Wikiquote:Village pump archive 41


Scientology edit

What does the community make of this edit by user:Cirt on the Scientology page?

These ten quotations (actually eleven entries, but one is a duplicate) only mention Scientology tangentially, and are all primarily about est or Werner Erhard and seem to have been cherry-picked to give a misleading impression that there is a far stronger connection to Scientology than existed in reality.

For example

  • " The founder of EST, a former member of the Scientology church called Werner Erhard..."
  • "*Est (Erhard Seminars Training) has been a singularly successful synthetic derivation, which has itself gone on to generate new movements, transmitting aspects of Scientology thought or practice far from the domain of L. Ron Hubbard."
  • "Rupert (1992) discusses a range of cases... such as the human potential movement, est, or Scientology."
  • "...and est/Forum was a repackaging of Scientology by Werner Erhard,..."
  • "Werner Erhard's highly successful est cult is partly derived from Scientology."


The fact of the matter is that Erhard did a few Scientology courses in the space of five months in early 1970, at a time when he was avidly investigating a vast range of philosophies and disciplines, but that is not the impression that a reader of this page would be left with.

Does it not reflect negatively on the reputation of Wikiquote to have the Scientology page commandeered to serve as a coatrack to propagate misleading information about other organizations and individuals?

It may be relevant that Cirt has an extensive history of POV-pushing on these subjects on wikipedia, and in fact was de-sysopped and topic-banned for exactly that behavior there. After that, he concentrated on other wikimedia projects (where he has undoubtedly done a good deal of great work), but perhaps he cannot resist the temptation to return to his obsessions? --MLKLewis (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:  Y Done. I've gone ahead and voluntarily taken the initiative to move those above-mentioned quotes to the talk page, DIFF. Hopefully this is now satisfactory to MLKLewis (talk · contributions). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do not feel that Cirt's response fully adresses my concerns. Although he has removed the five items that I listed above by way of example, he has left the other five equally questionable entries on the page. And what is the justification for inserting the removed material into the Talk page, which is meant to be for discussions about how to improve the Topic page?

Furthermore, is not the intense activity this last October at this page: a further example of Cirt's attempting to hijack Wikiquote to propagate a personal viewpoint, an activity for which he was sanctioned at Wikipedia? --MLKLewis (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MLKLewis (talk · contributions), I'm glad you've acknowledged that I went ahead and removed entries from that page. If you participate in talk page discussion on the individual page I hope we can come to an amicable resolution together about this. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes about notable social implications of technology edit

I would like to add quotes about particular scientific developments to Wikiquote. Is this ok?Open Research (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be perfectly fine as long as the subject fulfills our notability guideline. As a general rule of thumb, if there's a Wikipedia page, it's notable enough. Is there a particular development you want to add? Nick1372 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not just lock) edit

The simple-English wikiquote project at has been locked for some time, but it's still visible on the web, so it hasn't been fully closed. The simple English version of (apparently) 591 pages taints the whole project by making it look infantile - an impression reinforced by all those pages on the main site that use kindergarten-style images of galaxies and flames to illustrate abstract ideas. Isn't it time to remove it? Macspaunday (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are clearly many differences of opinion between us on many matters, here is something I believe we can agree upon. I never really liked the idea much, but for a time it was clear that at least a few others did, and I am usually loathe to suppress efforts of others needlessly. The quality of their productions never did find broad appeal, and their enthusiasms were eventually dismissed, derided and suppressed by others, and the project killed. As it seems to be a thoroughly defunct site, I believe its presence on the web should probably be removed, and would support any efforts to have this done, within whatever guidelines the Wikimedia Foundation have developed for doing so. R.I.P. Simple Wikiquote. So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that it ought to be deleted. About three years ago, after the decision to "close" the project but before official policy for closures was adopted, I discussed the final disposition of the WikiParaphrase project with a LangCom member, but I did not initiate formal proceedings at the time. If someone would like to do so, the official venue is at m:Proposals for closing projects, and is governed by m:Closing projects policy under the auspices of LangCom delegated by the Foundation Board. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This new template transcludes {{QoDBar}} and is able to output a list of all Quotes Of The Day for a given month, via Module:QoD. So Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 2014 and such wouldn't have to be handled manually. Do you support implementing it practically? --Ricordisamoa 07:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not immediately obvious to me how this works. Viewing the new Template:QoDList, the output of "#invoke:QoD|list" is null. I am guessing, from examining the code of Module:QoD, that it depends on the context where the template is transcluded.

Could you provide a sample page exemplifying use of the new template in a context where the module output is non-null, and consider fleshing out some documentation or usage notes at Template:QoDList/doc and/or Module:QoD/doc? Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ningauble: it depends on the page, but the month-year pair can also be specified manually (as {{#invoke:QoD|list|June 2013}}). You can see {{QoDList}} in action on Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 2013 (diff). I also added some docs, feel free to edit them. --Ricordisamoa 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen (19) images re-added at William James ??? edit

DIFF = Nineteen (19) images re-added at William James.

Does this community think this is too many images for a page?

Does the community feel this will cramp down on loading time for our readers, discouraging them from viewing pages on Wikiquote?

Does the community feel this will make load time difficult for editors, turning them off from editing Wikiquote?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This member of this community does NOT think "this is too many images for a page." The VERY highly used Wikimedia Commons places FAR more images on a standard page. I can appreciate that some people who do not have fast connections (for whatever reasons this might be the case) will not easily appreciate many of the pages on the internet with graphics. Yet I do not believe that these relative few who do not use some auxiliary browsers set for faster browsing without images, to hasten the time of downloading pages without such graphics as are quite standard on MOST web-pages today, should keep our pages permanently crippled to a highly constrained standards which might have made some sense 10 years ago, but are hardly appropriate today. I believe nothing is more likely to be "turning anyone off" from editing Wikiquote than such bossiness with constraints as a very few people have been increasingly pushing here in recent years — by which they can control more of what others can or cannot do, and reducing the options available to others here in ways I have frankly found disgusting and contemptible, and often extremely hypocritical — and I am quite ready to make plain some of the reasons why in the coming months. ~ Kalki·· 20:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

Whatever the merits or faults of the policy, it's clear that this part of it has frequently been ignored by some editors:

"Dispute resolution
An image that is not a literal representation of the subject of the page may be removed by any editor who believes it to be inappropriate. Thereafter, it should not be re-added without first obtaining consensus on the article talk page."

Perhaps it might be better to follow established and unambiguous policy rather than ignore it merely because (apparently) an editor doesn't like it? - Macspaunday (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have sometimes engaged in direct action of rather mild and moderate civil disobedience in accord with the principles of Justice and Liberty that others seem quite satisfied to give little more than a lot of shallow and safe "lip service" to. In this particular case, I view "the merits or faults of the policy" that was devised by a few people some months ago as nothing more or less than thoughtlessly or deliberately giving free reign to those most eager to censor, VANDALIZE and remove any traces of MANY of the IDEAS and efforts of others to make generally important points and generally appealing presentations of the quotes here. I am actually inclined to use far harsher terms, but restrain myself for now. Even at the start I recognized these proposed "rules" as contemptible and unworthy of any significant respect, as simply devices providing implicit sanction and approval to the most narrow-minded, intolerant and malicious of people, most eager to denigrate the contributions of others, to destroy as rapidly as they could, and with VERY little consideration, what others might have taken months or years of careful consideration to gradually produce. I truly consider the fact that so inanely destructive and foully fascist an "ideal" and practice as those INNATELY unjust "policies" represent have not been recognized as such by others as simply disgraceful. Such an atmosphere created by the increasing arrogance and smug intolerance of those who seek to control and constrain others, and the bafflement and disgust of those who wish to contribute in the spirit of liberty advocated by the greatest of people, and which was one of the foundational principles of the wiki software, and the Wikimedia projects themselves is what I believe far more people than myself find appalling and sometimes discouraging.
Prior to the above statement I was going to make this relevant point: A standard setting at Wikimedia Commons, which is the source of all the imagery available to us, provides 200 image thumbnails to a page, and such is what I get quite swiftly when I click on Category:Nature. This once could mean a very long download time, but certainly does not with most users who are likely to do much browsing on the internet at all today. I certainly do not plan to use that many on any article page here — but to make large pages with even dozens of images on them, which are relatively rare and probably always will be, seem incredibly burdensome to most users is something I believe is ludicrous. I would probably spend more time saying a bit more, but I have to be leaving now, and am already running a bit late on important matters. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 21:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
I agree with the comment by Macspaunday (talk · contributions), above. However with regards to this particular page I will leave it to others to hopefully take action here regarding the violations of Wikiquote:Image use policy that have taken place, as noted by Macspaunday (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block edit

Please block User:YODO (You Only Die Once), this user is obviously immature, one example is stating in one of his edit summaries: Get a life you sockpuppet!. I spoke with DanielTom at Meta. I will be here to revert his vandal-edits. To be honest, I don't care if I engage in an edit war. The administrators here are not very active. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no admin is around right now, so I've blocked that user for one day. Please review the action and take (if needed) further action. -Barras (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I yet blocked another user: User:Tell me about it!. As above, review the action taken and adjust it as you seem it fits. -Barras (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both have been re-blocked for 1 month. -- Mdd (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would do a 3 month block, but that's me. --~~Goldenburg111 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, I just issued another block on DarknessFalls74 (talk · contributions). As with the two above, please review the action taken and adjust it as needed. -Barras (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the user is re-blocked for 1 month. -- Mdd (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback edit

I am requesting rollback permission is so I can easily rollback vandal edits. I also "participated in the User:YODO (You Only Die Once) vandal attack", and it was pretty hard undoing his edits and I usually got into edit conflicts. Clarifying that Rollback Rights are given to users to easily revert pure vandalism. I just tagged a few spam pages for deletion and reverted a vandal-only account's action of a page recently. I am also a rollbacker on the Simple English Wiktionary, and of course, I would be in big trouble if I was lying. I am an Anti-Vandal Worker at Meta and Wikipedia. I am also an admin and bureaucrat on the Orian Test Wiki and admin at the Test Wiki. I am also, at Wikia, currently an admin on 10 wikis and crat on 5 of those wikis. Thanks! --~~Goldenburg111 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing for you to do would be to request Adminship at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship so that the merits of your request can be discussed and determined. My sense is that you have made many positive edits and reverted plenty of vandalism. The only question might be the relatively short period of time in which you have been editing here, but that may or may not be a large stumbling block. In the end, it would be best to formally request it and let the discussion begin. Good luck. ~ UDScott (talk)
Okay, thanks UDScott, one question, can I take this subject off? --~~Goldenburg111 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would just leave it and maybe direct readers to the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship page, should they wish to contribute to the discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott: I feel it is unwise to encourage Golden to run for adminship so prematurely, as he wouldn't stand a chance (despite his best intentions), and the result could upset him.
@Golden: even if you don't have rollback rights, you can still revert vandalism. I know you want to help out, but please try to be patient. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielTom: As quoted by Jimbo Wales, "no big deal". --~~Goldenburg111 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Goldenburg111 does not realise that on WQ, only admins can be granted rollback.--Abramsky (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Is this true? Abramsky, what do your elf admin eyes see?) DanielTom (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a separately grantable user right at Wikiquote: there is no "Rollbacker" user group like at Wikipedia. Rollback is included in the rights of the Administrator group, as shown at Special:ListGroupRights. (The corresponding configuration at Wikipedia is much more complex and bureaucratic.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Commons: Should Wikimedia support MP4 video? edit

I apologize for this message being only in English. Please translate it if needed to help your community.

The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team seeks community guidance on a proposal to support the MP4 video format. This digital video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC.

Supporting the MP4 format would make it much easier for our users to view and contribute video on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects -- and video files could be offered in dual formats on our sites, so we could continue to support current open formats (WebM and Ogg Theora).

However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.

We would appreciate your guidance on whether or not to support MP4. Our Request for Comments presents views both in favor and against MP4 support, based on opinions we’ve heard in our discussions with community and team members.

Please join this RfC -- and share your advice.

All users are welcome to participate, whether you are active on Commons, Wikipedia, other Wikimedia project -- or any site that uses content from our free media repository.

You are also welcome to join tomorrow's Office hours chat on IRC, this Thursday, January 16, at 19:00 UTC, if you would like to discuss this project with our team and other community members.

We look forward to a constructive discussion with you, so we can make a more informed decision together on this important topic. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure anyone here is qualified to translate from English to Quotish, but if somebody wants to give it a try.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global sysops edit

Hello Wikiquote community!

As you may have seen, I recently blocked some accounts on this project in my capacity as steward. In the light of the fact that this project has only few really active sysops, I'd like to suggest you to allow global sysops acting on your project. Those users are being elected on meta to help small projects with the removal of vandalism etc. They're generally supposed to not act like a normal locally elected admin and will mostly only act in emergencies. I could imagine that this would help here from time to time. While I'm technically able to issue blocks or delete page (just as any other steward), I feel rather uncomfortable doing this, as I'd rather see that done by local people.

