing hateful sentiments that suggested ableism and ageism, because if I'd been allowed to get away with what DanielTom has been getting away with, I could have easily become an even bigger bully, seeing as my criticisms are longer than a paragraph, and become like a certain scathing German art critic known to play amateur optometrist in the name of defending high culture.

To end on a more pleasant note and to quote Gandalf, "Do not tempt me". CensoredScribe (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Need I remind you that you have added hundreds, if not thousands, of off-topic "quotes" to hundreds of theme pages? You have admitted to this pernicious behavior and apologized for it. And you have been blocked for it. At that time, when I was dealing with your massive and relentless vandalism efforts, I said that you must have the reading comprehension of a five-year-old (at best) to add so much terrible and unrelated material to so many different theme pages – either that, or you were being a deliberate vandal. I still don't know which is more likely. I haven't looked at your recent "contributions" (because I have already suffered enough cleaning up after you, quite frankly), but judging by this sample you are still doing a lot of damage to Wikiquote. Here you have apparently added a quote by a fellow Wikiquote user who is not notable. Almost every article edit you make is problematic. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
If it's that obvious I should be banned, than what are you waiting for? Have me banned by canvassing off wiki where no one can see your machinations, and call upon your usual group of the half dozen Wikiquote users willing to vote however you instruct them. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT AND DO IT! It's not like six people are willing to defend me anyways, you'll obviously get your way, so what's stopping you? Afraid you might fail and it will blemish your perfection? CensoredScribe (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
What are you on about? Do you have proof to back up your ridiculous accusations? I have never canvassed, either on or off wiki. I have never instructed anyone on how to vote. I do think you should be blocked, but I have always said that openly. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any proof I have the reading comprehension of a five year old, "Dr." Daniel Tom, or is that just your personal opinion? Or are you just telling another of your snarky stories hoping people will take you seriously in a subject outside of your actual academic field? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR, GO TO ANI AND HAVE ME BANNED!!! DO IT!!! Or do I have to start the topic to have me banned for you, because you are too afraid, "lazy" or "incompetent" to do it yourself? CensoredScribe (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Your hundreds of edits with off-topic and poorly-formatted "quotes" that have been reverted by many users here including by admins over a long period of time is enough proof that you either have an "abysmally weak reading comprehension" (as I've called it), are too lazy (for repeating the same formatting mistakes over and over again, up to today, despite receiving numerous warnings about it by different users) or too incompetent to edit, or that you are a vandal. Everyone here already knows that I don't think you should be editing, there is no point in repeating myself (other than to respond to your constant repetitions). Anyway, as I just said, I am not looking at your terrible edits anymore "because I have already suffered enough cleaning up after you". Have fun vandalizing Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it hundreds or thousands? I thought previously you said it was thousands, and at only hundreds that's less than ten percent of my total edits that you are calling questionable. Also, feel free to revert one of the edits to the pages you find questionable, I'm not going to stop you and get banned over something as trivial as a work of fiction, that's how I got kicked off Wikipedia. I'd be curious to know why you were kicked off.
How about deleting an about section? Those are of pretty questionable value and people have had success deleting those before but seemed to have stopped for some reason, I think that would seem easy enough to reverse the direction regarding. Or if you;d like more of a challenge, what about an article in a medical journal where the precise number of citations in other papers is actually tallied? You could probably get away with deleting quotes from The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Will Eisner, it seems to be an unofficial rule here that no graphic novel is actually notable to include on theme pages. It's one of my more recent edits, so perhaps you haven't read it, you didn't exactly clarify when you stopped keeping an eye on me, just as you normally don't use that many details, and I imagine even if you do start going through my edits again and citing those from the past at some point in the future, you will conveniently forget to read the ones citing The Plot, such as on weapon and politics, even after specifically being told about them. For whatever strange reason this particular period of time isn't one you want to read about either now or I'm guessing ever, it's good to know as long as I keep citing that book you won't be reading any of the edits close to it either.
