Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/003



if you have any tasks which you need fellow sysops' hands, please put it on here.

VfD closing and archiving


I'd like to ask my fellow sysops to seriously consider helping out with closing and archiving Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. We continue to get new articles nominated regularly, but with only 3 sysops (LrdChaos, Fys, and myself) apparently willing to do this work, and all of them showing some reluctance to do this on a daily basis in recent days, I feel we're beginning to get some VfD-weariness from these folks. (That's certainly how I feel.) Do we have any other volunteers? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I would certainly be willing to help out, but I'm afraid I may need a slight refresh on the process (sorry for my ignorance, since I know you've explained it to me before, last year), as my brain has refused to retain the knowledge. ~ UDScott 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're concerned about the archive process, as that's the rather tedious part. Frankly, I'd appreciate help just on closures, because they sometimes require careful judgment calls that I find more taxing than robotic archive processing (even though the latter is more technically complex). The archive process has changed a bit since my posting, too, as we now use a more WP-like log instead of a huge single page for archived votes. I'll see if I can work up a new summary and post it somewhere logical. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the archiving is the part I'm not too sure of anymore. I've closed the only vote (and deleted the page) that has currently hit its end time, but I'll wait for your instructions for archiving the vote results. Thanks. ~ UDScott 14:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get too much intro writing up a new "how to", is there still any support for the idea of making our VFD process even more WP-like and having the nominator create a separate subpage for each nomination? I think it would make things a lot easier on the sysops when closing a nomination (since there's no need for the process of copy/pasting each nomination into a new page) and will keep the edit history for each confined to that subpage (so that it's easier to check for evidence of vote-tampering). I know the suggestion came up once before, right around the time we were shifting to the 7-day period and the new SD policy (I think), so we were probably content to avoid any other big things at that point. I could probably whip up the appropriate templates and some quick docs by the end of the week, if there's interest. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward using WP's method of nominating by creating the discussion as a subpage, which would make it vastly easier to sort out problems that frequently arise in discussion posts, and would give each contributor a clear connection to each discussion in both the subpage's history and user contributions. I didn't move forward because I wasn't prepared to do the work to get it working and properly documented, but I would be willing to review it if someone else did it. My main question is how our other VfD participants, especially non-Wikipedians, feel about this. I'd want them to take a look at how Wikipedia does it and/or have a means to test it here, before we decided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to work on the needed templates/documentation today or tomorrow, in such a way that it can be used "alongside" the current system and doesn't become a permanent solution unless we want it to. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've rigged something up for the time being. See my longer, detailed post at WQ:VP#New VfD nomination method, trial. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad image list


Cbrown1023 has suggested that we implement MediaWiki:Bad image list, which automatically prevents listed images from being displayed, as a means to interfere with some of the recent image-based vandalism that we've seen. (See w:MediaWiki:Bad image list for Wikipedia's version and use of this software filter.) We could add images as they are used for vandalism and/or start with Wikipedia's list. We should also consider whether we should protect it or not. (We are getting more conscientious editors who do not wish to be sysops, so it would be nice to leave it unprotected. Of course, some vandals read these policy pages, and it would be an obvious target for vandalism itself, so we may have to protect it.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Since protection feature has recently changed, we need to elaborate our protection policy (now still being a draft). For a short-term remedy I recommend all to protect a page with expiry within a week. Sometimes one day protection is even enough preventing vandalism. --Aphaia 06:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, just one problem. MediaWiki pages (that is where that page is) are protected by default. They are basically the "software" of the wiki, even though you can trust most of us who aren't sysops, I'd rather you left it protected. Cbrown1023 talk 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JeffQ, with a trick we can invite all editors to edit the content (not the Mediawiki message itself though), so I assume it isn't a problem for us technically; having a page somewhere (a template or Wikiquote namespace page) and include it to the target message. It works out on recentchages header on some projects.
However Cbrown1023's argument makes a sense. I am not afraid so much we are armed severely, but it makes a little sense we leave the page editable for a group of editors who may include whom we would like to keep away. In my understanding semi-protection isn't allowed for such purpose, so as for this issue I'm being pursuaded to keep it as a plain mediawiki message unless some of our regulars but non-sysops complains, but generally it should be our axiom to keep our site editable by people as many as possible. --Aphaia 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. I hadn't noticed that any of the MediaWiki: namespace pages I've worked on have been protected. I just checked a few and found quite a few unprotected, without any overt effort to do so that I'm aware of. Is there perhaps a core set of MW pages that is protected, with new ones not automatically protected? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which are not protected? I just checked a few and they are protected. They aren't protected to you guys, because you are admins. However, they are protected to regular users. Cbrown1023 talk 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! My mistake. I was in the middle of a bunch of VfD-related maintenance, and my hasty MW examination was in error. There is no "protect" tab for any normal MW page for sysops, and I just confirmed that they show up with "View source" tabs for non-sysops. Sorry about the confusion.
Given the obvious expectation that MW pages should only be edited by privileged users, I retract my earlier considerations. I don't want to mess around with novel semi-protection schemes unless non-sysops (like yourself, Cbrown1023) feel it's a priority to allow everyone to edit MW pages. (And if you do, I'm more likely to consider you for sysop status first. You've been warned. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JeffQ, maybe you are too old to be aware of that ;p MediaWiki namespace was open to all until June 2004 or so, in other words before the age of MediaWiki 1.3 hath come. After then Template namespace was created and MediaWiki namespace is limited to system messages which only sysops are expected to edit them. Aphaia 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not too old. Just too ignorant. Thank goodness wiki is a collaborative effort. ☺ Thanks for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense. (Maybe I am too old — I think I was around before MW 1.3, but I don't remember the emergence of templates, probably because I'm always running into things I hadn't known about.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone objects to make it live? --Aphaia 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me; it would eliminate at least some of the inane vandalism we've been getting. ~ Kalki 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, especially after the recent wave of it tonight. Cbrown1023 talk 03:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So MediaWiki:Bad image list was created. It could have started with less materials. Or not. Hope it works. This discussion is better to be archived its talk? --Aphaia 10:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it works (cf recent diff? We need to ask devs a help to activate ite? Aphaia 08:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does work. The image no longer displays on the page the link is posted on, and one must click the link to display the image. This should significantly reduce the severity of some of the more persistant vandal attacks. ~ Kalki 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification! I was confused it with m:Spam blackilist perhaps ... --Aphaia 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