I could very well imagine that this would help here. Since GS is opt-in only, a vote for this is needed and the same would be needed to remove them at any point when needed. Please take your time and consider this idea carefully. If you've any further questions, please feel free to ping me. Kind regards, -Barras (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barras, why would you feel uncomfortable blocking obvious rampant vandals? I agree with you, that it should be preferably done "by local people", but global sysops aren't "local" either, and I don't understand how global sysops would do a better job in answering emergencies and stopping rampant vandals than stewards do (besides, as far as I know, there are many more stewards than global sysops). Recent vandalism spree aside (which was done by sockpuppets that need to be checked and blocked), I believe the ideal solution is to have more local active admins, which is why I suggested Kalki to run for adminship again. (At least that would be my preference.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards can't watch everything, simply put. Global sysops help fill in the gaps of steward coverage, which I believe was one reason the group was created in the first place.--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 04:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support adding GS, but I have a COI as I am one myself. ;) See my contributions for all the stuff I could have blocked if this wiki were opted-in. Of course, it's up to the community. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per PiRSquared17. --Rschen7754 19:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smaller projects should always opt in for Global Sysops, since it is not that simple to get more active local admins. Should the en.q community start a discussion about opting in, I would support (and I have no COI). --Ricordisamoa 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global sysops cheapen local adminship, and only in cases of the utmost necessity (e.g. really small wikis) should they be opted-in. I, for one, tend to think that any help fighting vandalism should be welcomed. Unfortunately, judging by recent comments on a local unrelated discussion, we can't even expect stewards to stay neutral, let alone global sysops. There are further problems, related to WQ's specific policies, which I'm not even going to get into. I would like to highlight, though, that the description of global sysops as "highly trusted users" should make any thinking person suspicious. Just when did we elect these global sysops? I don't remember voting for any of them myself. Sure, there are some very well-meaning, good users in this group, for example Érico Júnior Wouters and PiRSquared17. But I can also see a couple of names I very strongly distrust, of cruel unhelpful people whose apparent job it is to collect hats, and whom I very much doubt would ever be elected local sysops via normal process. That's my warning, for what it's worth (not much). I think GS should only be opted in after a strong consensus for it amongst our established admins. (I doubt such a consensus will ever be achieved, but who knows.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DanielTom: Global sysopship (along with global rollback and some other global groups) is requested on m:SRGP. For example, my request, Érico's request. Anyone can comment on a candidate. Global sysops only ever act (in theory) when the request is uncontroversial (such as spam/vandalism) and no local admins are around to deal with it. Does that answer some of your questions? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you know, Meta elections are kind of a joke. People who'd have no chance of being elected admins at Wikipedia again get elected global sysops... And although it is said that if we opt-in, we can then also opt-out, it's more of a one-way street, as I think it would be very difficult to establish a consensus to opt-out afterwards. Obviously global sysops can't be locally desysopped, so we need to be careful. Your description of what they can do seems misleading. It appears to me that global sysops can act without being requested, and they don't just revert obvious vandalism, but also engage in "routine maintenance" (their purpose per policy), which in turn means they, who are not familiar with Wikiquote's policies, may end up deleting pages they shouldn't. And again, it's not as if we can't ask the help of stewards to block vandals in case of emergency. It also seems to me that Wikiquote is actually out of scope for GS, and I would very much like to hear what our local admins think of this proposal, though I doubt they will be so blunt as me in saying that it threatens Wikiquote's independence. I still think the solution for Wikiquote is through local admins, and if global sysops are so eager to help (*cough*), they can go through the normal process and be elected here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up a couple misunderstandings:
  1. Global sysops are not elected. They are appointed by Stewards after taking public comment. They serve at the pleasure of the Stewards, assisting with their workload by handling routine tasks that do not require more advanced rights.
  2. Wikiquote is not out of scope. Any project can opt in or opt out: the default described in the policy applies only to projects that do not opt either way.
Whether you trust the Stewards to appoint people who can be trusted to respect the bounds of their role, whether you trust the Stewards to step in if someone exceeds those bounds, that is your call. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Global sysops perform routine maintenance. That is their purpose. In practice, this amounts to spam, vandalism/long-term abuse, and noncontroversial routine requests. If enwikiquote is opted in, GS will surely respect local policies, but you can't expect us to read every single wiki's policies before acting. At least I haven't (but I do usually look at the deletion reason dropdown to see if they have a similar "speedy deletion" criterion to what I will use. I almost never block.). Usually the stuff we do is completely noncontroversial, and we tend only to act in emergencies or when local admins are unavailable. m:Special:WikiSets/7: enwikiquote and plwikiquote are the only Wikiquotes opted out of GS help. Ningauble is correct that any project can opt in or out. The scope on Meta is just the default. Also: being a global sysop is much easier and less complicated than being a local admin on (English or another large) Wikipedia, as you mentioned. Global sysops only do noncontroversial maintenance tasks, whereas an admin on enwiki is expected to be able to determine consensus, deal with private matters, act in controversial cases or in drama like ANI, etc. In fact becoming a steward might be easier than having a successful enwiki RfA. Do you think this ongoing RFGS is a joke? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm glad to see two global sysops (Rschen and yourself) admitting that becoming a steward (=> access to IPs) could be much easier than getting adminship – good heavens! am I the only one who thinks something is terribly wrong here? If this is true of stewards, it must be even more so of global sysops, and I might add I personally am shocked and offended to see that someone like Rschen is a global sysop. Opting in will be something of a historical moment for WQ, because in truth there is no turning back, even if theoretically we could opt out again – who would then be willing to oppose global sysops?, how would we ever reach that consensus? In any case, those were just a few observations before our admins gave their opinions, and as they apparently don't seem to mind GS being opted in, it might just be that you'll have your wish. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to attack me, at least get my quote right - I said that it is much easier than getting adminship on en.wikipedia. --Rschen7754 19:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, who "attacks" who. I am reminded of this. Pretending that a public rename is a sock, just to defame my real name, that seems to me much more of an "attack" than my saying I am offended that you are are in any position of responsibility. I see you keep trying to collect hats, and that after recently failing to get CU on Wikipedia, you are now trying to get stewardship at Meta. What a disgrace. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who is attacking who is you. What Rschen did at that particular diff is standard practise at enwiki, if a user is deemed a sock, they are tagged. The fact the account existed even a rename means the account exists ergo, a sockpuppet. The fact Rschen failed to get CU is like me failing to get rollback here and then asking for Bureaucrat at Wikidata, they have 0% relation. Also your description of Rschen actually willing to help out Wikimedia is the disgrace here. Good faith volunteers deserve credit, not defamatory comments. Now that is said, get back to doing something constructive unlike we've seen at metawiki. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guy who admits to never editing articles tells me to go do "something constructive". Why do you show up here, just to share your ignorance on the difference between socks and public renames? I challenge you to try and make a single edit to an article before commenting here again and embarrassing yourself further. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I edit articles now or not is my choice. Nothing for you to comment on simply because you're losing the 'but mom, Rschen is the one being mean!' battle. Oh and yes, maybe I don't edit articles but hey, I am constructive. I do SWMT work, did a month of administrator work at a small wiki and do some-what active work on Wikidata. And on enwiki, I active help new users get accounts. See, I give people accounts not create them for myself and then abuse them. Now, as I said, be constructive anyway you want except through derogatory comment at Rschen and arguing about how people follow polices when dealing with clearly abusive users. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't made even 1 edit to articles, and most likely never will. Calling me abusive doesn't count as an article edit. You have nothing to contribute to Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't both of you stop? Instead of bickering? You guys are acting like children here! I would suggest both of you stop this pointless discussion. Wikiquote's Village Pump is not for both of you to bicker about pointless stuff. I expect better from both of you. --~~Goldenburg111 22:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just shut up about god damn editing of articles. I am not violating policies by not doing it. Last comment here. Future comments I'd like at my talk page. If not, I'll just move them over. Peace. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did I hit a nerve? Do you feel embarrassed for never editing articles? I certainly would. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be averse to opting in. Having been unable to give as much time to Wikiquote myself in recent months as in previous years, no longer being able to review the entire RC log every day, I have a sense that a lot of things are slipping through the cracks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Non sequitur, as global sysops can already patrol recent changes, just like any other user; problem is, most of them just don't bother to, and this is very unlikely to change even if we opt-in. (What would change is, someone who already patrols recent changes could notify them at Meta of vandal attacks, and they would then be able to step in and block the vandals. But if you think that global sysops are going to start magically reviewing every change to articles once they are opted-in, you are just fooling yourself.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What follows from my observation is that I believe a lot of things are slipping through the cracks, more things than when I was patrolling more. I did not say, and it does not follow (non sequitur) that global sysops would patrol in the manner that I used to do, nor that nothing would slip through the cracks. Things have always slipped through the cracks anyway. What would follow is more little Dutch boys plugging more of the cracks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure m:SWMT will monitor enwikiquote, if it doesn't already. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It does since yesterday (a contributor from this wiki requested it to be added on IRC). Vogone (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I think the benefits of having off-project admins able to step in and stop vandalism outweigh any downside. BD2412 T 01:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These global sysops can already revert vandalism, they just don't do it, because they don't patrol WQ's recent changes. They would only be of help in case someone who does patrol it should ask them to block rampant vandals. But for this there already are stewards, who are more in number than global sysops. Opting in will be a historically bad decision. WQ is almost the only wiki standing independent, like a diamond in the desert, but you seem to be willing to trade its independence for nothing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with these comments by Ningauble and BD2412, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to close this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not adamantly hostile to the idea, but I really have not as yet examined the issues involved much, and certainly would not wish to rush into opting in. As there is at least one prominent editor who I generally respect who seems adamantly opposed, I remain reluctant to support it at this point. ~ Kalki·· 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, take your time. There's no rush to decide whether you want GS or not, obviously. I just wanted to see if anyone else would comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the light of the recent events concerning the request to a global block, I am far from convinced that global sysops and their supporters can overcome the cultural differences. -- Mdd (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Global sysops have nothing to do with global blocking or locking. That is a steward thing. Yes, stewards and global sysops have some things in common, but really there is a huge difference. However, I can see how this would change your opinion of Meta, cross-wiki maintenance, etc. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't feel this wiki has a need for a GS opt-in and looking at Special:ActiveUsers I would rather refuse to perform any actions here. Unless the community wants the GS to play a significant role in countervandalism work (which I don't expect) I am not supporting any movement towards an opt-in. Please also note my COI in this case. Vogone (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, Vogone. I would generally agree, except in cases where a vandal is around when no admins are. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a strong believer in democracy, and in the independence of each wiki, I would like to urge everyone again to be extra careful here. Many people try to interfere with wiki processes and decision making in ways we are not (and can't even be) aware of. If you want an example, see this leaked discussion of ArbCom, and read what they say about Wikiquote. This has happened before, and will happen again, sooner or later. Everyone has their own interests in mind, which is fine, but we responsible Wikiquote editors should resist and not give away power to outsiders needlessly, and do our best to keep the Wikiquote project as independent as possible. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being a global sysop is completely different from being on the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Global sysops only deal with spam (including spambots, linkspam, etc.) and vandalism. I do not know exactly what made Barras start this discussion, but please note that nobody is trying to force this on you. If you decide against it, that's fine, but GS are experienced and willing to help with tasks that most would find tedious. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a local admin like to review the discussion above? Once that happens, if there is consensus to opt-in, stewards can remove enwq from the opt-out list. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bump. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mdd: update? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @PiRSquared. I think Wikiquote will benefit from Global sysops's the most, if the most active users and local sysops's here see the need, and would welcome this initiative. At the moment only half of them do, and the other half have some kind of doubt. When it comes to granting administrator rights here on Wikiquote, there must be more consensus to do so.
    Now in the first comment here Barras explained "Since GS is opt-in only, a vote for this is needed". Frankly I don't see this discussion as a vote. I am used (at the Dutch Wikipedia), that before some kind of vote started, there first must be an announcement at the Village pump; And I have more or less considered this discussion as such an announcement. Shouldn't a real vote be held at a page, such as Wikiquote:Requests for adminship, during a limited period? -- Mdd (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I see it, only clear consensus in favour of opting in to GS needs to be provided. Which process the community undergoes to reach that is probably irrelevant to the stewards and at the discretion of the local community. Vogone (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let it be clear, that the vote Barras suggested hasn't taken place; In such a situation it would be not appropriate to let a local administrator review this discussion, as Ajraddatz suggested. There is in my opinion no clear consensus about either the procedure, either about the subject to opt-in the Global sysops here. Let it also be clear that only a handful of active Wikiquote users have participated in this matter. In order to get more clearance, and a larger participation I propose to start a vote at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship for a period of a week, which can be accepted when 75% of the participants agree. -- Mdd (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdd: Feel free to open such a discussion under the conditions you mentioned. It's probably time to get this here clear. Regards, Vogone (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument against opting-in: global sysops have recently been deleting a userpage by a user, consisting of a simple picture (right), on hundreds of wikis, claiming it is spam. Here too, the userpage was tagged for deletion, by a global sysop [1], with the rationale: "crosswiki spam". The speedy deletion was declined, replace by a Prod, and now a VfD is taking place. I predict the page will eventually be deleted. But then, you ask, wasn't tagging the page, suggesting that it be deleted, proper after all? Yes, it was. Then what is the problem? The problem, you see, is that it was only tagged, and not outright deleted, because global sysops are not opted in here. (I say, we should keep it that way.) Each community should be allowed to weigh in, and decide for themselves what to do in cases like this... roar... ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all global sysops agree with what happened in that case, FYI. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Global sysops usually don't delete pages on wikis with local active sysops even if the wikis are opted-in. --Glaisher (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nomination of Kalki edit

As some are aware, I was once an admin here (from 29 January 2004 to 1 December 2009), and I have now nominated myself to regain adminship at Requests for adminship‎‎. ~ Kalki·· 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been over one week.

RFA presently at 66.7 percent.

Plus additional Comments.