It's not like anyone's going to come to my defense, so have at it, until very recently almost no one with the exception of a half dozen people actually talked to me outside of administrators and those calling for me to be banned, so it's not like I'm very popular, you have a lot more people that talk to you on your talk page than I do, getting me banned should be easy for someone as popular as you. I suggest if you have developed a sudden dislike of repeating yourself over and over again, that you never displayed the many times in the past you called for me to be banned, that you attempt a more formal method than the village pump and create a discussion on the administrators noticeboard using copy paste and whatever argument you made previously. Hitting copy paste requires almost no effort, much like how copy pasting quotations in general doesn't really require much effort compared to coming up with your own words, and it's not like your argument has really changed, with the exception of mentioning unspecified formatting, by which I assume you are referring to the use of an asterisk after a colon in quotes that are not dialogue, which is the same number of errors (which for the record in this instance of formatting is one), as there are on pages where the citations for quotes do not have consistent spacing or lack thereof after an asterisk, like on the page for abortion until just recently. Now perhaps you are suggesting that the formatting of dialogue is incorrect, and that different speakers should be seperated by a br surrounded by a greater than and less than symbol to create a line space, this is how the dialogue between George W. Bush and John McCain is divided, however that is not how the dialogue in films is broken up, and there are far more pages that follow that style of formatting. Also, for the record abortion is not a subject I think I've ever actually provided my opinion on, merely those of others, because expressing our own personal opinions to argue with other editors is not the point of Wikiquote!!! Stating an opinion with the hopes of finding a notable quotation that express made by someone who is actually considered notable is a perfectly reasonable method of locating more quotations to add that could be of use to the project, such as asking about a supposed connection between poverty and military service in antiquity, which Peter1c helped me locate some quotes abou, however your personal conversations about various topics like mental health services with Peter1c that are done on user's talk pages do not serve any such purpose and could be construed as simply soap boxing. Had you asked if anyone else has express your sentiments about a subject such as for example what you said about mental health treatment being ineffective, than it would actually further this wiki's goals. I think the questions I have can be rather annoying to be asking all at once, which is why I don't create a page on the village pump asking about ten different subjects in one topic or create ten different topics and am waiting to ask them at a time I'm not busy adding quotations, either to specific users who are knowledgeable or to the village pump, but not in rapid succession. There's no formal rule against asking ten different questions that have nothing to do with each other at once, but I figure most people will agree with me when I say that would be really annoying.
Now going back to the example provided of a page with inconsistent formatting that amounts to a single typographical error; would I have been justified in deleting all those quotes on the page for abortion that I mentioned citing their formatting as justification for mass deletion? That sounds like an act of vandalism to me, regardless of how many formatting errors it may have technically removed, but if you would like to find out, feel free to try next time you run across a page that can't decide whether to add a space or not after the asterisk, I'm curious to know whether that's an acceptable reason for mass deletions, though I'm guessing it isn't. Have fun vandalizing Wikiquote! CensoredScribe (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
«Is it hundreds or thousands? I thought previously you said it was thousands» – here is what I previously said: «you have added hundreds, if not thousands, of off-topic "quotes" to hundreds of theme pages». You see, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I won't bother reading the rest of your wall of text. ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't bother going back through your edit history to see what you actually said, hence, "I thought", instead of taking the time to directly quote you after minutes spent going over your edit history, which would have taken more of my time than it would have taken of your time to read the previous post that you apparently didn't finish reading but quoted. I suppose I could attribute it to you being lazy and not finishing what you started, but I won't. Why exactly should I waste my time on you when you won't spend yours bothering to go through my most recent edits, including the ones in this sub topic? Not remembering your exact wording, which was deliberately vague, demonstrating your own imprecision, is a memory issue, not a reading issue, "Dr." DanielTom. Mostly it has to do with not wanting to think about you, perhaps the enmity is mutual. Now, is it that you won't read the wall of text, or that you can't, because if you can't than you may well have a reading problem, but diagnosing reading problems isn't my job and I very much doubt it's yours. Prove me wrong by finishing reading the great wall of four paragraphs, I believe you can do it if you try, but maybe I'm wrong and you can't.
I'm sorry if this post is too long for you to read, you rarely use more than a paragraph in your responses, perhaps anything longer than a paragraph is a wall of text to you and you can't read what you just wrote, despite your love of seeing yourself prattle off ineffective attempts at getting people you don't like banned. Mind clarifying what your definition of a wall of text is so we can make it easier for you to read what other people have to say? I think most five year old's are able to read 4 paragraphs, though probably not of medical journals. Is this post also too long for you? How short do I need to make these responses for you to be willing or able to read them? Also, why didn't you add a link to the page revision for the quotation of yourself, so that others can confirm your wording without going through your edit history and wasting their time confirming what you said? Did you also not actually bother to look through your own edit history, if so, why do you expect anyone else to go through it to confirm your quotation of yourself is accurate? You put in the extra effort of making the quotation of me green, so put in some more effort into something beyond just appearances. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Reading comprehension and memory are half-brothers. I said that «you have added hundreds, if not thousands, of off-topic "quotes" to hundreds of theme pages» in this very discussion. See my first comment in this subsection – there is no need to search the edit history, just use Ctrl+F. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cite web is being sillyEdit