QOTD updates


I have been traveling and did not have internet access for several days this week. I anticipated before I left that I might not have access for at least a day or two at a time, and selected the Quotes of the day for several days in advance, based on the options available, but there were changes in preferences on a few of the dates that occurred after I had made these selections.

In the next few days I will be able to intermittently work on making some QotD suggestions and selections, but there will be another 2 or three days before the end of the month where I likely will not have internet access. If any admins notice that the ranking balances have significantly changed by about 2300 UTC before a particular date, and I have not made new selections based on them, they are welcome to do so. After next week things should be back to normal, and I will be able to update things daily. ~ Kalki 14:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though many things are keeping me busy, and I've not been doing much more than QOTD lately, I am back home and should normally be able to update QOTD daily now. ~ Kalki 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good to have you back; even those of us who aren't around a lot (but have been lately!) notice when you're not with us. Essjay (Talk) 02:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]



As the board was growing rather long, and some of the posts were from 2005, I've archived to Archive 2; I also made some aesthetic improvements to the header while I was at it. On the subject of archiving, I'm moved to ask if there would be any interest in having a bot do this kind of archiving; I have three very successful bots on en.wp that archive in various namespaces, and I'd be happy to set one up here if there is interest. Essjay (Talk) 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support an archiving bot if we could ensure it only archives topics with no recent activity, regardless of the age of the original post. I'd also like to examine how the bot works, as I hope in the foreseeable future to start some maintenance bots here that will free up our harried editors to do more stuff that only human inspection can accomplish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The code looks for the newest (not the last one in the section, but the actual newest) timestamp and archives based on that; each page is coded with a specific number of whole-days after which to archive. Take a look at w:User:EssjayBot II, w:User:EssjayBot III, and w:User:EssjayBot IV, all of which use the same code. I also run a bot for the en.wp Mediation Committee, w:User:MediationBot that does various maintenence tasks; have a look at it and see if it does anything you're looking for. Essjay (Talk) 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<pokes discussion with a sharp stick> Any leftover interest? Should I set it up and let it work a couple days so people can see what it can do? Essjay (Talk) 03:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say, go for it. It'll help keep us focused on current problems, and we can always fix anything that breaks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've set it up as User:EssjayBot; I ran the code by hand to archive this page, and Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion. I set the threshhold for this page at 15 days; I'll also set it up for Wikiquote:Village pump and any other pages I can think of that get enough traffic to need regular archiving. Anyone with ideas of pages that may need it can drop me a note on my talk page; same thing for any glitches we find.
The only other question that comes to mind is, do we want the bot flagged? It doesn't really cause a lot of recent changes flooding, which is the main reason for flagging bots, so a flag isn't strictly necessary. Two of my archive bots on en.wp have flags, one doesn't, so I guess it's worth asking. Essjay (Talk) 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must inform my fellow sysops that I have committed a grevious error in what I thought was an ordinary stoppage of an active bot. Our colleague Essjay has informed the community on his talk page that my action was an "unnecessary show of force", violating bot customs (by WP standards; we have practically no community bot experience here yet) and unreasonably insulting him. I must apologize to all for my ignorance. I ask that other sysops and bot-experienced editors join the discussion on Essjay's archiving bot so that my ill-informed voice is not the only feedback he gets as he tries to help out the community with some of its maintenance tasks. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion


I propose hereby for undeleting those draft pages. I have been occupied and not noticed those. There are two reason I prefer to keep them.

  1. Historical interest. It is interesting for me those who voted for deletion were not involved at that time, and only JeffQ who participated and took initiatives showed interest. As well as him, I find interest in those items. I find no harm in those items, specially as proposed, if they are renamed in a proper way to avoid confusion.
  2. Editcount. No, I am not an edit-count monger, but in this project participation degree is sometimes calicurated with edit counts. For example, if you have less than 400 edits, you are not eligible to vote for Board member candidates. Contributions of people and thus they themselves, in my humble opinion, could be respected to some extent, even if "they aren't contributing anything,". I am very shocked with those words. My inactiveness is a good reason to delete my past contributions? As a person who was involved into those drafting, I would like you not to erase my past contributions and others'. Honestly I am saddened and feel disrespected. My contributions are now called useless, and thought better to wipe out.