-- Cirt (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikiquote:Requests for adminship states that "Adminship nominations must be posted for at least one week, to provide opportunity for comments and voting, before a bureaucrat will make the promotion if warranted". This sets a minimum time but not a maximum. We have routinely allowed these discussions to stay open for longer times, to allow the community the greatest opportunity to find and weigh in on the discussion (see, e.g., Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Mdd). Indeed, since your request for closure, an additional opinion has been offered which has changed the proportion of support from 66.7% to 60%. I would give it a few more days. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. Thank you, BD2412, I'll defer to your judgement. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Creation Logs edit

We need an active sysop to block the recent account creations. Since YODO was blocked, we have been getting some recent vandals here. Any opinions? --~~Goldenburg111 19:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's definitely a vandal/sock attack currently. I'm watching and can get stewards if needed. Maybe User:Jni could help...? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mdd. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you both. Mdd (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be online for next couple hours and can help with pest control for sure! I was tracing one sock/vandal from en-wp to here in fact. I've been mostly inactive for few years so please tell me if I do something stupid with the admin tools. jni (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking about adding a template where we can place it on a user talk page saying that their name is not appropriate for wikiquote. But we need a sysop to block the inappropriate username. --~~Goldenburg111 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions edit

Anyone can contribute to User:Goldenburg111/Wikiquote in 2014. --~~Goldenburg111 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page says "This page is to document issues with Wikiquote since January 1, 2014." What kind of issues? I for one think that we need a complete top down reimagining of the software, so that quotes can be sorted by every kind of data (topic, author, date, kind of work, etc.). BD2412 T 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Issues = Sockpuppetry, canvassing by Cirt at Meta, causing drama and disruption. Different sockpuppeters and new accounts made for vandalism. --~~Goldenburg111 22:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's your userspace, you're free to do as you will with it. BD2412 T 02:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand that Kalki and I have had disagreements over interpretations of his behavior patterns in the past. For this reason after much thought I've decided not to comment further upon the ongoing RFA. I'll instead respectfully defer to the community in the discussion there. Have a great day, -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it's your userspace, you can collect notes of that nature there if want to, but is it really that constructive activity? Sounds like stirring more drama and disruption. Sockpuppet notice board might be useful though, especially tracking for cross-wiki sockpuppeteers. jni (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you jni for clarifying, is it okay to add notes about main points instead of specific users being "called out"? --~~Goldenburg111 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly better than calling out individual users. But I'd avoid even creating such a page in first place. That is just my personal opinion, I don't think there is any policy forbidding user's maintaining bulletin/notice board kind of pages in their user space (and I'd hate bureaucrazy like that here). jni (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation error edit

Hey, I've got no idea what's wrong with the citations over at Stephenie LaGrossa. All I did was copy it over from Wikipedia. Is citation style different here? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You forgot to add <references/>, but in any case Wikiquote's formatting guidelines are a bit different than those of Wikipedia, so I've re-formatted the article accordingly. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activist group public relations announcement being put forward as a 'quote' edit

As shown in this edit, an IP editor is repeatedly inserting an announcement by an anti-abortion activist organization, an announcement that is not notable, nor is it traceable to a single person. As such, I don't think it can be called a quote. This IP editor has in the past repeatedly tussled with me over the attribution of abortion quotes, challenging the findings of Ann D. Gordon who is the top scholar on Susan B. Anthony's life. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Name Confusion edit

Hi Wikiquote and all of it's fellow members! I am thinking about a Wikiquote WikiProject. I want to create a wikiproject that encourages users to clean up at least one article in a week. In a few months, the cleanup categories would be blank! I am still struggling on the name of the project. Any suggestions for the name? Or any suggestion on the Project itself? --~~Goldenburg111 22:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about WikiProject Weekly Cleanup? Direct and to the point. BD2412 T 22:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BD2 for your suggestions. I think that's a good name. --~~Goldenburg111 22:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one as well WikiProject: Article Cleanup project? Miszatomic 22:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've preferred to call them pages rather than articles here (to contrast with Wikipedia's "article" space and Wiktionary's "entry" space). Come to think of it, we really don't have the tradition of WikiProjects here that Wikipedia does, although we could surely use some. For example, we could coordinate with WikiProject Law and WikiProject Medicine to improve our pages covering these specific fields. BD2412 T 22:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I bet this one would benefit Wikiquote easily. --~~Goldenburg111 22:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel free to join! Any suggestions? --~~Goldenburg111 22:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per m:Global bans, a general requirement of a global bans request for comment is notify all projects where the user subject to the ban has editied. DanielTom is either an active editor or a past editor of this wiki and therefore I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global bans can create serious consequences, I'd urge users to look at this ban proposal. --Abd (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have left my own comment of opposition to this there, and like Abd have requested a speedy dismissal of this as a quite unwarranted request. ~ Kalki·· 11:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading distorted descriptions of yourself painted in the worst possible light can be slightly amusing, or extremely depressing, considering how other people might take this garbage seriously. If anything, this shows how extremely unwise it is to edit under anything close to your real name, though I'm sure most people here don't need to be reminded of that. Anyway, thanks to everyone who commented there, I appreciate it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see you're back and this particular nonsense has ended. I would advise remaining cautious though. I, for years, have put up with some nonsense which in some ways has not been quite that immediately consequential — and am willing to continue to do so, with confidence that when truths are sufficiently assessed, whatever the faults or deficiencies I might have inadvertently manifested in the courses of events will clearly be perceived to not be the most grievous ones. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC) + tweak[reply]

Main Page Images edit

The average number of images per quote of the day has gotten quite high, with there being 10 separate images on January 30 (which were, to this user, very difficult to look at). Was there ever a consensus reached about the number/size/quality of images on the main page, and if so, is it being followed? 17:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive discussion in 2011–2012 reached an apparent consensus that this is too much, but not how much is ok. ([2] [3]) This nonspecific consensus was enforced for a time by removing all images pending adoption of a specific policy. Images returned to the main page just under a year ago, without any policy or guideline, and attempts to moderate their quantity have been reverted. ([4]) In short: (1) no, there is no express consensus for what should be included, and (2) no, consensus for what should not be included, vague though it be, is not being followed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not think the attempts to moderate the quantity of images on the Main Page should have been reverted. It is quite frustrating to see a community consensus summarily reverted and arbitrarily ignored. -- Cirt (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed the discussion on and off for the past few years, and I understand the two sides - that there is a consensus, and there is a very active minority that doesn't care for that consensus. Can we (well, you, since I'm not qualified) actually create a policy that reflects the consensus, or at the very least limits the number/size/quality of images (say, one on each side and a small one above and below, which, though still excessive, at least leaves the front page readable)? Or, alternatively, is it not even worth it? 19:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the concerns of (talk · contributions) and agree with the comments made here. -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the comments on this issue in this section rather misleading in various ways, but especially reject the implied assertions that any actual wide ranging consensus was arrived at after any substantial or extensive periods of active debate, despite the periods of months or years during which these contentions have sometimes VERY briefly occurred, and gone largely ignored by others, either unaware of them, or too disinterested or intimidated by the intensity of opinions to get involved.

Though sometimes I can do some rather quickly, It often takes much work and considerable effort and thought to produce a good layout, and I confess I do not always succeed to my own satisfaction with the materials available, but for many years I have done what I could with the quotes available here and the images available at the commons, and I believe that this service is a generally valued and appreciated one, based upon the comments of people with as yet little or no personal involvement here in the issue.

On 31 January 2012, there was an act of aggressive and arrogant censorship which was suddenly imposed by one admin who I believe simply sensed an opportunity to further harass and constrain my activities here with but little complaint likely from others most actively involved in these matters at the time. Clearly without much regard for permitting any further discussions, and inclined to take the most radically severe steps available, he decided to destructively edit what I believe was a quite good and relevant layout for February 3, a few minutes after I posted it:


I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before
But the man there said the music wouldn't play
And in the streets the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
And the three men I admire most
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The Day the Music Died.

~ Don McLean ~



After this edit ONLY the text remained, and none of the relevant imagery, which I had chosen to honor these artists and to commemorate some of the themes and ideas of their music. I myself, if I remember correctly, was in a hurry, and unable to edit it further, and had to leave soon after that.

I am able and willing to work with anyone, but I do anger somewhat at what I perceive to be various forms of injustice and hypocrisy which do arise all to frequently where people are not confronted with each other in face to face dialogue, and many rules can be rather extravagantly grown and even more extravagantly ignored or dismissed while some of the most aggressively denigrative of people are focussing upon and magnifying the relatively minor breaches of rules or merely expectations which others make.

This led to my DISGUST at the foully presumptive forms of impulses towards what I believe to be improper censorship and constraints which were becoming far more evident and boldly practiced on this site, which was founded and had existed for years quite uncontroversially as a wiki with acceptance of MAXIMAL freedoms of editors and MINIMAL rule by any officials, and led to my decision not to even bother adding them for at least a few days or weeks, when I believed I might have more time to address some of the precise quantitative restrictions which were being proposed in regard to various rather nebulous qualitative issues.

Further acts of abusive destruction occurred so regularly in the period after that, It was actually over a year, before I began adding images to the QOTD again partially in March 2013, and fully in April, May, and ever since then, and once again, received more compliments than complaints, but those few who seem eager and willing to oppose these layouts have again banded together, while those who are not involved and perhaps do not wish to be involved in such contentious matters have remained unaware or uninvolved, as is their right.

Though I can honestly recognize that the layouts are not always so well developed or well honed as further time might permit, and I myself would have simplified some of them, but certainly not merely to decrease their visual size, had I had more time to consider things.

I also believe that over the years I have certainly received FAR more compliments both publicly and in private for my graphic presentations than complaints about them, despite the relatively few disparaging remarks a year that have arisen here because of them, and which have often been seized upon by those very little involvement here generally beyond supporting the constraints of others, and who seem most zealous to find ways to rigorously constrain and suppress some forms of presentation options.

I believe that there are now attempts by those who are often involved in little more than devising constraints and rules to bind others in such ways as they themselves would not find binding or uncomfortable at all to group together and impose their will suddenly and vigorously, as has sometimes occurred in the past.

This issue as well as others are some I believe should be elaborated upon more extensively in the coming weeks and months, and sufficient time for arguments to be presented and considered, and matters settled with more widespread involvement. ~ Kalki·· 22:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

Kalki, to me, those pictures of american pies have too bright a color—they really do distract one's attention from the quote. And this is Wikiquote. All I can say, regarding this issue, is that I personally would do the QOTD layout differently, with fewer and smaller pictures, and more emphasis on the quote (incl. source). But Kalki has been the only one doing the QOTDs, for many years, and of course he is doing what looks to him the best. I don't think it's possible to convince Kalki that he is "wrong". ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am still around, but quite later than I planned to be at getting started on several things elsewhere, and just briefly noting that I do believe matters can and should be more elaborately discussed, and in my relatively few contentions with people on what the best images available for pages have been, have always been willing to reach acceptable compromises or agreements, where alternatives are presented, but I believe efforts to rigorously constrain or entirely eliminate the use of imagery are very detrimental for many reasons, and I am willing to specify many reasons why later. I must get going now. ~ Kalki·· 23:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly recognized Don McLean - I think Kalki does brilliant work and the images draw my eye to the word content -clumsily put, I mean draw mw to the whole thing, so the words get read - still I suppose there were iconoclasts who went round smashing in stained glass windows - some people seem puritan by nature and theres probably no pleasing them. Sayerslle (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you much for your appreciation. And I would note that I do believe images always serve as windows to a far more expansive range of ideas than text quotes alone usually do, and that is one of many reasons I believe them desirable. And I know that I am not alone in referring to photographs and graphic art works as "visual quotation" though the concept apparently remains unfamiliar to most. ~ Kalki·· 18:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There may be something to what Kalki writes above about people being intimidated by the nature of these discussions. Walls of text laden with boldfaced shouting and emotionally charged invective might indeed have the effect of deterring a quorum.