Looking at Russ Feingold, I've got quite a few places where this citation template is apparently flipping out in one way or another, and starting the citation with a leading period and a space. See for example both quotes under 2005. Not entirely sure why. Any ideas? GMGtalk 15:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I know why: it's because there is an archive URL. Not 100% why or how to fix it but that's the origin of the problem. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Wizard1 and Wizard2. GMGtalk 23:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Where's my wizard robe and hat? Fixed, removed a few extra characters accidently inserted here that made the template think there was always an author preceding the url and so add a ". " Galobtter (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Does WQ follow "normal" categories?Edit

To be honest, a lot of the cats here are a total mess. So I set about doing some clean up today, starting with Kentucky because I happened to be on Rand Paul looking for a project for the day. But it appears User:Risto hot sir has gone behind me and made it a point to undo much of the sorting I've done (e.g., [94], [95], [96]) either reverting outright or adding back parent categories after a child category has already been created.

So is this okay? Because it would be the only project I've ever contributed to that treated categories this way. I understand an argument that a category is too particular or arbitrary to be useful. I do not understand an argument that says we should completely do away with xwiki standards for categorization trees, and I'm not going to commit any more time to sorting out the mess if someone is just going to follow behind me undoing it. GMGtalk 21:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You've done fine work today, thanks! Many new categories are OK, like American theologists. But I see no point that Novelists from Kentucky is more important than American novelists.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC) - And think about the English writers: someone might create categories like Novelists from Yorkshire, Essex, Sussex, Middlesex, Rawsex...--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I...umm...I'm fine with that...because that's how categories work. GMGtalk 22:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with GreenMeansGo regarding the use of parent and child categories - only the child is needed (not both). My only earlier objection was questioning whether or not some of the child categories were too specific (as it did not appear that some were needed), but in principle the practice of removing parent categories in favor of a child category is the correct one (and subsequent reversal of this is incorrect). ~ UDScott (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm really amazed, GreenMeansGo, so many useful categories! But please do not create those at State level - then we would have categories like U.S. Presidents from Kentucky, left-handed Christian atheists from Illinois and so on.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It's difficult to tell at what point state level cats are useful, since there's still ~900 entries at the national level that haven't been sorted into any state category at all. If it's evenly distributed (which it almost certainly isn't) that's an additional 20 entries for each state category that already exists. State's like New York have another 900 or so entries in their own category only categorized at the state level. So that certainly needs state level cats, although it remains to be seen how many states are in a similar situation to New York. GMGtalk 22:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Simple English Wikiquote and WikibooksEdit

There is a now a proposal to delete Simple English Wikiquote and Wikibooks. Agusbou2015 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn, and the projects will not be deleted. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing of sitewide CSS/JS is only possible for interface administrators from nowEdit

(Please help translate to your language)

Hi all,

as announced previously, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed: only members of the interface-admin (Interface administrators) group, and a few highly privileged global groups such as stewards, can edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage). This is done to improve the security of readers and editors of Wikimedia projects. More information is available at Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS. If you encounter any unexpected problems, please contact me or file a bug.