I was thinking I could have restored them and moved to my user page subpage, but before rushing, I ask you to consider to restore those edits. --Aphaia 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as this was my position in the VfD discussion. My suggestion there was to move them to some out-of-the way location like "Wikiquote:Old proposals/Proposed Votes for deletion", etc. Another idea might be to date- or year-tag them (e.g., "Wikiquote:2005 drafts/Proposed Votes for deletion") to allow us to reuse useful pagenames without ambiguity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural comment: Not to engage in WikiLawyering, but our expected undeletion policy (which I still haven't drafted!) was to allow for requests based on possible failure to follow policy, not so much as a basic reconsideration. However, this situation suggests a problem with our shorter close times. I can assure Aphaia that no one meant any disrespect for her contributions; even I hadn't considered the loss of edit-count and contributions for such important and busy pages. But it is incumbent upon editors to watch VfD more carefully now, not only because of the shorter discussion time (still 2 days more than Wikipedia), but also because we have more editors willing to nominate far more articles for consideration. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime on your hands...


Just a warning but User:Primetime seems to have fled to this wiki after being run out of Commons on a riot. For more information on this user, see meta:Vandalism reports#Primetime, wikipedia:WP:'T and commons:COM:AN#Potentiall trouble. Thus far he seems to be just using his userpage to rant and troll and not plagiarize. I know your wiki will have different standards and policies for blocking, so I'll leave what action (If any) up to you (plural). 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can be relaxed at present. The number of new articles on Wikiquote is such that every one of them gets checked, so if we start getting copyvio articles we will quickly know about it. I don't see any reason to intervene with Primetime right now; perhaps his user page is a bit of a rant but it's not interfering with the smooth running of Wikiquote. Thanks for the warning, though. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what's this about The Labyrinth of Solitude? 01:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted, VFD'd and deleted. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Examining deleted revisions, I agree the reason of deletion; copyvio. --Aphaia 11:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An undeletable page


I just noticed that someone seems to have found an exploit in interwiki handling that can be used to create a page that can't be deleted (at least, not my any means I've found). (talk · contributions) created a page Wikipedia:Road Rovers on Wikiquote; clicking a link to it (from Special:Newpages, for example) just takes you to w:Road Rovers, and trying to manually construct a delete link to the page (by going to another page, clicking "delete", and then replacing that page's name with this one) also redirects to the Wikipedia page, rendering the page here effectively undeletable, as well as unviewable, and uneditable). —LrdChaos (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to probe this problem a bit and document it thoroughly, in case it's a MediaWiki bug. Here's what I found.

Specifically, the 01:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC) edit ( that is displayed in User: contributions is the issue. Clicking on this diff link or its corresponding hist link [ doesn't do the expected diff or history display, but rather displays the current w:Road Rovers. The same thing happens when you click on:

I also checked "What links here" for Road Rovers, but the mystery page apparently doesn't include a link to the properly titled article.

I wondered if this was a bug in the MediaWiki page creation system, improperly allowing someone to accidentally create something that looks like a project-namespace page from another project. I decided to try creating "Wikipedia:Bug demonstration" on Wikiquote. I entered Wikipedia:Bug demonstration in the Search box and pressed Go to get the "There is no page" page (MediaWiki:Noexactmatch). The create link it hover-displayed "Wikipedia:Bug_demonstration", and the URL was an interwiki link:

Notice that it is not a Wikiquote URL, but a Wikipedia URL, even though it is a result of a Wikiquote query. Clicking on it jumped to Wikipedia and presented its "Wikipedia does not have an article" page, not a malformed Wikiquote page. (I confirmed this with an Wikiquote "all pages" check of the article namespace, starting at "Wikipedia". There was no Wikipedia:Bug demonstration, but I did see the "impossible" Wikipedia:Road Rovers.)

I then tried Wikipedia:Road Rovers in the search box. This acted exactly the same way as my bug-demo page: a hover-display of "wikipedia:Road_Rovers" and a URL of which attempted to pull up w:Road Rovers when clicked on (which succeeded in this case, of course, since the WP article exists).

I used Recent Changes to get the new-page entry for "Wikipedia:Road Rovers" and clicked on its history link ( As LrdChaos found, clicking "delete" just presents the WP article again, as does "edit". However, when I tried "move", I got a proper "move" page for wikipedia:Road Rovers (notice the lowercase "w" in "wikipedia", even though the URL is I attempted to move it to Road Rovers (buggy version) so it could be deleted, but got the following error:

Source or destination title is of a special type; cannot move pages from and into that namespace.

Note that there is no problem moving pages into and out of a project's proper namespace (Wikiquote:, for us), so I infer that even the move function is interpreting the wikipedia: prefix as an interwiki link instead of a non-project page title with a colon in it.

I deduce from all of this that there is a problem with MediaWiki software that makes it impossible to deal with pages within project X that have a project Y namespace prefix, however they may have gotten there. I still don't understand how they could get there in the first place, but attempts to deal with them run into the overloading of the "PROJECT:" syntax, which is used as both a project-namespace denotation and an interwiki link mechanism. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are two paths to take from here, but I don't have time for them at the moment. One is to get a developer to remove the offending page. The second is to check MediaZilla for a known bug. If one exists, note our situation as a current example and wait for a fix. If there is no report, file one. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll look into these later. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on Wheels