I look forward to the actual exercise of Kalki's professed ability and willingness to work with anyone on this issue, so that a meaningful compromise may be found between no images at all and overwhelming that which is ostensibly being presented. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There may be something to what Kalki writes above about people being intimidated by the nature of these discussions. Walls of text laden with boldfaced shouting and emotionally charged invective might indeed have the effect of deterring a quorum.". I for one strongly agree with these comments by Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bumper sticker culture. People have to get it like that, and if they don't, if it takes three seconds to make them understand, you're off their radar screen. ~ Larry Lessig
Oh, my sometimes obviously passionate intensity in asserting honest opinions as effectively as I can against what I perceive to be various forms of error, false suppositions, or deliberate deceits can sometimes be very intimidating I suppose, but there obviously is no way that there is any attempt to intimidate in what an official admin might declare in imperious tones of condescension of apparently "Authoritative Objectivity" to anyone who disagrees with their own particular ranges of opinion or will. Seconded by another "admin" who in my honest opinion relies upon various forms of flattery and intimidation to retain what prestige, position and power he has attained. "Walls of text laden with boldfaced shouting and emotionally charged invective might indeed have the effect of deterring a quorum." That surely is PURELY objective and neutral assertion, simply asserted against the uncivil act of anyone arguing extensively against any one else's position — it seems no one could even conceivably or rationally disagree with that. Sarcasm intended here — yet I hope some of my silliness in presenting these sincere observations can be forgiven, as I forgive others for sometimes being so damned imperiously somber and officiously censorious about things. I generally like people, even many of those who often strongly disagree with me, and I like there being a variety of ideas and attitudes available to people — and as most artists would assert, images provide ways to introduce some of these to people in ways that would otherwise not occur.
That there actually might be people who find things more interesting with some indications of aspects of the quote they might not have known about or considered through the use of imagery, is something to be dismissed as mere "distraction" and promotion of "distraction", and such arguments merely "digression" from such hard and fast rules as some people wish to establish in a project that was created as one of many with implicit and sometimes EXPLICIT directives to avoid the hang-ups of having too many hard and fast rules — which the wise know can often be abused by people very casually in very many ways, against which most people often have little recourse.
I quote Larry Lessig with an image to emphasize that imagery IS useful in drawing people to contemplate the quote associated with the imagery, in ways text alone would NOT. As to compromises, I will try to refrain from more than 4 or 5 images, when there is no need for them to frame the text: there are generally 4 regions on the QOTD layout where images can be presented. I usually, but not always, attempt to use all of these to at least some extent, though until recently I usually preferred rather minor images above and below the quote, and I admit that sometimes I clearly have overdone things in ways that are not the best aesthetic arrangements possible. Usually that was because I was trying to present significant ideas which were relevant to the quote being used, or simply significant images of the author of the statement or its subject. I believe 2 good solid blocks of imagery to either side is usually desirable, and can accept that I should not attempt to put too many images in the layout, merely to present ideas present or implied in the quotes; but on larger quotes especially more than one image to either side is sometimes necessary to properly frame the entire text, and on smaller quotes images to the top and bottom allow the text to be framed in such a way as draws one's attention to it further, in ways that would not exist without some imagery. I believe there should always be a minimum of two images, and a maximum of 4 regions of imagery, generally not to exceed 50% of the area of main page, and preferably less than an third of it, even though absolute rules on that would make me uncomfortable. ~ Kalki·· 18:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
(I'm the topic starter; I just registered my account.) What I'm getting from this discussion is that essentially we have no choice but to hope Kalki keeps things under control, then? TreeRol (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though we obviously differ strongly in our opinions on this matter, I thank you for creating an account here, and welcome you as a participant. I would certainly phrase things differently, and assert rather bluntly, that in accord with the principles with which Wiki software and Wikimedia projects were founded and developed: I seek to keep things from being under too much needless or detrimental "control" by anyone, including myself. I have certainly NOT sought to exert any extraordinary control of things which I am not actively involved in as a regularly concerned participant, here or anywhere, and seek to rigorously control nothing so much as my own actions, rather than that of others. Usually I have sought to find ways, through various venues, including this one, to INDICATE diverse views on Truth and Beauty, Meaning and Purpose, and not merely those I myself find most valid or appealing, though, like most people, I generally would favor these. I believe that IF things are perceptively reviewed without the prejudices of presuming things have to be under some sort of absolutist controls, by people assuming or wishing to behave AS IF they KNOW what is best for others to DO, THINK and SAY, I have persistently sought to keep many things from becoming rigorously controlled by such impulses, all of my life. And I did not seek to establish such principles of behavior here — the wiki software and the wiki projects were already quite explicitly established with such aims and procedures in mind — I have for the most part simply have opposed efforts to corrupt or constrain those principles in such ways as I do not believe proper, in either rational or ethical senses. I believe that even if sometimes they are manifest in mild forms, there are many ways the impulses to overly control things have been detrimental in far more ways than are apparent by the casual examinations of those who out of fears, hatreds, resentments or merely minor irritation, are most inclined to find ways to absolutely judge, condemn and punish others are likely to practice, and which require the more extensive examination of those who are more tolerant, patient, and willing to forgive error, without needlessly punishing it, and prone to let many diverse forms of participation in presentations arise. I have just now created a page for Solomon Asch, to accompany one I have started on Philip Zimbardo, and one I have helped develop on Stanley Milgram, each of whom have contributed major insights into social psychology and the various ways group pressures can often corrupt moral assessments and rational competence, and have helped develop general ideas of the cognition necessary for recognizing and combatting Groupthink excesses of control over individual volition and choices. I would recommend them to anyone interested in reviewing some of the fundamentals of social psychology. ~ Kalki·· 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)+ tweaks[reply]
You claim to act against people "wishing to behave AS IF they KNOW what is best for others to DO, THINK and SAY" but then later say "I have for the most part simply have opposed efforts to corrupt or constrain those principles in such ways as *I DO NOT BELIEVE PROPER*" (emphasis mine that time). You must realize that if your actions are guided by what you do and do not believe proper, then you are constraining what we (the collective we) can DO and SAY in terms of this project. You are imposing your will on others. Once you start acting upon what you do and do not believe proper, consensus becomes irrelevant. This is no longer a collaborative project, but one that is based on your whims and desires.
I ask everyone: should it be the latter? And if not, what can we do about it? TreeRol (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, quite frankly — I quite honestly state that I, like everyone, act for the most part on my beliefs and impressions, rather than try to pretend to anyone that such a path is simply "horrific" and intolerable — and as I have indicated many times, I try to keep my beliefs reasonable and in maximal harmony with verifiable Truths, the vital virtues of Humility, Courage, Honesty and Compassion and principles of Justice, Unity, Liberty, and to the extent any "collective" or "individual" opposes these, and insists on absolute conformity in ways that are not innately necessary, I believe that to be an error of the type I have been inclined to label foully fascist, arrogant, tyrannical, and terroristic since I was a very young child. I can forgive people for doing such things, but I do not provide them my willing consent or approval, and if I can find ways of doing so, I seek to find ways to help people rise out of such errors and embrace paths of greater grace, and genuine harmony which only can come about by respect for eternal and enduring truths rather than either collective or individual wills as to how to characterize or serve such truths. I believe you obviously did not look at some of the suggested pages, or if you did, did not understand the statements that indicate where people passionately forbid certain forms of independence because "consensus becomes irrelevant " they are espousing views where truth and genuine rationality and morality quite often become irrelevant, in deference to force of "the collective". That is nothing other than simply Fascism such as summarily implies or states "Might makes Right" or "Might is always Right." ~ Kalki·· 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
In answer to the question above, "What can we do about it?" - It seems clear that nothing can be done about it. The visual appearance of the project is effectively under the control of one editor and there is no prospect that this situation will ever change. It's a remarkable and I think unprecedented situation in the Wiki-related universe. - Macspaunday (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki said: That is nothing other than simply Fascism such as summarily implies or states "Might makes Right" or "Might is always Right."
No, instead Kalki's particular interpretation of "truth" is always right. I have to sadly agree with the above, that as long as Kalki is allowed to define what is right, and is allowed to discount every other opinion because it does not fit "truth," "rationality," or "morality," this project is hopeless. TreeRol (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing prevents Macspaunday, or you, or anyone else, from working on it, selecting and creating a QOTD every single day, the way you see fit. I don't think Kalki could, or would, revert your efforts. But it would be a lot of work. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not entirely true that they are free to do whatever they see fit; I myself am not entirely free to do entirely as I see fit, in all regards, and do not wish to be. While still an admin and a long admired one, I constrained myself and the selection processes to its current procedures, gradually over time, to allow maximum input in selections of QOTD from all who wished to be involved, and though there are currently very few who regularly participate now, Zarbon, for one, was once a frequent opponent in debates over which quotes should be selected, and he was actually quite effective in getting his way much of the time, but not so much of it as he might have wished.
In regard to larger issues: I quite often keep MANY of my opinions and many aspects of my knowledge reserved from overt presentation, yet sometimes I choose not to remain quiet about long constrained perspectives that indicate what I perceive of some of the deficiencies and flaws in the arguments and strategies of others. I might often out of convenience or necessity refrain from revealing some truths, but I certainly do not go about attempting to obscure truths on vitally important matters and principles, nor silence others from indicating their opinions of them, and when people do resort to attempting to do so in various ways, out of various irritations with the views of others, and my own or others arguments or tenacity in not bowing abjectly to theirs, I do not always "politely" defer to simply accepting their particular opinions or rather crude attempts to distort or defame mine or those of others, such as have most actively created and built these projects, rather than simply control what others can do. I know some people wish to try to make that seem "unconscionably" rude, but so be it. I state my case as ably as I believe proper and necessary, and let others state theirs. I have been doing the very extensive and occasionally contentious work for years, amidst some frustratations, but with general approval, and a few others seek to occasionally frustrate and absolutely constrain my assessments of what presentations would be optimal to what theirs would be, simply because thus far, a very few people band together, with assumptions they speak for a majority of others, to say they don't understand, don't accept and don't desire my contributions. Even though, throughout the years, I have had FAR more people I find far more generally respectable, say that they value them, I realize that such groups joined in their avid hostilities can indeed be a threat to many generally desirable liberties and freedoms — and such people often do get quite irate and intolerant of others rights when they are not abjectly obeyed. I am a person who has had my life genuinely threatened in literal ways, and not been cowed by such arrogance, nor deterred in seeking to protect the rights of myself and others; I am not prone to submit without need to those who seem adamant in their desires that excessive forms of constraint and command over the rights and liberties of others be accepted and deferred to, apparently without question nor even vigorous counter-arguments. — that's about all I can say right now, as I have to attend to some matters because I must be leaving soon, at least briefly. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 21:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Can we step back from discussion of process, philosophy, and personality for a moment, and return to the original topic of this thread, which was Main Page Images and, specifically, the quantity thereof?

In particular, I would like to explore two specific points in the last paragraph of Kalki's post on 5 February 2014 at 18:53, beginning at the phrase "As to compromises", regarding necessity and proportion these images.

  1. I don't think it has been demonstrated that it is necessary to frame the entire text of the QotD with images. When I first joined Wikiquote some years back the quote of the day was accompanied by one small image on the main page. It was framed by a colored box with a header and footer. I do not recall any great hue and cry, or any comment at all, about the lack of a necessary frame of images boxing the quote.

    If one were designing the main page from scratch, one might begin by listing possible features and classifying them as either vitally necessary, highly desirable, or wish-list items. I think including a quote of the day would rank quite high and adding an image would be very desirable but, in my opinion, including a montage of images would have little or no priority for the main landing page of a site devoted to quotations. I would certainly recommend against using a "frame" that dominates the entire page, which brings up the second point...

  2. Devoting up to 50% of the page to this material is, in my opinion, completely out of proportion to other priorities for space on the project's main public portal. As remarked in an earlier discussion, it pushes everything else but the masthead below the fold. Even a third of the page strikes me as a disproportionate allocation among main elements of the page:
  • Masthead
  • Quote of the day
  • Selected pages
  • New pages
  • Main categories
  • Community
  • Sister projects
  • Other languages
I suggest we consider illustrating the presentation of the quote of the day in proportion to that which is ostensibly being presented:  I think allocating one third of the QotD block to illustration would be a more appropriate upper limit than a third or a half of the entire page.
I welcome the thoughts and opinions of other contributors about what is necessary and what is proportionate for Wikiquote's main landing page. (I don't think discussion of process, philosophy, and personality is going to shed much light on those issues.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that very few things are "necessary" to accept as "necessary" in any absolute sense, but do believe that framing the text with image fields is quite aesthetically appealing to most people, and thus highly desirable for presentations. The only things which regularly change on the main page here are the QOTD and the New page listings which are directly below it, and so I do not think that it remaining a prominent portion of the page, actually less than 25% of the page in most cases, I believe, is at all undesirable for a primary presentation page. The other sections are certainly not all that less convenient to access, to anyone but those with very slow connections. Though I am doing some things out of consideration for those in such circumstances, such as stripping out most px specs and reducing the use of animations on pages, I have stated before I don't believe that those who still have such should be a primary constraint on the development of any of our wiki pages. I do believe that if their problems are extreme enough, they should simply shut off image displays on their primary browser, or use an alternate browser where such settings are used. I believe that reducing the size of the images, relative to the size of the quote, or to one third of the QOTD is a rather crude and extreme measure to simply minimize the size of images, the only reason for such being very slow connection speeds, which are increasingly uncommon among most users, and generally not accommodated as a primary concern at most sites on the internet, including Wikimedia ones. As I have previously stated, it is quite standard to get pages with well over a hundred images at the much more commonly visited Wikimedia commons. As usual, I am quite willing to honor general provisions which can be arrived at, but do not generally support creating overly detailed nor overly absolute constraints on any matters, in accord with the principles of innovation and adaptation with which the Wikis were founded. I believe a general agreement to keep the images proportional to the page, and usually less than 30% is a reasonable one. ~ Kalki·· 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
It's not about page loading time, it's about screen real estate on the main page. It is not a case of "the only reason for such being very slow connection speeds". The reasons given are pushing everything else below the fold, and proportion to relevance for the purpose of a home page. I think you are mistaken in considering the main page "a primary presentation page":  The home page is primarily a portal to the project.

Compare the home page of the Wikimedia Commons project to which you refer:  it has two pictures (one static and one media file), each of which is the focus of a dedicated section. (It also uses a few iconographic links, as does ours.) Of course a project that is primarily a repository of images and media files has many pages with many more images, but not on its main portal page – this example does not support your argument. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are all involved to varying degrees in various forms of presentations. I believe the people who normally are involved with the main page layout for the commons do a fine job, and generally understand that graphic layouts are important to sparking and developing interests in a broad variety of subjects, people and ideas — as are quotes. I believe that it is widely recognized that quotes used in conjunction with images and visual images in conjunction with text quotes can often do a far better job of generating interest, curiosity, contemplation and exploration than either generally would alone, and that highly formalized constraints on presentations simply limit the varieties of options available in composing such presentations. ~ Kalki·· 19:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) + tweak[reply]

Proposal to adopt Wikipedia's policy on having multiple accounts. edit

As Kalki pointed out in his recent RfA, Wikiquote has no specific policy page establishing a mandate against editing from multiple accounts. The Wikipedia policy with respect to this issue is thorough and long-established, providing both the rationales for prohibiting editing from multiple accounts as a general matter, and the means and circumstances by which such editing is permissible (for example, editing from a clearly designated "backup account" when working from a public computer). I therefore propose to adopt the language of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry in its entirety, subject only to modifications for replacing instances of "Wikipedia" with "Wikiquote". Cheers! BD2412 T 17:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly posted this on the Administrator's Noticeboard, but realized it should be on this page instead. BD2412 T 17:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that the above link states specifically that "Kalki is limited to one account" and that this was an unprecedented restriction here, in reaction to controversies that arose because I had created multiple accounts, and was unapologetic for doing so, and at that time unwilling to state some of the reasons for them, or take issue with the matter, and that I had in fact already agreed to limit myself to editing from one account, and had not and have not in any way attempted to evade that restriction, nor to misuse any of my accounts either before that time or since. ~ Kalki·· 19:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (very conditionally) : I am quite willing to develop and largely adopt such rules, within the next month or so, but would much prefer to make some important distinctions which are not evident in this document as it exists in its current state, despite having been gradually evolving or decaying in various stages, for many years, on a far more populated site, since its inception in 14 February 2004‎, where it provided little more than a definition and the statement:
Some folks believe sock puppets suck.
Others believe that they are useful, when used for good.
I believe there are issues to be raised more explicitly now. There are ALSO significant FACTS related to my own past use of multiple accounts and the reactions of others to them that I wish to be honestly and fairly addressed, and measures taken to rectify the current situation where I believe quite improperly and unjustly, the accounts I was gradually identifying as my own were suddenly defaced with VERY misleading statements which imply that these were merely Sockpuppets and that I had clearly been guilty of improper behavior with them, which I have always asserted was NEVER the case, and certainly never my intentions.
Though I actually seem to be entering another week or so where I am likely to be more busy than I had thought elsewhere, within the next week or two I would actually like to begin to present upon my own user pages an accounting of some of the more significant reasons I created such accounts in the first place — and why I generally object to the pre-emptive suppression of such anonymity as they can afford, and why I object slightly to some of the wording in the current Wikipedia document, though not its general intent. I expect to be very busy on this matter and others in coming week or two, but to all, I send Blessings ~ Kalki·· 18:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
This proposition is not ex post facto; it has nothing to do with your previous accounts, other than your own assertion that Wikiquote has had no policy barring the use of multiple accounts. BD2412 T 19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
One of the things I would like to address is that the defacement of my multiple account pages as "Sock puppets" was undertaken not merely ex post facto but without clear community consensus to label them such, largely by one very hostile and very presumptive admin, who on the same page he links to only a portion of, was being declared by others to have acted improperly and in such ways as were clearly against policies. If we are going to adopt a policy regarding multiple accounts, I would like the long-standing injustice of that addressed as well, so that these accounts can be labelled in less presumptive and what I believe to be quite dishonest ways. ~ Kalki·· 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Our adoption of a forward-looking policy should not be contingent on addressing past events not occurring under that policy. BD2412 T 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with that, but while discussions are occurring on such matters, I believe it would be proper to take assessments of past incidents, and such facts and opinions as I intend to present, in settling upon any new policies, and the adoption should not be rushed, merely for the convenience of some who might wish to rush such matters, and forego discussions or debates in such ways as I believe would be detrimental in many ways. ~ Kalki·· 21:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adopting Wikipedia's policy as it stands could be problematic because it makes reference to entities and procedures for which Wikiquote does not have any local counterpart, e.g. Arbitration Committee and checkuser.