Tgr (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC) (via global message delivery)

Cat-a-lot for WQ?Edit

Anybody more tech savvy than me reckon there's any chance of importing something like cat-a-lot from Commons over to WQ? There are quite a few situations where this would save quite a bit of time. For example, I just now realized there is Category:Lawyers with 201 entries, and Category:Attorneys with 38. Obviously these are perfectly synonymous and there's no reason to have them both. But it would be super helpful if there was a semi-automated way to fix that without opening 38 separate tabs and performing 38 separate actions. GMGtalk 13:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I can easily do it but it's also possible for you to add it to your own common.js. Do you need help with the latter? If there's community support for adding it as a gadget, I'd be happy to do that. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I tend not to touch my common.js for basically the same reason I don't allow my two-year-old to drive a car. In both cases, there would eventually be an explosion of some sort. But if you are confident that you can make the computer magic work then by all means please do. GMGtalk 16:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hm. Well as of an hour ago, I cannot do this (see the above thread). I'll ask for permissions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah. That affects all js pages doesn't it? Hmm. GMGtalk 17:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:  Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 05:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... Thanks @Koavf:, I think. But how to I get my handy dandy box to pop up in the corner when I'm in category space? GMGtalk 11:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
You need to go to your preferences (under Gadgets) and check the box to activate it for you. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah ha! I thought they were just going to stick it in my commons.js, assuming it would be pretty buggy like a few of the cobbled together personalized gadgets I have on other projects, but it's transferred over for everybody. That's even better. Thanks everybody! GMGtalk 13:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to you you're doing great work here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Official websiteEdit

It looks like this template on enwiki has been updated to pull the parameter from Wikidata if no value is entered. Can we duplicate that functionality over here too? GMGtalk 13:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:Import doesn't allow for actual importing but copy/pasting with attribution is totally legit. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tried that here before, but as often as not there's Template:A that depends on Template:B that depends on Something:C and Template:D, and by the time I get B sorted out I've gotten lost. GMGtalk 19:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh. See current and immediately previous usage at Ben_Folds#External_links. Seems to now link to the website from WD, but give an error message both with and without a parameter. GMGtalk 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Turns out there are a lot of dependencies. This is a bigger task than I thought. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... Ping User:Zyxw who seems to have done some of the heavy lifting on enwiki. GMGtalk 19:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Template:Official website has been updated to use Wikidata:Property:P856 when a URL is not specified via a template parameter. I did that the same way most external link templates on enwiki use Wikidata, via {{#property:}}. This works in the majority of cases where Wikidata only contains one URL for the official website. For examples, see Ben Folds #External links and Tom Petty #External links. -- Zyxw (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks Zyxw! GMGtalk 13:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Abuse filtersEdit

It seems that some users are creating spam articles like User:Reuben3163‎ and on Wikiquote. I suggest that you consider importing Wikibooks' edit filters into Wikiquote. For reference, the spam which I linked above will not occur on Wikibooks as the filter will catch it (and has been very successful for us) (see this). Leaderboard (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like somehow I have access to en.wb's edit filter... @Leaderboard: Is there a way to download/import--I don't see one...? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: You mean export the filters? It's possible to do so per-filter (from my end at least). Leaderboard (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Yeah, that would be nice to mass export but it's not necessary. If it can't be done, then it can't be done. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: "If x, then x" I can send you the filter export by email or talk. Leaderboard (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Oh, no that's not necessary--I can do them as well. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