Looking around at Wikipedia I notice that a particular IP address has been identified as the one the real Willy on Wheels always uses, and declared an exception to the policy of never banning an IP address indefinitely. We have seen some Willy-style attacks on Wikiquote, and while I think some may be impersonators, some were undoubtedly the man himself. Should we follow Wikipedia and make a prophylactic ban on this IP? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out the discussions where this has been researched? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look here. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has any action been taken? I agree with Fys. Some may have been his impersonators but some were possibly the man himself, specially early attacks. I am not favorable for permanent blocking - if he moves, for example, the IP address wouldn't have been used no more and could be assigned to the third party. Anyway permanent blocking won't continue permanetly. It should be expired in thirty years (hint: Unix date). In some day we need to re-block the IP even if he doesn't alter his ISP. In my opinion blocking some years may make a sense - perhaps one year as the first step. --Aphaia 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating a category for VfD


I tried to nominate Category:ABC Family shows for VfD but it doesn't seem to work. Is there a different procedure for categories?--Cato 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For right now I have fixed your nomination. However, I cannot look into this matter further at this time. Cbrown1023
To be specific, Cbrown1023 fixed the case of the title in the attempt to add this dicussion to WQ:VFD so that it matched the actual category and discussion title. Case and spelling problems are an incredibly common problems with wiki material, as so many folks accustomed to blogs and instant messaging simply don't care about such matters. That's why it's a good idea always to copy-and-paste titles when using them in any discussions or other operations. (I can't tell you how many times I've been reminded of this rule-of-thumb myself!) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I fixed was on the nomination page itself. You need to put a colon (:) in front of "Category" or else the article will be placed inside the category instead of a link appearing. (Sorry about my curt response before, but I was on a cellular phone and couldn't type very well, nor insert tildes :)). Cbrown1023 talk 01:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percival Lowell


Can someone please undelete this article. He is undoubtedly a notable person. I said I would add quotes, and am disappointed that despite this notice it seems to have been deleted after only six hours. I can post some quotes here, to be added to the article.--Poetlister 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now restored. In future, however, it would be better to wait until a page has been completed before posting it. - InvisibleSun 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm afraid I created the page then didn't have the quotations to hand!--Poetlister 23:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have posted there so that we can finish all of our draft policies and turn them into official policies. I signed it Wikiquote:WikiProject Policy Revision instead of Cbrown1023 talk so that you can all edit it as you see fit. :) Thanks in advance. Cbrown1023 talk 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffq attacks innocent user


Well, I'm new around here but this is just plane bad. So this Jeffq guy just block...outta the blue...22:09, 25 February 2007 Jeffq (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mr Goodbyte (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 weeks (trolling; impersonating a sysop). The worst part, this guy (My Goodbyte) didin't even do anything wrong. I know Wikiquotewont stand for this. Certifyer 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the time that some people spend trolling on the internet were actually put to good use, these people might have something more to be proud of in their lives than a few pissant pretenses, that rightfully get flushed away by truth. ~ Kalki 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the above statement above my blocking an innocent user is true. Mr Goodbyte was caught up in the middle of a troll attack, and when he tried to inform me of it by posting a quote from the troll as I was chasing down the troll's edits, I mistook his quoting as an attempt to impersonate me. I unblocked his account and apologized before anyone had a chance to complain. But the above user is likely a sockpuppet of one of our boring pattern vandals, who like to complain and attack instead of contribute. I'll be happy to talk to the truly offended party here, but Kalki's right about the pointlessness of wasting time tearing down rather than building. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break


Just to give you all a heads up, I'm going to be taking about a month-long break from Wikiquote beginning this Saturday. I've put up a notice at the top of my user and talk pages, but I figure that not everyone will see that right away. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good wikivacation! Aphaia 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



User:Essjay was desysoped per his own request (cf. meta request page). --Aphaia 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this has been Wikimedia wide and I am afraid that some of the cause is not available to non-en-admins. It is also available all over the English Wikipedia Community Noticeboard and many other places if anyone is interested. Cbrown1023 talk 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay's user page remains as a redirect to his user talk page, which is itself a redirect to his Wikipedia user page. I wonder if they should be either deleted, or replaced with the 'retired' message which is on w:User:Essjay? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did that for his userpage on Meta, in addition to a protection, but believe that the redirect should stay in place. It is what he had wanted when he left and now they can get it from their talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category merger: Blocked and Indefinitely blocked users


See Category talk:blocked, and comment please ;) There is also unused category today, {{indefblockeduser}}, just for your information. --Aphaia 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



He/she has just vandalised Bill Gates. Should he be blocked?--Poetlister 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked it for 3 days, as the editor took some trouble (8 edits) to methodically dismantle Bill Gates (the article, that is). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected titles


Based on new (but not so recent :)) MediaWiki software changes in the addition of cascading protection, a comment by Aphaia, and the policy on most other wikis, I have replaced Category:Protected deleted pages and Template:Deletedpage with Wikiquote:Protected titles and Template:Protected titles. With this new way, the articles do not exist and will not be indexed by search engines nor will they return by Special:Random. The new procedure:

  1. Delete the page making sure to include a reason and any VfD links in the summary.
  2. Go to Wikiquote:Protected titles and add a Template:Protected title note for it with {{protected title|PAGENAME}}.