    Our current policy simply says "It is recommended that users not edit under multiple usernames, unless they have a very good reason." Something more definitive than this would be a good idea, and the Wikipedia policy could be a good starting point. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have imported the Wikipedia page to Wikiquote:Sock puppetry and tagged it as an essay for now. We can whittle it down and otherwise adjust it to our local needs. BD2412 T 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that — as I indicated, I am willing to support a slightly revised version of this eventually — but I would expect it to take at least a couple of weeks to establish a viable agreement. ~ Kalki·· 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of that, I have no doubt. BD2412 T 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WelcomeBot edit

This bot has been beating me with a stick as soon as I looked over this bot's contribution list. WelcomeBot's last edit was in 2008. Now, it has been six years (correct me if I am wrong) since this bot has contributed. On other wikis, the bureaucrats would revoke the bot's right due to inactivity. See User Rights Log. --~~Goldenburg111 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since File:VoltairinedeCleyre.jpg exists - and is a completely different image - I renamed this. I've also done a restoration. However, a number of the usages here are on protected pages, so can someone replace the usage at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 17 with either: File:Voltairine de Cleyre (Age 35) - Original.png (unrestored version) or File:Voltairine de Cleyre (Age 35).jpg (restored version)? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page probably should not have been protected. This is cascading protection from the page Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Index/Display, which was created in an abortive attempt to reorganize QotD pages. As the reorganization appears to have been abandoned and its index does not appear to be used anywhere, I wonder if the page creator, Cirt, would be amenable to deleting it and the associated Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Index/Links. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never understood precisely what Cirt was trying to do with these back then, in 2009, but they were entirely his effort, without much regard or consideration of the long standing and enduring QOTD selection, processing and archiving procedures, and all those index pages currently in a format that improperly generalizes them with titles such as "Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 1" were moved into these titles then, and I believe simply should be moved back to the standard Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 1, 2009 title format for them. I don't understand exactly what is causing the protection problems at this point, having ignored the issue for some time, as one of relatively little significance, but agree the protections should be removed, and the pages restored to their original more standard titles. I just happen to be checking in now, don't have much time, and must be leaving again soon. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 17:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I've unprotected both those pages. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use audio/video clips edit


Forgive my naive curiosity, but I wonder why Wikiquote pages never propose audio or video clips for famous quotes in movies, songs or speeches for instance. Since audio clips can be used as "fair use" on Wikipedia (see for instance on "We Are the World"), is there anything that prevents Wikiquote contributors to put, say, short audio clips of "I Have A Dream"'s finest quotes? or even a video clip of Gone with the Wind's "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."?

Wouldn't that be "fair use"? wouldn't that be any useful to Wikiquote pages? I mean, lots of quotes from speeches or movies would benefit a lot from a presentation with their voice intonation, or visual context, no?

Thanks for any views on the subject! - Cos (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such media clips can be linked to within pages, if they are available at the commons under an acceptable license, but, of course, simply "fair use" materials are not. Years ago, to avoid duplications, excess, and complicated burdens on a limited staff of regular admins, it was decided at the English Wikiquote to use only media available at the commons. Though it might sometimes be frustrating, I still believe that is probably a good thing, over all, as there are often contentions on even using images available at the commons, as some of the above sections can indicate. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the English Wikiquote is not opposed to fair use in itself (since, as I understood it on Wikiquote:Copyrights, it is under that very fair use that quotations are put here), but chose to avoid the complexity to manage fair use media files. That answers my primary question, thanks!
Now, theoretically speaking, would it be feasible? Would it be legal to use excerpts of copyrighted audio or video content, just to display them as quotations from a published work? And if yes, would it be any different if Wikiquote was a for-profit project?
I'm trying to get a better view of how media excerpts can legally be viewed as "quotations"... (for instance, is there a difference between selling a dictionary of (text) quotations, which seems feasible, and selling a compendium of media quotations?)
Cos (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with all the technical details of how and why fair use has been defined or limited in various ways, in various contexts, and I am sure that this is a very complex legal matter, to which I make no pretense of having definite or authoritative answers. Good luck in seeking help on this one. ~ Kalki·· 20:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is giving legal advice. I actually think we could use audio/video clips that are in the public domain, but as to copyrighted material, "fair use" for educational purposes is usually something like (no more than) 5 seconds of a five minute video. (On some pages there are links to Youtube clips, that's much safer, and may work as a solution – though even there caution is required, linking to "illegal" material is of course not permissible.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to get legal advice (or any authoritative answer at all), I know w:Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer and the like quite well, sorry if that's the impression I gave you. I was simply curious about understanding how this (using media clips under "fair use") applies to Wikiquote, or in general, and I thought that maybe there were contributors here who would have previously dealt with the issue. And that curiosity was only triggered by the fact that, as a reader of Wikiquote, I thought audio/video clips on the pages would have been great, and then I wondered, "wait, maybe it's not possible?".  
Thank you anyway for your answers. - Cos (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six pictures for Quote of the day ?!? edit

Does the Quote of the day really need to have six (6) pictures in it?!?

-- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course quite possible to indicate much of how snide and hypocritical a person can be in only 15 words or even fewer, but complexity and intricate sincerity of thought often demands much more than that, and in defense of liberties and generally healthy good humor, I am usually quite prone to provide what I can, when I can, in the hopes that some who are plainly ignorant, confused and intolerant towards the actual or potential capacities of others might eventually become knowledgeable and wise enough to develop a genuine and profound love for the principles of Liberty, rather than merely the sounding of such words as can indicate it among those who are not prone to be insincere and hypocritical. I also hope that those who are often intimidated or merely irritated by the intolerant can learn to laugh at them, even if it must be sardonic laughter, rather than being angry at them, and sometimes thus even slipping into their ranks, and becoming unjustly intolerant of those so ignorant and confused as to be unjustly intolerant, rather than simply and properly and justly intolerant of unjust intolerance itself.
Actually the quote of the day for today has 611 pictures known as "letters" and "punctuation marks" within it. These are arranged in sequences representing 120 vocalizations commonly known as "words" which form phrases and statements of thought. Unfortunately many of these are often used by some people with very little actually sincerity, or any profound understanding of principles or concepts, such as those who might regularly use words of praise for Freedom of speech, while often doing so much as they can to effectively constrain and control such speech or indications of ideas as others can make, in extremely intolerant absolutist ways, which are often dependent upon mechanistic, legalistic formulas which are often touted as "sensible" or even "necessary" by the unimaginative, to the unimaginative, for the unimaginative. It is often a very easy thing to get the unimaginative to agree that the imaginative should be constrained and controlled by those most eager to constrain and control them. Some might go so far as to stress that MANY of these symbols are actually "redundant" and repetitive — there are only 26 letters, and once of each of these should be enough to indicate all that these images should be construed to indicate — and combing them in various ways lead to such "distractions" as people call "ideas", which are nearly always a threat to powers and prestige of the most vacuous.
Using my own admittedly limited imaginative capacities to discern that you were probably attempting to criticize the fact that 6 complex images generally referred to as pictures frame the 611-symbol quote of the day, I will address the rhetorical inquiry regarding their necessity. Of course, thought itself is perhaps not actually "necessary" thing among many human beings, as many people often make abundantly clear by their regular impulses towards impositions of relatively thoughtless constraints and condemnation of others abilities to indicate or express many forms of thought and thoughtfulness.
In this particular case, six images were selected to indicate some aspects of the ideas indicated through the QOTD words, or provide images of the person who is being quoted. It certainly could have used more to illustrate its expansive call to praise of humanistic appreciation of life and all that human beings can experience or observe, and a rejection of those primarily dark, ignorant and confused impulses towards denigrative and destructive and even suicidal or murderous attitudes and actions which many of the most ignorant and confused of people often favor or promote.

Do you have doubts about life? Are you unsure if it is really worth the trouble? Look at the sky: that is for you. Look at each person's face as you pass them on the street: those faces are for you. And the street itself, and the ground under the street, and the ball of fire underneath the ground: all these things are for you. They are as much for you as they are for other people. Remember this when you wake up in the morning and think you have nothing. Stand up and face the east. Now praise the sky and praise the light within each person under the sky. It's okay to be unsure. But praise, praise, praise.

~ Miranda July ~


With an emphasis on the worthiness of Life itself, especially to the extent it promotes Liberty and Justice in all vitally important human endeavors, and to further testify of the usefulness of thought, imagination, and images in the use of words and quotes, I will quote a few more extremely worthy statements of worthy principles by worthy minds.
To quote the current Wikipedia and Wikiquote introduction: Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body.
Wikis were admirably devised to MINIMIZE the presence of the overly constrained and controlling impulses of groups and individuals most prone to rely upon static and dull understandings and misunderstandings of rules and regulations, and to permit those with most extensive and expansive ideas to have much more opportunity for indicating them and developing them without needless hindrance. Wikis of many types persist in doing so, despite many forms of constraining and corruptive influences, and I trust that they will continue to do so, despite occasional afflictions of short-sightedness, and tendencies towards pre-emptive censorship or limitations on the presentations of ideas.
  • Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. Long ago those who wrote our First Amendment charted a different course. They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free. In the realm of expression they put their faith, for better or for worse, in the enlightened choice of the people, free from the interference of a policeman's intrusive thumb or a judge's heavy hand.
    • Potter Stewart, in his dissenting opinion in Ginzburg et al v. United States (1965)
  • Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
As I know that not all are inclined to persist in their inclinations to defend liberties where it is obvious there are some groups of people prone to cohere in their opposition to them, those few who do cohere for liberty can sometimes render humanity a valuable service, and I hope that in the times to come, what efforts I have made to help people become more aware and appreciative of the principles of Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love of ALL will be of great benefit to many, even if many of the ways I have done so remain obscured and unnoticed by most. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 06:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
I know some indications of the complexities of my own particular thoughts and ideas, and those of others, in promotion of liberty and praise for it and for the presentations of ideas in general can seem "verbose" — but that is one of the burdens of having a relatively complex mind and the will to keep it complexly alert and active. Something which many of the wise throughout the ages have advised, in various ways. I add this little note to provide just a few more refinements of thought and a further quote that addresses one of the tragedies of current times:
In a three-minute stretch between commercials, or in seven hundred words, it is impossible to present unfamiliar thoughts or surprising conclusions with the argument and evidence required to afford them credibility. Regurgitation of welcome pieties faces no such problem.
~ Noam Chomsky ~
So it goes… and so much as they ever can … may Blessings abound. ~ Kalki·· 07:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like this QOTD layout. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which? There are two examples of illustrated quotations above (Miranda July and Thomas Jefferson). I prefer the second layout for use on the main page because it doesn't make the QotD box 7–8 times larger (depending on window size) than the QotD itself and push everything else "below the fold". ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the QOTD (Miranda July), not the Jefferson quote. [I don't think Kalki posted the latter with the intent of it being a QOTD layout proposal.] There have certainly been some QOTDs that I found too extravagant, or with too many mystical (large) pictures, but in this QOTD the pictures seem comparatively well chosen and pleasant. However, more generally, I agree that the QOTD should preferably have fewer & smaller pictures (otherwise, it gives readers the wrong impression, this wiki is not really about the pictures), and occupy less space, so that for example the suggested articles in the main page could gain more immediate visibility. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. But the person who runs this site thinks otherwise, and also equates "criticism of layout decisions" with "censorship." There is nothing anyone can do about it, except avoid the main page entirely. That's easy enough to do with Google, and I would recommend it as a way around the egregious front page. TreeRol (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It does not" seems a rather incoherent statement, along with others less obviously so. No one "runs" this site, and despite the regular efforts of a few people to absolutely constrain and control what others can do, in ways that defy and betray the very principles of promoting extremely diverse and minimally regulated contributions with which most wikis were founded, it remains, on the whole, only incidentally and probably not permanently corrupted by such efforts. And despite the often infantile reactions of people in responding to criticism, I certainly do NOT stupidly assert that criticism of layout decisions amounts to "censorship" — I assert that calls for extreme constraint or ELIMINATION of layout decisions by those most involved in the actual work and consideration of options, by a few people who seem most interested in constraining or eliminating MANY options IS censorship. Such constraints as would de facto constrain others to the sensibilities or desires of a relatively small group of people who seem very inclined to be critical and intolerant of others ideas, and often quite extremely intolerant and punitive towards criticisms of themselves and their ideas. And indeed if such people find the layouts which others have acclaimed so intolerable, they are more than welcome to do as they will and avoid looking at them at all, and avoid considering any ideas or presentations save those they find most comfortable and consoling to their precious little minds and forms of mindfulness. ~ Kalki·· 21:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
I realized afterwards that your lead statement "It does not" probably refers to the leading question presented by the creator of this section, which pretty much ignores all the extensive material added afterward. If one can overlook that much text and imagery as if it were not existent, and mattered not at all, congratulations of a sort: I have little doubt that you will be able to succeed in keeping your mind "pure and undefiled" by any "alien" ideas such as I or others might introduce. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I wonder whether you'll be able to post such pictures again in discussions once Flow is enacted.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki, it is possible to read what you write and still disagree with you. I did not ignore "all the extensive material added afterward," nor did I "overlook that much text and imagery as if it were not existent." I read it, which should have been obvious by the fact that I referenced it. I just disagree with you. The QotD does not need 6 images. Your arguments are not persuasive - particularly the one comparing letters to pictures. The fact that you believe your making an argument means that argument is correct is one of the problems here. I am not promoting censorship of ideas. I don't believe the unimaginative are trying to constrain or control anyone. I believe 6 images makes the QotD section too busy, and distracts from the purpose of this site, which is to provide quotes. That's my opinion. But I'm aware that no amount of argument against what you want will change your actions, or your opinion of those who disagree with you as closed-minded troglodytes. TreeRol (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it might be simplest to get rid of the quotation altogether, and simply post "Mystical pictures of the day"? At present, the quotation tends to get lost amidst all the galactic objects, lights in the forest, rainbows, shadows extending into the distance, hands reaching for the sky, etc., etc. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fear Kalki's method might actually have the opposite effect of what he is trying to accomplish. In the first place, I am not sure whether these large pictures do a good job in attracting more people's attention to the quote, or if on the contrary people get bored with always seeing the same pattern and flashy colors—which could lead them to not read the quotes of the day, and start avoiding the main page. Now, to be fair, Kalki often tries to choose appropriate, and different, pictures for QOTD. But Macspaunday's parody of Kalki's preference for mystical imagery might actually point to a poverty of thought that is much contrary to Kalki's sincere intention of introducing people to new thoughts and ideas. At least speaking for myself, when I read a quote for the first time, I prefer to be free to imagine (and produce my own imagery of) what the quote represents, to me, on my own. Kalki might wish to present his interpretation of the quote to others, but this (unintentionally?) interferes and breaks in advance my own interpretation. It's like being forced to watch a movie adaptation (good or bad) before reading a book. I don't know how that's compatibly with the principles of Freedom Kalki defends. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of what attracts people. Taking a quick look at our "rival" sites, apparently goodreads doesn't have nor use subjective pictures at all, and they seem to attract more people than Wikiquote (the same is true for brainyquote, which in fact doesn't present any pictures). Of course these sites are not good in many aspects (e.g., sourcing of quotes), but perhaps goodreads' policy to only present a small picture of the author next to the quote is something we could adopt. I'm almost sure that if they started adding large colorful shining pictures next to quotes, their viewership would decline. Perhaps giving a more professional look to our main page would help attract (and keep) more visitors. I recently made two simple suggestions for the QOTD, here and here, don't know if they would be better. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. Obviously the QOTD alone is not even remotely responsible for overall less viewership, Wikiquote has many other—much more serious—problems, in content, navigation, etc. (and I repeat that I think Kalki has done more for the betterment of WQ than any other editor, my comments here are not meant to blame him, just offer constructive criticism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I appreciate Kalki's desire to make an artistic presentation, but would advise him to consider the artistry of Minimalism. Hmmm, now I see that we have no page on Minimalism. BD2412 T 22:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(We do now.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom has offered some excellent and indisputable wisdom here. He's absolutely right that Goodreads et al. go wrong in ways that WQ goes right: WQ has sourced quotations, warnings about false and doubtful attributions, etc. - and WQ gets hundreds of things right that Goodreads et al. conspicuously get wrong. But Goodreads et al. look vastly more authoritative than WQ because they don't illustrate hundreds of different quotations with Hoag's Object, heart-shaped stones held in the hand, etc., etc. They look authoritative in ways that WQ, sadly, does not. - Macspaunday (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do those websites attract more traffic than WQ? This is a topic that needs research, but I believe the main reason is that they present the best quotes right at the top of their pages. goodreads, for example, has a voting system whereby the most liked quotes appear at the top. This is much different from WQ, where the readers often have to read through a sea of quotes just to find an occasional gem. (And this is particularly true in long theme pages, such as "Love".) The only way we can solve this in our current system is, believe it or not, through the use of pictures, to highlight the best quotes. (I suspect many of our readers only read through long pages by simply looking at picture captions.) So, at least to my mind, pictures can actually be the solution, not the problem. However, to be sure, I also share concerns about pictures in excess, irrelevant to the text, or too subjective that they apply and appear everywhere. In addition, although I might for example worship every single word Shakespeare wrote, placing a picture for every one of his quotes would not attract more people's attention to them, it might very well just do the opposite. This seems to be what is happening in articles that are flooded with walls of pictures. So pictures can become the problem when they are too many, and so go counter to their function of highlighting key quotes. I think this is something everyone can recognize. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the consideration of typographic glyphs as images, leaving aside the question of whether Kalki speaks for the "silent majority" (or is, in some sense, a multitude incarnate), leaving aside the small mindedness of mere mortals overwhelmed by the grandeur of Kalki's idealism; Kalki actually does offer a reason to support using a multiplicity of images. To wit:  to have much more opportunity for indicating extensive and expansive ideas.