Does anyone have a particular request for a filter we should or shouldn't use? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Anything that can catch these spam bots is welcome to be sure. If WB has got it, then lets get it I say. GMGtalk 22:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I just imported several. We'll see if this changes things. If anyone spots an uptick in these tags on Special:Recentchanges, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be working; see Special:AbuseLog. Though it may be advisable to create a page where users can report false positives if you haven't already. And filter 21 has an undefined error message (which is necessary as it is what users will see when the filter trips), please add one (which should include a link to a place where false positives can be reported). Leaderboard (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I totally understand why this tripped the filter as link spamming. I assume because of the twitter links? If so that may not be appropriate for WQ, as I presume there are a large amount of legitimate links to twitter. I do find it interesting that we had three registered accounts and one IP triggering abuse filters on this one page in the span of about half an hour. That looks suspiciously like a UPE sock farm to me. Which...looking around...does WQ have no CUs?
Anyway, stuff like this is golden and exactly what is needed. GMGtalk 12:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-link-spam. It's not pretty but it's something. Thanks again! —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to intentionally trigger this filter for testing without being overtly disruptive? GMGtalk 10:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Working in your sandbox would probably be a start. As far as checking the AbuseLog, I don't know that anyone is really spying it like a hawk at 6:15 a.m. UTC+4, so you could probably do a spate of test edits with no real harm. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay. So just copying and pasting the last thing to trip the filter, I get this error:
The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter.
This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter:
The following text is what triggered our spam filter:
So the summary box isn't displaying. Not sure if you were just transferring it over as a draft at this point, and intentionally hadn't enabled it. It also seems like the bit about "just hit save again" in the message isn't accurate. Doesn't matter how many times you hit save, it still prevents you from performing the edit. GMGtalk 10:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm? And it doesn't seem that my intentionally triggering the filter actually got recorded in the log? GMGtalk 10:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
And (before I run out of coffee and have to wake the family up), I'm assuming since its MediaWiki: prefix that this is automatically full protected with no way to unprotect it? But it definitely still references Wikibooks twice, so we'd need to at least tweak that bit. I'm also kindof a fan of the big warning icon used on w:MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-link-spam. Even with that, last time I unintentionally tripped the filter on by trying to reference a spam black listed site, it took even me a minute to realize it wasn't a loss of session data, scroll back up to the top and notice the warning. So it might not hurt to make it pop out a bit more visually, to increase the changes of people actually noticing it.
I like that it directs users here, rather than creating a stand alone page. It may be helpful to make a very simplified version of the pre-filled form generated when someone, for example, files a new report at w:WP:ANEW, see here. Keeping in mind that this is directed at a total newbie who probably doesn't know enough yet to fill in the header box when filing a report. I can work up a draft for that later today if you know how to technically implement it (I surely don't). GMGtalk 10:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the note re:Wikibooks. Fixed. Also, it pops now more but is still pretty basic and ugly. And yes, I agree that since en.wq is pretty small, there is no need for a message board just for Abuse Log errors (yet). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this specific filter still going to allow completion of the edit on the second save? Currently it doesn't seem to. GMGtalk 21:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Just spit balling, but what about something like this? GMGtalk 22:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! As far as the saving thing goes, this is all negotiable. The blacklist on en.wp won't let you save, even if the previous revision included a blacklisted domain. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories, part 2Edit

Will someone kindly explain to User:Risto hot sir‎ how categories work, again. Because they don't seem to understand, and seem adamant that they're not going to listen unless it comes from a sysop. But they're apparently having a go at adding random city categories to Category:People, because...reasons... GMGtalk 18:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