The page will be automatically be protected from recreation with these two steps. Cbrown1023 talk 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text of anonymous users' talk page would be better to look like this:

as opposed to the current version. This one seems more official and separate from the talk page and gives more (and admins) who are not aware of the nature of IP addresses. The other information also helps to identify things like proxies, dynamic/static addresses, and zombie computers. I would like to get your feedback on this matter. Cbrown1023 talk 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good, but I think a comment mentioning that registration is free and does not require the provision of any personal information would be good also. ~ Kalki 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now? Cbrown1023 talk 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change would be an improvement. ~ Kalki 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After "and may be shared by several users" put "You may receive messages, including warnings or blocks, on this page that are intended for another user." Change "future confusion with other anonymous users" to "any confusion with other users". Tyrenius 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Per MediaWiki talk:Sidebar, I have updated the sidebar to include the links in {{lynx}}. I would like your feedback before I do a bot run and remove all the Template:Lynxs from the pages. Cbrown1023 talk 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds good - forgive my ignorance (my skills are in the text on the pages, not how we build them), but could you provide an example of what a page would look like after the change? ~ UDScott 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Never mind. ~ UDScott 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just replying, and then got edit conflicted! :) Cbrown1023 talk 20:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I think it looks good, and that the {{lynx}}s can be removed. ~ UDScott 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care that you edit confliced me! I wouldn't have told you any more than you hadn't found out by yourself already. :) Thanks for your comments. :) Cbrown1023 talk 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new option seems a vast improvement, and I have no objections to the "lynx" links being removed now. I updated the MediaWiki:Sidebar list to use Category:Themes instead of the obsolete "list of themes" and this might be a good idea on the "People" entry as well. We might even eliminate the "Proverbs" and make them a sub-category within "Themes." ~ Kalki 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have three "approvals" (including myself), I will set off a bot on my home computer (I am on a laptop right now) to remove all the {{lynx}}s (on my main administrative account). Cbrown1023 talk 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anyone thinks that I should create and use a separate account... Cbrown1023 talk 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologize to Cbrown1023 for somehow having missed the lynx/sidebar discussions (perhaps in the blizzard of requested and suggested changes and other activity we've been having just as I've been slacking off). I notice now that s/he has been pushing for action on this since at least early February. As I've just posted on his/her talk page, I think an announcement at WQ:VP is in order, as it affects everyone, not just admins. For the record, I agree with this approach, although I haven't taken any time since my detailed post at Mediawiki talk:Sidebar#Deprecating lynx to consider the issues I brought up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destructive vandal


User:How to rape babies has moved two articles:

Frances Perkins moved to Frances Perkins RAPES BABIES
Judith Sheindlin moved to Judith Sheindlin RAPES BABIES

I can't revert because someone (same user?) edited the redirects. Please sort out, ban him and delete his user page!--Poetlister 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been permanently blocked, and the articles moved back to their proper titles. ~ Kalki 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Gentelman, THE FUTURE IS NOW


Imagine a Wikiquote without vandalism, just for a second. That is the world that is now possible, due to a SUPER SECRET antivandal algorithm I have developed. Now it is ready for BETA!!!! Outta hundreds of wikis, Wikiquote has been selected to be the first benefactor of the gift from the heavens; the question now is "ARE YOU READY?" If so, just say yes, and Tapernoc Bot will be unleashed. Tapernoc 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand that we have to review that code first and you have to state exactly what is going to be done with the bot before it is granted approval. Cbrown1023 talk 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, not to be rude, but your attitude and the links you provided makes it seem like you are just joking around. Cbrown1023 talk 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the discusion to the Bot Request Page. Tapernoc 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selective deletion for privacy reasons


I have received an email request to selectively delete some edits from a few articles because the editor, a registered user, accidentally edited while not logged in. The user is concerned that the relatively short edit histories of these typical WQ articles allow someone to infer their IP address, which is not in keeping with our privacy practices.

w:Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators has this to say about when to use selective deletion:

Because of GFDL requirements, selective deletion should only be done in certain extreme circumstances. Situations where such a selective deletion might be warranted include copyright violations that occur only in certain revisions, or personally identifying information that has been deemed inappropriate by consensus.

But I could not immediately find any guideline in this page or w:Wikipedia:Selective deletion that suggests whether this is warranted in the incredibly common situation of registered users making edits while accidentally logged out. (All the "privacy" examples seem to be about real names, phone numbers, etc.) GFDL issues would presumably be irrelevant because the edits to be deleted are requested by the editor, and in this case, the subsequent-edit problem should also not be an issue. (Yes, I'm being deliberately vague about details.)