Chomsky's quoted remark about the limitations of short-form exposition is certainly correct: some ideas require a longer form for their successful exposition. Toward that end, using the very rough approximation that a picture is worth a thousand words, one might seek an opportunity to indicate extensive and expansive ideas with an essay of six thousand words. However, bearing in mind that the art of quotation is generally characterized by brevity, it would be incongruous to seek such opportunities in the pages of Wikiquote.

Kalki's defense of the photomontage as a form of expression begs the question of whether the exposition of extensive and expansive ideas belongs on the main page. I think that it does not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of thinking about Ningauble's point is this: Imagine that the quotation of the day is typically surrounded by six quotations from the Bible or Shakespeare - and that many of them had also been used to surround completely different quotations on previous days. That would certainly be a long-form exposition, but would it be appropriate to the front page, and would it show respect to the authors of the quotations? I'd imagine that many of the authors would think they were being less than respectfully represented by a page that surrounds a sentence or two that they wrote with thousands of words from the Bible or Shakespeare. I'd imagine they would think the same way about seeing their quotations surrounded by pictures of clouds, rainbows, galactic spirals, prisms, sculpted hearts, nineteenth-century genre paintings, etc. - Macspaunday (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amidst many activities with concerns elsewhere, I have now examined the above comments, and will probably do so again, before posting some responses to some recent statements and actions. I am considering many options of what sorts of rebuttals to make, as I again leave for elsewhere, for there are plainly many complexities to consider in the assertions and attitudes of those who seek to impose what they perceive as admirable "simplicity" on the options of others in quite complicated ways, for quite complicated and varied reasons. ~ Kalki·· 22:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother? From your attitude in that very comment we can be pretty confident what your response will be. We cannot discuss what the community deems appropriate on this site as long as it might have some impact on you having your way. It's not very complicated at all. You will do what you want, and any discussion to the contrary is us (no matter how great a majority we are) trying to "impose" something on you. The discussion will go nowhere as long as you continue to ignore that somebody's opinions aside from yours might have merit. TreeRol (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am always willing to acknowledge merit, where it can be found, and to actually bother about a lot of things others do not, where vitally important forms of truth are at stake; and you are actually right to some very limited extent, though demonstrably wrong in others, for you can rely upon my responses being quite contrary to those which promote various forms of suppression of various forms of intelligent exposition by various forms of arrogant misuse of force.
Ironies and profound forms of stupidity about them certainly abound in this world, in ways I will actually decline to always specify, out of consideration of the plainly delicate and fragile sensibilities of some, and the need to discreetly retain some forms of knowledge to be revealed in more effective ways than those of presently declaring them openly to some of the most plainly ignorant, intolerant and insensitive people presently active here. I will actually specify that many of the most belligerently intolerant and oppressive of people are often desperate to find ways to convince others of the certainty of their numerical or absolute moral superiority, and genuinely believe such things themselves. I am certainly NOT quite so full of shallow and stupid certitude about many things as you certainly are trying to make me seem, in ways I will concede I perceive to be quite shallow and obvious.
I must say that for someone who had as yet only started a topic of derision of my work, and had made only 3 edits, all specifically in derision of me, who has contributed over 100,000, armed with all the authority of "collective identity" with a few others of the most intolerant here which those 3 edits provided you, declared in rather comically imperious tones of command as a member of "the collective", of those most avid to control OTHERS: "You must realize that if your actions are guided by what you do and do not believe proper, then you are constraining what we (the collective we) can DO and SAY in terms of this project. You are imposing your will on others."
I am not actually intimidated very much at all by such remarkably clear examples of the presumptive arrogance of the most intolerant and eagerly oppressive of people; I actually expect many of them to eventually provide prominent and long remembered examples to many students and researches of psychological and sociological processes, of significant aberrations in the social processes, towards subtle and overt forms of anti-social oppression and suppression of dissent.
Actually from the moment I first read those words, I honestly perceived you might be engaged in one of the most remarkably arrogant, petty and presumptuous forms of pretension and deceitfulness or delusions which I had yet encountered on this wiki, and I actually strongly suspect that you could very likely be one of the sporadic trolls who primarily aim to disrupt the normal processes of wikis and their development. Of course I am quite willing to concede that I could be entirely wrong, and you are not actually such a paltry twerp, and even without much actual evidence in support of such an assessment, could conceivably even be a generally mild and benevolent researcher in various social sciences, including those of how people respond in positive and negative ways to various forms of generally positive and intelligent presentations of various ideas or indications of the beauty of the world, and in this case you are assuming the guise of an intolerant belligerent twerp or troll to provide an example for all eternity of how easily swayed to paths of oppressive stupidity some people can be, much like those in the psychology experiments of Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram, and Philip Zimbardo. IF that were the actually the case here I would actually have to assert that I consider it an extremely unethical and misguided practice and strongly disagree with the adoption of such vile guises by anyone, even in pretenses, for ostensibly worthy psychological research and investigations, and forms of direct action in social involvement.
Though not quite as pessimistic as he sometimes was, I have long agreed to a great extent with many of the observations of the intelligent Heroically Angelic Humanist Absurdist, Kurt Vonnegut including that in Mother Night: We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.
As I have remained busier than I had anticipated I would be in various complex concerns, and it actually looks like I will continue to be for a while yet, I am willing to patiently consider many options and aspects of many situations, before I respond more vigorously here, to what I believe to be many rather ironically stupid developments in the audacity of those who would suppress and censor the indication of thoughts and ideas.
As I have to get busy doing other things now, I will simply close with a profound quote by one of many profound philosophers who I have long admired:
Every morning
I shall concern myself anew about the boundary
Between the love-deed-Yes and the power-deed-No
And pressing forward honor reality.

We cannot avoid
Using power,
Cannot escape the compulsion
To afflict the world,
So let us, cautious in diction
And mighty in contradiction,
Love powerfully.

~ Martin Buber ~
Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Name-calling and cries of censorship, while hiding behind some kind of absolute moral authority. Who could have seen that coming?
I'll admit that my attempt to improve the wiki in this particular way has been lost, although I'd encourage others to continue the battle. And especially, if you are reading this and agree, I would encourage you to register and to speak up. Even if your contribution will be dismissed (publicly, anyway - privately I have received kudos), if you desire the improvement of this project you should contribute in any way you see necessary, including this one. TreeRol (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are plainly mistaken if you think I am "hiding behind some kind of absolute moral authority." I am a rather anarchistic Absurdist and though I might accept that in some ways there could be such absolutes, I reject notions that any mortal mind has the capacity or comprehension to absolutely determine or formulate such with absolutely reliable accuracy. To each their own pieces of the puzzles... So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 22:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Language Selector will be enabled by default again on this wiki by 21 February 2014 edit

On January 21 2014 the MediaWiki extension Universal Language Selector (ULS) was disabled on this wiki. A new preference was added for logged-in users to turn on ULS. This was done to prevent slow loading of pages due to ULS webfonts, a behaviour that had been observed by the Wikimedia Technical Operations team on some wikis.

We are now ready to enable ULS again. The temporary preference to enable ULS will be removed. A new checkbox has been added to the Language Panel to enable/disable font delivery. This will be unchecked by default for this wiki, but can be selected at any time by the users to enable webfonts. This is an interim solution while we improve the feature of webfonts delivery.

You can read the announcement and the development plan for more information. Apologies for writing this message only in English. Thank you. Runa

No apology is needed. Visitors here are not required to master the subtle art of translating from English to Quotish. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to the Terms of Use edit

Einstein was a Humanist? edit

I've tried to edit this but another editor has reverted it, so I'd appreciate some more opinions. IMHO it's thoroughly misleading to describe Einstein as a Humanist: a) he never self-identified as a Humanist; b) in Einstein's day the Humanist movement did not exist in the form that it does today (i.e. that of a 'secular religion'), so the term applied to Einstein is meaningless; c) his stated beliefs are not in accord with those of Humanism. HPotato (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG. Omnipresent Mystical Fair Goodness ever abides, even amidst all the petty, pretentious and delusive perspectives and outright lies that are often presented AS IF they were fact, or supreme facts, when to anyone with sufficient knowledge and reason they clearly are NOT. It is entirely accurate to state Einstein was a Humanist, as the contentions on that talk page by various editors make abundantly clear. I myself have been acutely aware of much of his involvement in endeavors of Humanism since I was just a toddler, and probably become aware of his support of the Ethical Culture Society when I was 5 or 6 years old, and this was part of one of the founding alliances of the wider International Humanist and Ethical Union. And as another editor pointed out: "Einstein served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York. His name appears in Wikipedia's List of humanists." ~ Kalki·· 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
The problem is that words change meanings. Einstein was undoubtedly a humanist in the classical meaning of the word. However, nowadays it is virtually synonymous with atheist, which Einstein was not. It could be argues, therefore, that to call him a humanist is misleading.--Abramsky (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word still, in this day, also very much means what it used to mean. What is potentially confusing is that some atheists are also humanists and some humanists are also atheists. What is misleading is the polemics of certain oppositional groups, such as an insistence in the New Atheism that a "good" humanist must be anti-theist, and the insistence of right-wing political factions that all humanists are Godless heathens.