RedMeansStop. In sports, for example, it's important to see the statistics by one look. Now I can't find out without much trouble which one is the first, New York City or London. And there's no need to create categories like Novelists from Alaska etc.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I want the two of you to discuss this here and assume good faith. Please state your positions neutrally so the community can decide. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion we should have only the most important categories. Wikipedia is a bad example: People died of lung cancer... It took a long time before even the birth years were accepted at Wq. The most important thing is to make the readers able to find the information they need as quickly as possible.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
...The issue doesn't have anything to do with what categories are important. The issue is the way that categories work on every Wikimedia project, and you've already been been told this multiple times by multiple people, to please stop adding parent categories to pages that already obviously contain child categories. If you don't understand, see w:Wikipedia:Categorization, c:Commons:Categories, or b:Wikibooks:Categories, and any number of similar pages that explain the same concept. You don't decide because of personal preference that random city categories are somehow uniquely important among the 15,653 pages currently under Category:People, and promote them to the top level parent category, because that makes no sense. GMGtalk 20:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's take Jay Nordlinger. When I want to see all American journalists, can't find him 'cause he's hiding in the category Journalists from Michigan. Do you really want to spread the American journalists to 51 categories?--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Then you need to nominate that category for VfD, as you are instructed to do at Wikiquote:Deletion policy. You do not need to randomly insert parent categories, as you did here, here, and here, undoing the work of three different editors. GMGtalk 21:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia, everything possible can't be categorized. Only the quotations are important - and the easiness to find 'em.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to nominate that category for VfD, as you are instructed to do at Wikiquote:Deletion policy. GMGtalk 21:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Why should I? If you want to make Wikiquote unreadable, just go ahead, green means go! Besides, without my work it would have been harder for you to create harmful categories.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Why should I? ... Because that's what the project's policy says you should do. I appreciate your work. I'm not trying to get you to stop contributing. I'm trying to get you to stop doing one very small counter productive thing, among the vast majority of productive things that you do, because that one small counter productive thing is just making more work for others to clean up. GMGtalk 21:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I've written enough of this subject. Let the community decide! Have you just thought how much work you must do before all the occupations etc. in every country are categorized? Journalists from Tuscany, composers from Bavaria, astronauts from Saudi Arabia (oh, that exists already!)... And you've also done mostly excellent work! I fear that Wq is going to little pieces.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, one can certainly nominate categories for VFD (and parent categories should not just be added), but there is another point here as well: it appears that some of the categories that have been added are way too granular for this project. As was mentioned above, we are not an encyclopedia - in general categories are only added when there is a critical mass of enough pages to justify it. We generally do not add a ton of categories, hoping that they will be needed and filled at some point. Having such specific categories is really not needed, IMHO. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there is an issue of granularity to be settled. But when someone creates a category, the appropriate response is not to depopulate it, so that someone else nominates it for speedy deletion (and none of those diffs involve me personally). The appropriate response is to nominate for VfD, notify the creator, and find out where the boundary of that granularity lies. GMGtalk 22:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hundreds of categories may be coming, so I'm not gonna bring 'em to VFD. I'm just a Finnish guy in New York (according to Sting)--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
That's fine--discuss it here. That's why it exists. It's far more overhead and effort to edit war and much easier to ask the community for input. If the consensus is against this level of detail, then User:GreenMeansGo and you can both save yourself some effort. I just don't understand the continuous back and fort here. en.wq is a small enough community that it is very easy to get a consensus. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Well I should say that this is right out, because obviously nominating Category:English people by location, Category:English people, Category:Britons, and Category:Europeans all for deletion is patently silly. That's kindof the point I'm trying to get at. Nominating individually overly granular categories for deletion, or even batch deletion a la Commons is perfectly fine. But we don't throw four intermediate categories to the wind because we're feeling particularly giddy about London. GMGtalk 23:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The people usually love (or hate) their own cities and want to know the notable persons from it. All memories are connected to places.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Make List of people by city or List of people by European city if the community decides that such lists are appropriate here. I imagine that the inclusion of w:MOS:SEEALSO sections could also be helpful to readers. I'd support that and even help populate it. But category space is not the place to make pseudo-lists because it defies the purpose of categories and makes them useless, notwithstanding the fact that categories are mostly invisible to readers, and are mostly internal tracking mechanisms. GMGtalk 23:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well, Category:List of people by city was not what I meant exactly. I meant List of people by city. But Category:People by city also works nicely. GMGtalk 00:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 OctoberEdit

13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Link for referenceEdit

I added the link to the source in this addition to the page: Youngrmm H. 101 of My Funniest Jokes. New York: Henny Youngman, 1976. Brochure. Cited in: Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol:4, p.515-518, 1979-80, Current Comments #26, p. 516, June 30, 1980.

I can't put the link here because it is triggering the spammer filter. —This unsigned comment is by Canavalia (talkcontribs) 09:06, 7 September 2018.

Link to log. GMGtalk 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

External link, Dara Ó BriainEdit

Trying to edit a page regarding Dara Ó Briain

There was a "red-link" to Mock the Week, on Wikipedia. Attempted to make that link, not allowed to. Spammer filter. I feel that it is an appropriate one.

External link - Mock the Week Thanks.

Now able to save this change.Don't really know what is happening. —This unsigned comment is by Rhynchelma (talkcontribs) .