Has anyone dealt with this situation before, or have specific knowledge of how Wikimedia projects deal with it? I'm willing to tackle the task, as long as we don't set any problematic precedents because of it. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer to say "Sorry sir or madam, but it is what you did." I would add he or she may have been warned when that person opened the edit window and he or she could stop editing at that time. Additionally it is hard to determine if the request really comes from the identical person (= a fake claim can be easily submitted). So I am hesitant to accept this kind of request for "deletion for courtesy" in general. But it is my personal thought and I would like to know other opinions.
As far as I know there is no global rule about this issue. If the third party expose the private information, I expect no one oppose to delete it, while there is no written global rule about that. But the data once submitted by the person him/herself is another thing. If we would like to know how other communities do, I think it would be better for us to move other discussion places like foundation-l or m:Metapub. --Aphaia 07:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm the request easily by emailing the putative registered user through WQ's link if necessary. I would also note that, for anyone not making their first few edits (and therefore no longer carefully watching every bit of our busy pages), it is remarkably easy not to notice that one has somehow lost their "logged-in" cookie. Whether from uncooperative or flaky security software, Wikimedia server hiccups, simple user error, or other frequent problems, it is also very easy to accidentally become "logged out". So I still think it's reasonable for someone to request this, even though it may not be reasonable for Wikimedia to execute it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what the guideline is. The text is contributed under the GFDL, leaving it the author's right to reqlenquish that license, which means that if the author agrees to it, it can be removed. Cbrown1023 talk 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any part of Wikimedia's use of the GFDL that allows an editor to revoke the rights to material already contributed. How could this possibility be implemented when anyone can copy the current version of Wikiquote, placing it beyond the ability of Wikimedia to remove the material, and beyond any practical ability of the copier to monitor the complex status of thousands of editors' current licensing status? Furthermore, what is being requested is not just the removal of material from a page, but the removal of the record of its contribution. The former is easy to fix; the latter requires database surgery, and is clearly not meant to be done except in "certain extreme circumstances". What I'm trying to find out is if it is general Wikimedia practice to do this surgery for anyone who requests fixing this very common problem, especially given that it apparently becomes a serious maintenance problem if requested more than once for any single page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally editors release material under GFDL, which has certain restrictions, e.g. attribution, but, if they wish, they can release it under a less restrictive licence, e.g. public domain, which means they give up all restrictions. Then they no longer need to be credited. If an editor is asking for a particular version (or versions) to be deleted where they contributed material (which is still in later versions) they are implicitly surrendering their right of attribution for that particular material, by asking for their name to be removed. That does not compromise wiki. The material they contributed will still be there in the current version (unless deleted by subsequent edits). Their objection is to personal information being revealed, as I understand it, not to the material they contributed. That can stay (apart from its presence in the deleted historic version(s)). It is a frequent occurrence on WP for selected versions to be deleted. I can't see what the problem is with doing it - multiple times if necessary.

WP has strong policies on maintaining personal privacy. An IP, particularly a static one, can reveal a person's identity or narrow the field considerably, e.g. if they are using a work computer, possibly resulting in serious RL repercussions. I have dealt with several cases as an admin on WP, and have had no reservation about deleting even, in more serious cases, a whole edit history, and, with more focused cases, the particular versions in the history. Some of these actions have been in consultation with OFFICE. An IP address is in many cases still a personal address. Whether a bug in mediawiki software or an editor's forgetfulness, no matter. We have a duty to safeguard editors in order that they can carry out their work here securely.

Tyrenius 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Cbrown1023 talk 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I was concerned about with using selective deletion is mentioned in w:Wikipedia:Selective deletion#How to do it:
If the article already has some deleted revisions (because some had been selectively deleted before, for example), deleting it causes the previously deleted revisions to be mixed with the newly deleted ones; sorting them out again may be next to impossible. Thus, there is a risk that previously deleted versions containing sensitive information may be accidentally restored when a later selective deletion is performed.
Anything that is "next to impossible" for Wikipedia shouldn't even be considered for Wikiquote, in its current state. However, this potential problem probably won't apply in the instigating situation here, but is still a general concern that would suggest caution in using selective deletion. I am also disappointed that no one has yet provided a single link to suggest that this is common practice; i.e., a WP or meta policy page, a discussion where it was decided, or other text that would show the practice. (Obviously, we would not want to cite a specific instance lest we invalidate the privacy protection, but common practices don't — and shouldn't — develop invisibly.) For the record, I believe I will be able to satisfy the editor's request shortly, regardless of the general discussion. But I would like some formal guidance based on Wikimedia community consensus or Foundation directive on the specific situation of selectively deleting any self-claimed IP edits requested from a registered user. We sysops have varying degrees of, shall we say, enthusiasm for implementing policies. I tend to be cautious until I've seen precedents, policies, and/or documented practices. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been cases on WP where deleted versions were accidentally restored. That situation obviously needs careful attention when it is being executed. It would be necessary to copy a list of the previously deleted versions (time, date stamp) and make sure to delete them again with the new deletions. Fortunately an infrequent occurrence. I don't have immediate links for the specific circumstance mentioned, but a general principle was enunciated by Jimbo in another circumstance where private information was on WP (in an article). It was not just deleted but also oversighted. This is from his email:
It is a judgment call, but I think we should be pretty liberal with axing stuff that might cause grief to private people.
Editors are of course private people. I've forwarded the whole email to you (Jeffq).
Tyrenius 05:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email. As you say, the situation was different, but Jimbo's statement is rather liberal. In fact, it's pretty much a blank check to do anything for anyone who has privacy concerns. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to want a little formal policy on this, rather than sub rosa discussions from a de facto cabal. (Aren't we trying to avoid that label?) For goodness sake, w:Wikipedia:Selective deletion was created less than 6 months ago, written almost entirely by 2 people, doesn't even have a talk page, and doesn't say anything specific about how to decide whether a sel-del is warranted. I've probably made, out of about 35,000 total edits, perhaps 50 accidental IP edits in Wikimedia since I started editing just over 3 years ago. Can I request that they all be deleted from the database (including the ones from articles with years of history and thousands of edits)? I'd like some expectations set (or revealed if they've already been set). On the other hand, I don't need the overall problem resolved in our corner of the Wikimedia world just now. I suppose I can take Aphaia's advice above and bring it up on Meta. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to add some points and clarify my original intention:

I don't think the original request unreasonable, but afraid some consequences, specially 1) some misattribution possibilities and 2) possible overwork in the future. I admit it would be nice to accept the request if it is sure the person who asked it is identical with the person who had been behind the IP address. As for attributions, there is another wrong possible attribution in some cases: If the next contribution contains some from the newest deleted revision originally, the latter might be misattributed to the poster of the former. In some cases, it may cause a problem (right attribution is a part of copyright in my understanding).