"Humanist" and "atheist" are not synonyms: many atheists are not humanists, and many humanists are not atheists. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that point. I had written several paragraphs yesterday elaborating on that and related points, but decided to take time to reflect and temper my observations before posting anything here. As it stands I have decided to drop all but the first paragraph, and might bring up other things elsewhere on my own talk pages in coming weeks. Here is part of the first paragraph of what I stated on seeing this yesterday:
Of course words change meanings, with time, in human society — as a person familiar with history I recognize that. As a person familiar with many aspects of the sciences and disciplines of psychology and semiotics I also recognize they ALWAYS have various nuances and shades of meanings that can and MUST differ between human individuals, ALL of the time. KNOWING this I consider it extremely inconsiderate and profoundly wrongful to seek to constrain definitions of words to such uses as are PLAINLY and profoundly WRONG, easily misleading, and needlessly confusing upon vastly different ranges of issues. I believe that such IS the case in ACCEPTING "Humanism" as a near-synonym for "Atheism" as I assert many ignorant, confused, asinine, arrogant and rationally and ethically incompetent theists AND atheists are prone to do, in order to promote many aspects of their own particular ranges of agenda.
And with that I get back to work on the adding of material to the project, before having to leave again soon. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 17:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

Call for project ideas: funding is available for community experiments edit


I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

Do you have an idea for a project that could improve your community? Individual Engagement Grants from the Wikimedia Foundation help support individuals and small teams to organize experiments for 6 months. You can get funding to try out your idea for online community organizing, outreach, tool-building, or research to help make Wikiquote better. In March, we’re looking for new project proposals.

Examples of past Individual Engagement Grant projects:

Proposals are due by 31 March 2014. There are a number of ways to get involved!

Hope to have your participation,

--Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 19:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Holly Wikiquotes. edit

The Photo you have on that page is not Buddy Holly but a Holly impersonator. —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

I have lowered the prominence of the disputed image, which I agree is dubious, and added some that are clearly of Buddy Holly to the page. I might add a few more later. ~ Kalki·· 09:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) + tweak[reply]

Language links (interwiki) via Wikidata are coming edit

I have requested Bot permissions at Wikiquote:Bots. Thanks! --~~Goldenburg111 01:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with the game-cleanup template? edit

Not sure what the heck is going on, but the page for Grim Fandango lists a whole bunch of… buses? I think?

Anyway, I traced the problem back to the game-cleanup template, but that page isn't editable so I'm not really sure what to do. – Guido del Confuso, 07:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just checked and it's fixed now, so never mind, I guess. Unless someone saw this and fixed it, in which case, thanks! — Guido del Confuso (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simple case of vandalism, which has been reverted. I have protected the underlying "highly visible template". ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked IP addresses edit

Hi, this proposal is meant to facilitate discussion as part of an ongoing cross-wiki trend of various discussions and discussion boards I've noticed recently opened concerning the issue of indefinitely blocked IP addresses. Specifically the purpose of RFC is twofold, namely:

  1. The unblocking of currently indefinitely blocked IP addresses at Special:BlockList.
  2. Amending Wikiquote:Blocking policy#Anonymous and open proxies to discourage future indefinite blocks, with proposed language changes like adding "Administrators are strongly discouraged/prohibited/advised against indefinitely blocking IP addresses".

As I have explained elsewhere on other wikis, my reasons for doing so are thus:

  1. IP addresses should generally never be indefinitely blocked as they can change hands pretty quickly.
  2. In the event that any single IP address does need an indefinite block, such as for open proxies, the Meta Stewards have already implemented a near-indefinite global block for it.

Please add your comments to the discussion below. Thanks! TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree that, because IP address assignments tend to be volatile, they ought not be indefinitely blocked except in special cases such as open proxies or very long term abuse. Some of our administrators do occasionally indef-block an address, and other administrators occasionally, but very infrequently, go back and expire them. It has been a couple years since anyone scrubbed the list of indef-blocked IPs and, as it happens, I recently put it on my to-do list to review them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote popularity edit

Is there any way to rank the quotes by popularity, and/or how "well-known" they are? Or at least to sort them into buckets from "very popular" to "very unpopular"? I haven't been able to find it by searching around, but perhaps some method could be programmed.

How do you measure popularity and how "well-known" they are?--Abramsky (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed optional changes to Terms of Use amendment edit

Hello all, in response to some community comments in the discussion on the amendment to the Terms of Use on undisclosed paid editing, we have prepared two optional changes. Please read about these optional changes on Meta wiki and share your comments. If you can (and this is a non english project), please translate this announcement. Thanks! Slaporte (WMF) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting sources edit

What's standard procedure on the layout for sourcing quotations on Wikiquote? Currently, Wikiquote:Manual of Style, Wikiquote:Sourcing and Wikiquote:Citing sources (still a mess unadapted to Wikiquote since import) doesn't seem to provide a lot of guidance to current practices here. I'm bringing this up because I noticed when I provided the source for a number on quotations on Bob Keeshan, Geezerbill had already introduced the quote he got from my response (diff) using Wikipedia's <ref>...</ref> and <references/> markup, which was later removed by Kalki (diff). And basically I was afraid of accidentally stepping into what seemed to be a small dispute over formatting refs, so I reverted myself when I noticed the previous change to the <ref>...</ref> layout. I know Kalki's been here longer than I or Geezerbill have been, but I'd like to know the community's opinion on this. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much for your inquiry. It has made me realize how very much many of our help pages still need simplifying and updating, and despite the tediousness of that and my aversion to prescriptive assertions, I might actually start focusing on that problem within the next month. As to citation styles, though we have come to tolerate many that people have carried over from other types of citation, including those found in footnote and endnote stylings, we avoid using footnote citations in favor of interlinear citation. Personally, I avoid using templates and do not recommend them, and since the wiki began in 2003 the favored styles have been something along these lines, but with minor adaptations and extensions permitted:
On Author pages, or pages for an author's works:
  • Quote text.
    • Name of Work (YYYY) or (Month YYYY) or (DD Month YYYY), Ch. 1 : Chapter title, p. xx
And on theme pages or in sections where various authors are cited:
  • Quote text.
    • First & Last Name, in Name of Work (YYYY), Ch. 1 : Chapter title, p. xx
If there are internet links used, I personally prefer to place them so that the entire title becomes a link, for both aesthetic and practical reasons, as it makes the link cleaner and clearer, but that is not any kind of mandate.
I am sure there are other things that can be specified, or advised, but that provides a summary of some of the practices and norms which were established early on, and have endured here, despite an increasing importation of other cite styles. ~ Kalki·· 09:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

(edit conflict) @TeleComNasSprVen: The standard procedure is what you can find on pretty much all Wikiquote pages: we use interlinear, not footnote, citations. This is because WQ considers sources to be an important (and integral) part of quotations. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks @Kalki and @DanielTom: I have a consideration for you though, if you will. Wiktionary uses a similar style of quotation to demonstrate that particular use of a word reflects a particular definition; see wikt:go#Verb for example, which has "quotations" dropdowns (JavaScript hack from their Common.js) that you can click on to see the full list. Do you mind if I use that as examples of sourcing? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There probably could be some use for such a format option here in some regards, but I would not recommend it for standard citations, which I believe should remain visible as interlinear citations. ~ Kalki·· 12:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • TeleComNasSprVen is correct about the guidelines not describing the layout conventions that have evolved here over time. Since the earliest days of the project, these were largely ignored in favor of a "learn by example" approach (and even "discover by experiment"). E.g., the use of interlinear citations is exemplified at Wikiquote:Guide to layout and Wikiquote:Templates, but the practice is not stated or explained anywhere except in discussions. It is also rather tricky to give general guidance that avoids unnecessarily arbitrary specifics, as many details of presentation are subject to considerable variation. (E.g., in contrast to Kalki's preferences, I usually link just the title rather than the whole citation, and for serial publications I do not usually parenthesize the date that identifies the issue unless volume and issue numbers are also given. Neither approach is wrong.)

    I am not exactly volunteering to rewrite the guidelines, but I have long felt that greater clarity would be a good thing for orienting newcomers, and that it would be better if the generic {{cleanup}} templates could link to specific conventions that need to be addressed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TeleComNasSprVen: You could try using that "dropdown" format here for sources, on one or two pages, as an experiment. I don't think it is one we should adopt, though, because, other than implying that sources are secondary, it would also prevent people from simply saving or copying the article with citations to a Word document, without first having to click on every single box to show the sources. (I guess the same problem would apply to those who'd want to print it.) And having those little boxes in front of every quote could also prove distracting (precisely the thing you want to avoid). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I like a little bit of standardization, and templates go quite some ways toward that, so I threw together a template that might be worth trying out at testwiki:Template:Quotation-author. I'm also considering moving it to Wikiquote but I'm afraid it might be deleted for lack of consensus. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some levels and types of standardization are quite acceptable but templates often become ways to automatically impose some which prevent exceptions and useful variations, thus I generally tend to avoid them when I can. I am not sure there are any desirable advantages to having that template here, and I perceive there might be problems with the overuse of such. ~ Kalki·· 09:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but in that case we could try stipulating on the template documentation page itself that the template is not the only way to source our quotations. What if instead of making a template "official", everyone had a way of having their quotation-sourcing style attributed to them? For example, {{User:TeleComNasSprVen/Template:Quotation-author|quote=quote|title=title...}} would be attributed to me (in the source code) and uses my style, while {{User:Kalki/Template:Quotation-author|quote=quote|title=title...}} is attributed to you and uses your style. For one-off exceptions we could always subst/delete the original transclusion and replace it with a custom-made sourcing style, and it would be relatively easy to change all existing tranclusions by modifying the master template. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielTom: Well no, I don't mean exactly in the way they use it, but in terms of the source code and JavaScript/wikitext implementation involved I was thinking of something similar to the template I created above. Try it on a few pages on the testwiki (since they're mostly garbage anyway) and see if you like it.—This unsigned comment is by TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) .
I fear that would be even more confusing to new editors. I think sources should be simply written in plain text, so that in the future they can be easily altered, and corrected, by different people. We already have a few templates (see, e.g., Category:Citation templates), but I personally avoid them altogether; it's much easier for me to just write down whatever information I have of the source, without having to follow strict parameters. That's just me, though, maybe other editors see it differently. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I know you object to the use of templates in general, but as a matter of personal style preferences would you, or anyone else in this thread, object to me moving the template from testwiki over here? As I said, since it seems you disapprove of templates in general, instead of moving it to template-space and make it an "official" widely used Wikiquote template, I could relocate it to my userspace to mark it "This is my personal style and others are likely to use their own", at least in the source code. You can implement your own styles using plain wikitext or whatever, but my opinion is in favor of a template, as you can probably guess. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone would object to you moving this new template to your own userspace. (You can even move it to WQ's template space, as far as I'm concerned.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On general principles I don't think it is a good idea for articles to transclude things from userspace. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he could use "subst:"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: More community involvement in Quote of the Day process edit


  1. I would like to propose we the community discuss having more involvement, as a community, in the Quote of the Day process for both (1) Selecting quotes and (2) Layout of quotes and images, on the Main Page.
  2. Selection of quotes: It appears that at present quotes are voted on at individual date pages, example March 20, and then selected by one user since 2003, that is Kalki (talk · contributions).
  3. Layout of quotes and images on Main Page: It appears that at present, Layout of quotes and images in the Quote of the day section of the Main Page is determined by one user since 2003, that is Kalki (talk · contributions).

(Side note: BD2412 helpfully pointed out that I am genuinely doing my best to conduct myself with a professional conduct during this debate. I would ask others to do the same, thank you.)

Some of my general ideas:

  1. Selection of quotes: As long as this takes into consideration opinions of the Wikiquote community at large, and the present system seems to do that, this seems okay. Not idea, but alright. Perhaps instead of one user we the community could elect a Committee of three (3) users for the final selection of the quotes, so that an odd number could help resolve disputes if and when they arise.
  2. Layout of Quote of the day section: This is where I have differing opinions with the current layout formatting. I truly believe there is: (1) Too many images used, but particularly too many images used that are not directly related to the quote itself. I feel for the most part images should be of the subject of the quote, the individual himself/herself that first stated the quote. (2) I feel that there is generally too much wikilinking-of-words-within-the-quote, and that this detracts from the reading of the quote, itself.

What do others think? Would it be best to move this discussion to a subpage for further debate by the community?

I'd like to move to establish a community process for determining Layout of Quotes for the Quote of the day section of the Main Page, that better takes into account input of the community, instead of one individual.