I revised the formatting of this link. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A abuse filter was recently added that essentially prohibits new users from posting any external links. There was discussion a few years ago about doing something like this, but I recall the decision was to filter more selectively than any link from a new user. Many newcomers begin their Wikiquote career by writing citations as external links.

    I think is is a mistake to implement a policy restriction by technical means without first discussing the policy. There was some discussion of abuse filters above but, in my opinion, "anything that can catch these spam bots" is not specific enough to formulate a policy against newcomers posting hyperlinks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • To be clear, I wasn't being intentionally flippant there. I was just trusting that others involved understood the way the filters worked more than I did, and that they had already to some extent been tested and refined elsewhere before being suggested for implementation here. GMGtalk 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rhynchelma: Thanks for writing here and adding to the quotation collection. I want to refine the filter to make it work better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Faith Edit With Link To CNBC Video InterviewEdit

This is a good-faith edit, with a link to the source of the quote, which is a CNBC video interview with the person being quoted.

My submission seems to have disappeared; here it is, in full (to the page "Vivek Wadhwa" -- I had to obfuscate the URL just to post it to this Village Pump, surprisingly enough:

  • The last big thing [Apple] did was nine years ago with the iPhone. And since then they made it bigger with the iPad; they made it smaller with the Watch. All they keep doing is playing with the size. ... [Apple] needs an Elon Musk or a Zuckerberg running it. ... [iPhone] is a ten-year-old device. They've done everything they can with it. And Samsung, and even BlackBerry, have similar or even better ratings than the iPhone does. That's the biggest slap in the face you could possibly have: BlackBerry almost ranking the same as an iPhone? Time to move on.
    • leftbracket h t t p colon slash slash slash video slash 2016 slash 04 slash 27 slash vivek-wadhwa-apple-should-buy-tesla-and-make-elon-musk-ceo.html Apple should buy Tesla and make Elon Musk CEO rightbracket on CNBC (27 April 2016)
  •  Y Done On the subject, are we getting more false positives than we're weeding out bad edits? Can we technically dial the filter back a bit? Or is it implemented as an all or nothing solution? GMGtalk 13:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This is another case of the newly added Abuse Filter #21 (5 September 2018 by administrator Koavf) preventing good faith users from posting external links. I reiterate that this was done without establishing a policy prohibiting new (or unregistered) users posting hyperlinks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying to make policy by fiat, just respond to a user request on the Pump. I have now revised Special:AbuseFilter/21--it should be more reasonable now. And User:Ningauble, I have no problem with you disabling it or editing it pending some discussion or review. I trust your judgement.Justin (koavf)TCM 17:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Totally agree, that if anyone takes issue with this implementation, disable it and we can discuss it. GMGtalk 01:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Attempted Addition to Jane Goodall PageEdit


I'm a big fan of Wikiquote and just tried to update the Jane Goodall page.

Background: I read a quote by her, tried to confirm it on Wikiquote, but couldn't. I searched elsewhere and confirmed it on what I believe is her official Facebook page.

What I tried to do: So I tried to update the Jane Goodall Wikiquote page, including a link to her Facebook page, which is the only source I've aware of and which seems reliable.

Problem: However, I received this message:

Unfortunately, your edit has triggered an automated filter designed to detect and prevent spammers. It appears you are adding external links to other websites in a way that may not be appropriate, and may not conform to the purpose of Wikiquote. If you think there has been a mistake, please let us know so that we may improve the filter and prevent it from interfering with good faith editors. You may do so by following this link and leaving a message. Please be as detailed as possible to help us better understand the problem, and include a description of the website you were attempting to link to. Thank you, and again, welcome!

This is what I'm trying to add:

"What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make." Post on Dr. Jane Goodall Facebook page (2017-12-12) (

I'm trying to do so here:

If there's a better way for me to do this, please let me know.

Thanks! —This unsigned comment is by Reasonable Bill (talkcontribs) .

Looks like a false positive. Leaderboard (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to avoid the false positive and publish the quote -- or must an administrator do this for me? Thanks for all you do to make this such an awesome and valuable site! —This unsigned comment is by Reasonable Bill (talkcontribs) .