For this matter, I think the precedent examples may be helpful - English Wikipedia may have a set of guideline and instruction. There may be also a set of relevant information, e.g. the deleted information may be still available from other sources either online or printed out: dump, mirrors etc, and we Wikiquote admins cannot help those removal (We have no knowledge how many mirrors we have for now - perhaps very few currently though).

To avoid future unwilling ressurection, I recommend the sysop who'll delete the revisions requested for deletion to move the page once and then process the deletion & undeletion. After those steps, then move the page to the original name. The proposed destination is Filename/Deletion MM/YYYY: in the next similar selected deletion may occur in another name, so we needn't fear the unwilling merger. This method is used on Japanese Wikipedia and no few troubles have been noted for two years.

Fear of Cabalism: well in my opinion it is not wise to review this kind of requests publicly, so I support JeffQ hasn't disclose all pieces of information about the request he received. On the other hand it may be sane of him to feel uneasy, since we have not established the procedure to deal with sensitive requests. However it is inevitable in my opinion such a request comes to an individual sysop. We lack not only the procedure but also a public contact accessible by email/phone. For your information, OTRS (info-en) people are willing to answer the mail inquiries, at least Mindspillage, at that time Communications committee member in charge of OTRS, said so in the last year. But until now we haven't proposed our visitors no mail contact as far as I know (Note: Our "navigation" box lacks "Contact us"). I'm happy to recommend anyone of Wikiquote sysop team as OTRS member candidate; for further information, see m:OTRS. Also it would be helpful for us to have a sysop-only mailinglist for internal communications. Some Wikimedia projects have this gear to deal with their internal issues.

So let us handle the original issue and later discuss improvement - as far as I notice, there is no substantial objection for deletion (even including my hesitation)? Then I think, JeffQ can process the request in his consciousness (addition: it means implicitly if he doesn't think it proper right now, he may not be forced to do so). It is and later report us whatever he thinks appropriate to make public. Thought? --Aphaia 07:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I've been communicating with the requestor by private email while this public discussion has been going on, and they have not only satisfied my request to prove they are the person who made the edits, but have also made a persuasive case that this is necessary, regardless of general practice. I do intend to execute the change shortly, once I've made sure I understand the process and the ramifications. I also agree that contacting a sysop by our email links on our user pages is the logical way for an editor to request this kind of change. Posting a request to a Wikiquote page would defeat the purpose of protecting privacy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've Been Locked Out!


I havent edited for a long time and I've forgotton my password. Could a b'crat reset it, please? Nanobug Locked Out! —This unsigned comment is by 22:36, 13 April 2007 (talkcontribs) Nanobug Locked Out!.