An admin needs to do it for you (I'm not an admin, sorry). @Koavf:, please check? Leaderboard (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Reasonable Bill: One work-around to this is to find the original source of the quotation, which was not this Facebook post. See for instance here. Do you know the original source? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

external link - Robert MuellerEdit


I'm attempting to add the source: to the article:

It is a source for: "only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be" The quote is often repeated and possibly has more than one version/source, so it is important to attribute it

However I'm being blocked by an automated filter. Please could someone whitelist for me, or advise an alternative.

--Peterxyz (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Y Done GMGtalk 12:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to add one external link to the existing page and my try has been detected as harmfulEdit

Greetings, I am the author of the article which I was trying to add as an external link to the existing Wikiquote page - Star Wars and unfortunately, my try has been detected as potentially harmful. In fact, I am running the whole Space Quotations blog and I have created my last series of articles on the topic of Star Wars characters quotes. Here the list:

So, to sum up, I was simply trying to add a very topical external link to the page just the first one (25 Best Star Wars Quotes)

Here's what I've tried to put:

Space Quotations - 25 Best Star Wars Quotes and more about mysteries of endless space.

I also would like to state that my intentions were simply educational to allow people to learn more about Star Wars, as well as show them my article, in which I have put much of my efforts.

Hoping for your understanding, Kind regards, Andy —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .

@AndriiZip: Hi Andy. Thanks for coming to participate. As you may see above, we tried to implement this filter to cut down on spam and it sometimes catches legit edits. Can you tell me how you were thinking of using these links? E.g. this blog is not the original source of any of these quotations, correct? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, @Justin (Koavf), thanks for your reply! Well, I was hoping that my article may be of help to those looking for additional quotations from Star Wars movies, that's it. The only one link I was trying to add is the on 25 Best Star Wars Quotes because it is related. I have mentioned the other links from my blog just to show that I am currently writing on Star Wars Quotes (Emperor Palpatine Quotes article is coming up next). —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .
@AndriiZip: I figured that was probably where you were going but think about it from our perspective: we'd like to be the best quotation repository, so outward linking to this blog is a little... counter-productive? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Justin (@koavf)! Yes, I see your point very clear. May I just ask for some future perspective: so, there is nothing to be done from my side to settle this matter? Cause I was truly hoping for cooperation here, not competition:) At least, possibly, you guys consider having a look at my writings and we could elaborate further on the subject. Thanks in advance. Regards, Andy. —This unsigned comment is by AndriiZip (talkcontribs) .

@AndriiZip: Nothing is set in stone! Just make your proposal for how you can make the site better! —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Liberals and conservativesEdit

It seems User:Rupert loup and I have a slightly different takes on what a "liberal" and "conservative" means. So...the result seems to be that both categories contains the following pages (about half of Category:Conservatives):

So...that essentially makes the categories meaningless, and it would be helpful to find some kind of solution there. GMGtalk 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Liberal conservativism, conservative liberalism and classical liberalism are variants of liberalism and conservativism, and people can be socially right, center or left wing and being economically liberal. The only one that is not currently in this category (I think) is Le Pen, the others still expouse one of this variants. Subcategories to different variants, like from specific regions and timelines, can be created if necessary. Rupert loup (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Then I think we need some more granular way of parsing this out with sub-categories. I personally think the easier solution is to go with the common definition, since I'm not totally sure there are enough pages to really warrant a category for something like Category:Liberal conservatism. But if we're defining a generic category so broadly that we can justify Ben Shapiro and Marine Le Pen as liberals, then we may as well just delete the categories all together, because they're broad enough to be useless. GMGtalk 19:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

VFD backlogEdit

A lot of the votes on VFD have been closed for several months now and there is one in particular I'd like to renominate, or is Inceldom already eligible for renomination without first being removed from the page? Would someone mind helping me out with this? Hello? CensoredScribe (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I closed a couple now. The one you mentioned should still have some discussion since there is no consensus. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your assistance. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello sirEdit

I provided some links for better understand about diwali some and quotes fot diwali