That is a bit of a problem. User:Nanobug has sysop rights, so we cannot in good conscience simply "reset" the password of this account based on the posting of another username. Nor can we send a verification email to this username, as there is no email registered. Given the predilection of vandals for attempting to impersonate sysops and posting to this page, we must assume that this request is phony unless it can be substantiated outside the very public wiki pages. Given Nanobug's long wiki experience, I'm sure you/he can come up with several ways to do this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the request is legitimate, there might be tools to "reset" passwords at the developer or maybe even the steward levels, but I know of none for directly doing this at the bureaucrat level. ~ Kalki 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki is right. Bureaucrat cannot help this situation. Only developers can help. If a user lost his password, I recommend him or her to ask a help for developers on #wikimedia-tech or Bugzilla. --Aphaia 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Nanobug know his Wikipedia password? He could log in there and leave a message on someone's talk page. Presumably there's no doubt that Nanobug is the same user there as here.--Poetlister 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aphaia and I were discussing this on IRC. I would have thought the passwords were the same (for both WQ & WP). If not (and he can still log-in to WP), he should put an edit on his WP talk page stating "I am Nanobug Locked Out! on the English Wikiquote." and provide the diff here. Cbrown1023 talk 20:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, folks. I guess I was being too elliptical, but my intent in my response above was to post a politely formal response to what is almost certainly a vandal/impersonator. This is also likely the same person who, less than five hours earlier, made a childishly transparent attempt to panic us into overreacting about a supposed vandal attack by posting "alerts", supposedly from me ([1], [2]), and pestering several sysops with alarms.
I really didn't want to get into a public discussion of how we might help an experienced Wikian, who should know these things, because this is a means of phishing for operational information. For instance, it is imprudent to publicly assume that Nanobug's password is the same across all projects, because that indicates one's own philosophy of password security. When one deals with vandals and phishers, one should always balance the need to help people with legitimate questions against revealing how a black hat might use this helpful information against the project. I judged that the real Nanobug would be extremely unlikely to post such a breathless, misspelled post, and in the remote chance I was wrong, I'm sure the real Nanobug would have complained in such a way (I still refuse to be publicly specific) that we could have resolved the problem away from malicious eyes. I feel it is unwise to "feed the phish" on this matter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was as well, but I didn't want to be too mean because others believed it might have been him. Cbrown1023 talk 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thought ... however it could happen on newcomers who might forget their passwords. IIRC, some Wikipedias have a part for inquiries about password retrieving possibility (shortly they are informed "sorry, no"). This "sorry we cannot help you" could be included to FAQ or contact page proposed. --Aphaia 02:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to add it to Wikiquote:FAQ, it's not even mentioned at Help:Preferences#Password. Cbrown1023 talk 03:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I must say, "How dare you insult me!" Just kidding, this really is Nanobug, but I'm not locked out. I made the request to check the anti-social enginerring measures here at Wikiquote, and I must say: WELL DONE. Nanobug Locked Out! 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit activity of the above user indicates the account was created entirely for vandalism or trolling in the pattern of known vandals and has been permanently blocked. ~ Kalki 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Aphaia 07:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And me. PS, referring to the edit summary, do we have Category:Requests for unblock available? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 19:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a thought. I prefer however to let blocked people to request for unblocking on their talk page like English Wikipedia. PS, we have a page for Wikiquote:Requests for blocking at any rate ...? --Aphaia 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We may wish to do a template ({{unblock}}?) that puts the users in a category, and then possibly do what they have done Wikinews for speedy deletions (the box at the top). Cbrown1023 talk 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some experienced eyes should take a look over this user's contributions.[3] A lot of stubs are being created quickly with some formatting issues for a start. I've drawn attention on the user's talk page to the WQ as opposed to the WP referencing system. Muhammad Naji Etri only has a partial quote (the words not in brackets). Of more concern is the content. Islamic law is represented solely by a quote advocating wife beating. It is accompanied by the full text of the relevant sermon and a video link. It is a highly POV selection which effectively makes it an attack article. Ebrahim Amini also has a text with equivalent video link, part of which contains the chant, "Khamenei is the leader. Death to the to those who reject the rule of the jurisprudent. Death to America. Death to Israel. Death to England." I'm not advocating censorship, but I am questioning balance in these edits, as there seems to be some agenda at work, which is not wikiquote's. Naim Qassem has three video links, two of them to youtube (normally banned on WP for copyvio concerns), one being "Death to America". There is also an Iranian reformist Mehdi Karroubi and US General Peter Pace, amongst others I haven't even checked out. This sort of thing is provocative, to say the least. Tyrenius 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only contribute in my areas of expertise and what interests me. One user might focus on quotes of Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, and other scientific figures. Another like me is focusing on Islam. Most of your objections like the ones about YouTube and the fact that some articles have one quote and need expansion cannot be dignified with a response.
Here is an example of a non-sensical complaint: If we want to be inane, I can say that I hardly find a single article produced by User:Tyrenius. Of course, someone might say it is none of my business. User:Tyrenius has no obligation to contribue to Wikiquote.--Inesculent 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to take my points more seriously. I am not accusing you of doing anything deliberately and you may be unaware of the effects of your actions, but for many people to look up Islamic law and find that one quote on its own would be very offensive as the only way WQ represents this topic, especially as there are links to extremist individuals. This is imbalanced and of particular concern when it relates to a controversial subject. Perhaps you could source a quote from a cleric who challenges that particular law also, or add other laws to the article to show a wider range. Otherwise I think it should be speedy deleted as an attack page. Tyrenius 06:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is paying me money to suddenly expand any article and present every viewpoint. I add quote as I come across them. You are welcome to present a quote with a different perspective if you can.--Inesculent 06:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unhappy not to pay, you are not fitting to join the volunteering collaboration. Regarding your capacity of contributions, it isn't welcome to add copyright violating link and not to follow the formatting rule. I recommend you to take the points Tyrenius showed more seriously. --Aphaia 06:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to get payed, I wouldn't add anything. I used a hypothetical point that if I were compensated, then I would have more time to contribute and swiftly add many quotes to each article. Furthermore, there is no ban on YouTube.--Inesculent 06:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is effectively on WP (unless non copyvio can be proved). I presume the same applies on WQ. You are editing articles which require a bit more caution than most. Let's see what other admins and editors have to say. Your contributions are certainly powerful. Tyrenius 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we censor sourced statements?


Maybe User:Tyrenius doesn't like that Ali Meshkini says, "Pray for the good and curse the evil. Say: "My Lord, end the lives of three people shortly – Bush, Sharon, and Blair. End their lives and the lives of their followers. Ask the Lord." You can also see the Ludacris article or Don_Imus#Homosexuals ("I didn't know that Alan Bloom was coming in from the back end.")

I like the characterization of such contributions as "powerful."--Inesculent 09:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the court take it defamatory, the person who cites could be seen to conduct the same thing unless there is good reason (for research etc). I am not the laywer, but it is not sure quotation could be immune.
By the way, I think this kind of topics are not the topic fitting here, but rather general attention on WQ:VP. If someone move this topic to there, I'll very appreciate. --Aphaia 10:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else look at this article please. User:SamuraiMaster has made some substantial changes and I don't feel competent to say whether they are good changes or not.--Poetlister 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only changes he made (at least top changes) are found in this diff. He made these over about 10 edits and changed the spelling (incorrectly) to many words and did not really seem to do anything helpful. I have rolled back his edits. Cbrown1023 talk 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough Willy on Wheels, Ed.


I've issued a pre-emptive one year block to the IP address used by the original Willy on Wheels. Have had enough of the sprees of move vandalism. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym Your signature with timestamp&#148;. 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you did not ask for it, I endorse this block. Cbrown1023
Seconded. --Aphaia 22:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While opinion not asked for (!) I bumped into this in a roundabout way & decided I'd do the same on Books & Commons for what it is worth. Regards --Herbythyme 11:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear, nice to see you here too! And thank you for your information. --Aphaia 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was also surprised to see you here and I must say you are more than welcome! good luck on your thing on meta!!! Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I have accounts on most en wikis! Happy to help if I can - regards --Herby talk thyme 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]