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial thoughts: I feel that having a more robust process for selecting the QoD is an admirable goal, but being realistic I feel that we may have problems with participation. I for one used to participate in the voting process, but found that I was often unable to find the time to do so and still manage all the other tasks I wished to do here to improve other areas. I sincerely doubt I would have the time to participate on a daily basis. I think that the legacy of having Kalki perform much of the work simply grew out of the lack of available others to help with the large effort required to keep producing them. That being said, I do not have a problem with trying something new - I just fear that (as with many other discussions or ideas) we really do not have enough active editors that might participate. I don't want to discourage new ideas, but that's my initial thought.
As to some of your other points, I do agree that there are times when there seem to be too many images and that these tend to overshadow the quote. But I also believe that this is the exception and not the rule. I believe that in some of the recent discussion, a loose rule of approximately four images was generally deemed acceptable - and is something I would also support. I also agree that the selected images should be related to the quote, but I am not so disposed to pose strict limits such that only the author of the quote is pictured. Although on occasion I have disagreed with selected images (and if this happens, I would rather address that on a case by case basis - maybe we should require the proposed layout to be posted at least a week in advance so others can comment? - Just thinking out loud) I have not often found the images selected to be all that bad - the Image use policy does allow for more latitude than just the author. Finally, I do not have a problem with the wikilinking - in fact I consider this to be a positive aspect since it leads readers to explore other pages on the site (and has been common practice on all WQ pages for as long as I can remember). ~ UDScott (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you, I respect your opinions. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with UDScott's analysis. I view QOTD as ephemeral, and am just not particularly interested in being involved in that process. I have suggested a quote or two over the years, but working on it day in and day out seems like a grind, and I'm glad someone else is willing to take up the task at all. That said, I certainly don't think it would harm the process for more editors to be involved in suggesting quotes to be used or evaluating suggestions that have been made. As for layout, I generally agree that we should have fewer images (one on each side should be enough), and I like UDScott's suggestion of having the layout presented in advance for community review. As for wikilinking, I also think that this is a good thing for our project, and would actually like to see a lot more of it, not just in QOTD, but in our articles generally. While we are not an advertising click farm that profits by getting people to view more pages, we do want the reader to have the best possible sense of the breadth of our project, and the greatest ease in jumping to other pages that might be of interest. BD2412 T 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So moving forward, we have three editors so far that support the suggestion of having the layout presented in advance for community review, and having the community more involved in the layout process. -- Cirt (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The layout usually is present for review a day or two in advance, and I will endeavor to have some ideas presented even earlier in the future, as they often have been. I had to laugh out loud a bit here, because in rather typical fashion, you choose to ignore what praise or recognition my past presentations have generally had for over 10 years of nearly daily efforts here and ONLY emphasize what you wish to emphasize, which you reiterate in ways which, to the casual scanner of the comments, could make it seem previous responses were primarily critical of them, and present them in such ways as seem designed to develop more means to actively constrain or counter my involvement in various ways. I will note that over the years I believe that I have received far more praise for my efforts from casual visitors to the site and regular editors than disrespectful criticism, though some of the few people most prone to that have gradually accumulated into a small but relatively effective pack in their efforts to constrain the options available not only to me, but to everyone, and they have done this, thus far with relatively little notice or opposition from people more inclined to appreciate and include imagery in their presentations.
Despite occasional procrastination or tardiness, I have usually had presentations ready at least a couple days in advance, and yet I am certainly against any authorization that these simply be butchered by specious arguments or assertions by those not interested in doing much layout work themselves. Though there are certainly further complications which could arise, opening up the processes more is not something I certainly am NOT adamantly against, but IF things are going to become more formally complicated and there is to be some final contestation for final layout I say it should be without any pre-determined constraints, beyond the legally necessary ones such as have always been recognized. IF there are alternate layouts to be proposed, by anyone, they should probably be presented on the talk pages of the related date, and if it seems there is a need for a vote between any alternatives we should let the most popular layout, within actual legal limits, become the chosen one, without PRIOR constraints and conditions of WHAT and HOW or WHY it can be presented. I know this might seem a somewhat frightening proposition to those who most seek to actively constrain the options available to others, and of course greater participation might not be what some people are actually after, and they merely seek to subtly or overtly diminish the options of others to devise layouts and present them — but I believe that opening up even more layout options is far more fair and likely to produce actually GOOD results, and more participation, IF that is truly what people are in any way after, than simply allowing more ways a few people, noticeably hostile or critical to my work in the past, to simply butcher it down on a nearly daily basis, as a means of further personal harassment of an avid worker. THAT of course is something I believe any person of genuine integrity MUST oppose as a betrayal of the principles with which wiki projects were founded, and also of the more general ethical principles of Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UDScott's comments 100%. I would just add, that Kalki is very receptive to QOTD suggestions; for example, today's QOTD (that you can currently see on the main page) was actually suggested by me. Although more participation would be welcome, the reality is that very few people participate in the voting process, or suggest quotes. This is unlikely to change. Kalki's work in this area is actually very much commendable, and how he has consistently found the time and energy to keep up with the QOTDs for so long, is simply incredible. Although I enjoyed reading through some pages where quotes are suggested, and voting in them, I must say most of them are filled with unmemorable (bad) quotes, and even selecting the "best" of them is a challenge. I believe the fault here is that quotes are being suggested for the days of birth of authors, so there are some days, that don't have a single good quote. If I had any criticism of Kalki's selections, it would be that he sometimes doesn't choose the very best quotes, simply because they are too short. (I think he prefers longer ones because they give him more liberty in the selection of pictures.) I disagree with BD's comment: the QOTD is not "ephemeral", the main page is by far Wikiquote's most viewed page. It is how WQ presents itself to newcomers. For this reason, other than the avoidance of New Age imagery, I would really like to see sources being presented along the quotes in the main page, which would be a more proper representation of WQ. This could be easily implemented, if Kalki could see, that presenting sources is not aesthetically displeasing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually often choose longer quotes because they often are more extensive in their expressions of ideas and thoughts than some of the briefer ones that are available. I certainly have no aversion to short quotes, and there are many good short ones which I have chosen and have long been among my favorites — but many of the more notable short ones available have already been used. I have often stated that I generally dislike the idea of having the citations in the layouts, because though simple reference to the titles of works are used if they have a separate page, all of the technical info is available on the author's or the work's page, which are linked to, and this can often be aesthetically detrimental or cumbersome in an otherwise appealing layout. ~ Kalki·· 00:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
I just want to add that I mean ephemeral in the sense of the QOTD being fleeting - there one day, replaced the next. I prefer to work on permanent installations. I'm not saying that QOTD is unimportant, merely that it is impermanent, and I prefer to direct my energies towards the permanent. I would also like to suggest that, in order to preserve resources and have a contingency available in case there is a dispute, there's no reason that we can't reuse some old quotes and layouts for QOTD. We've been doing this for many years now, and I think that we can grab a handful of the best examples that were used, say, five or six years ago, and have them as a standby. No visitor is likely to remember our quotes from that long ago. BD2412 T 01:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sad fact is that no matter how much you want to try and revive a process, you can't force volunteers from a volunteer-driven website to work on an area that they have no knowledge nor interest in. I think community participation in the QotD process has always been open, the problem merely is the community has no interest in said participation. A related problem is investment of our limited time and proper allocation of volunteer resources. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a few of BD2412's remarks, I would point out, that aside from a very few cases of accidental repetition, and one case I recall where the layout chosen and displayed was late in the day replaced with a layout from the year before in an act of censorship of ideas by another editor, there has been no deliberate repetition of layouts, though with limited imagery of some authors, a few used with new quotes probably are similar to those used in the past with others. The archives of QOTD by month provide a record of the past layouts, since November 2007, and some other pages list the selections prior to those. ~ Kalki·· 02:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
I am aware that there has been virtually no repetition, and commend the work that has produced original work to this point. However, we have the option of doing some recycling. BD2412 T 02:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers: the main page is viewed by over 10,000 people every day. I don't think we need to repeat quotes, but the fixation with authors' birth-dates rather than with presenting the very best, most brilliant, quotes we have, sometimes (in some days) leaves much to be desired. I don't know how Kalki feels about this. We could also try to be more flexible, and change the QOTD when someone notable passes away, as a tribute, or when a speech receives great attention, (e.g. Ellen Page's,) though there could be some objections to this (test of time, etc). ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the guideline of preferring relationships to the date has been useful in preventing or minimizing floods of repetition of similar suggestions or sources over extensive periods of days. It has never been treated as an absolute rule, and where significant authors have no known birth or death dates, there is often a strong case for these. I have sometimes thought of having some days of the weeks or month designated as giving a greater weight to ancient authors, but never came up with what I perceived to be an entirely workable scheme for such. Until 2009, when my long-standing and never-misused admin status was removed, and last minute alterations were no longer reliably possible, I often changed QOTDs at the last moment, to something appropriate to the circumstances of prominent person's deaths. This option is one I believe I have not exercised since that time, even when the pages were not yet locked, believing I lacked any "authority" or authorization to improvise beyond the suggestions ranked highly on the suggestion pages. ~ Kalki·· 11:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the level of participation is a callenge for this process. Note how few people participate in ranking quotes on a regular basis. I recall at least one occasion when Kalki made a plea for more participation, which produced a modest increase for only a brief time.

In my own experience, when I did try to participate on a regular basis it became rather tedious after a while, particularly since there were often a large number of candidates to review and since, as DanielTom notes, a lot of then were not very good. There is a tendency for mediocre and poor suggestions to accumulate and remain after the better ones have been used and removed from the list.

I approve of Kalki's idea for posting layouts farther in advance so they can be reviewed and discussed. A day ir two is not really enough time unless one makes a habit of reviewing them every single day. One week might be more convenient. This small step would make the process open to to broader participation for those occasions when people do want to participate. A more structured system might be considered if and when actual participation reaches a level that could benefit from organization. Making it an open process is the most important step. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki keeps Wikiquote fresh and updated with the daily quotes provided by him. Everyone can find faults, but is there anyone willing to put into as huge effort as he does? --Spannerjam (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted franchise quotes edit

Hello, I'm brand new here, so please forgive me for asking this if I'm missing something really obvious, but how do we handle copyrighted franchise quotes (i.e. Pokedex entries or trading card flavor text)? I'm not seeing any here, so I'd like to add them, but since they're copyrighted, I'm not sure. Supernerd11 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are they actually quoted by anyone? Are they attested in a source other than the card itself, or the manufacturer's website? This sounds pretty close to advertising slogans, for which we have imposed a requirement of third-party quoting, to avoid promotional exploitation here. BD2412 T 03:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if I can find a third-party source besides quote collections, then they're okay? Is there a way to add said sources? I'm not seeing any on the pages I've seen so far. Supernerd11 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could go by the format in advertising slogans, or see English proverbs (alphabetically by proverb), since we have a similar reporting requirement for proverbs. BD2412 T 12:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks! Supernerd11 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been made at Wikipeda, at w:Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, to change the title of the article, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton". I presume that if that move succeeds, we would likewise move our Hillary Rodham Clinton page to Hillary Clinton. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the default site typography coming soon edit

This week, the typography on Wikimedia sites will be updated for all readers and editors who use the default "Vector" skin. This change will involve new serif fonts for some headings, small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements. The schedule is:

  • April 1st: non-Wikipedia projects will see this change live
  • April 3rd: Wikipedias will see this change live

This change is very similar to the "Typography Update" Beta Feature that has been available on Wikimedia projects since November 2013. After several rounds of testing and with feedback from the community, this Beta Feature will be disabled and successful aspects enabled in the default site appearance. Users who are logged in may still choose to use another skin, or alter their personal CSS, if they prefer a different appearance. Local common CSS styles will also apply as normal, for issues with local styles and scripts that impact all users.

For more information:

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team

The more open font in the body text will take a little getting used to, but it could be worse. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:09, April Fools 2014 (UTC)
+1. (My initial thought was: "Let's hope this is an April Fool's joke!", but it's not that bad.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find the text in "diff" pages much more legible. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see the pretty minimal and mostly positive reaction to it here, compared to the bloody mosh pit on Wikipedia that seems to have finally quieted down. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak. edit

I am feeling a bit burned out. I'll be back in a week or so. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For fast acting relief, try slowing down. (Enjoy your break.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism edit

As a relatively new user looking at Special:ListGroupRights I've just noticed that only administrators and bots automatically have their edits patrolled, which means that there is no way to filter out edits by experienced users from RC. Why don't you give autopatrolled/patroller rights to non-admin users (by creating a user group)?    FDMS  4    09:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, RC does not have a filter for autopatrolled users. NP does, but the number of new pages per day in this wiki is quite small compared to Wikipedia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has in Wikidata and Commons … do you have patroller rights?    FDMS  4    17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin you probably do. The URL on Wikiquote should be, if you are autoconfirmed on Wikidata you can find it here.    FDMS  4    18:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ningauble: I may agree to rollback implemented here to easily revert the high level of vandalism we get. I see no problem in this. --Goldenburg111 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that also (some) non-admin users should be able to rollback. As Wikiquote is a rather small wiki I'd recommend choosing the de.WP variant (editor group includes rollback, reviewing, ...) instead of the en.WP or COM variant (rollbacker, reviewer/patroller and many other groups only giving one additional right each) and creating a user group called trusted user or similarly (although I'm personally probably not "trusted" yet).    FDMS  4    00:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favour the Wikibooks model, where if someone is a good user for long enough they get various rights including rollback automatically.--Abramsky (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links via Wikidata are here! edit

(Sorry for writing in English. I hope someone can translate this for me where needed.)

Hi everyone,

As previously announced we have just enabled the first part of Wikidata support. This means from now on you can maintain your interwiki links on Wikidata and no longer need to keep them in the wikitext locally. The local links will continue to work and overwrite what is coming from Wikidata. A community member is currently running a bot to take care of the migration where possible so you don't have to do it by hand in most cases.

You can not yet access the other data on Wikidata like the date of birth of a person. This will come in the near future. I will let you know when I have a date for it.

If you have any questions please come to d:Wikidata:Wikiquote. There we have a bunch of helpful people to answer them.

Welcome to the Wikidata family! I'm excited about this first step. More to come. I am looking forward to seeing how this will help you make Wikiquote even better in the future.

Cheers Lydia via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using Templates edit

Can someone tell me if it is possible to use a Template that resides on another project, specifically Wikipedia? So far, I have not been able to figure out how one would do this. I believe I could accomplish the desired result by cloning the Wikipedia Template page and adding it to Wikiquote; however, I thought this sort of duplication of effort/multiple copies of the same information was what functions like Template pages were created to avoid? CononOfSamos (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. Everything is local here, which means that templates from Wikipedia that call many levels of other templates there may not work here at all. BD2412 T 20:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BD2412 for your prompt reply to this question. The Template that I was interested in does indeed seem to call other Templates in a way that I haven't fully figured out just yet ; thus, simply cloning one page would appear not to be a way to accomplish what I wanted to do. I'm going to put this idea on hold for now. CononOfSamos (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a bot to move unsourced sections to the talk page? edit

If our internal search is to be trusted, there are over 1,000 mainspace pages with "Unsourced" sections. It would be easiest to have a bot move all of these to their respective talk pages, provided that the bot knows to leave {{misattributed}} tags and other non-quote material at the end. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a start I moved about 200 of the (I guess) 800 sections, and I noticed there are a significant number of exceptions... especially in the last 100 to 200 articles. -- Mdd (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions meaning stuff in the section that should not be moved? Or quotes that are actually sourced? BD2412 T 23:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment there still seems to be about 800 articles (see here) with a section Unsourced (so your initial assessment was right). What I mean for example is that from these articles the last 50 to maybe 100 are articles with just an unsourced section. Removing that section, will leave the article empty. -- Mdd (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty awful, actually. BD2412 T 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After working through the last 250 to 300 articles, I can confirm that over 100 articles exist with just unsourced quotes. I guess sooner or later they will all become Prod. -- Mdd (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can tag them with {{unsourced}} for the time being. It's probably best not to {{prod}} too many at once, so people can have a chance to review and fix them if they are salvageable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken it one step at a time, here. As to your suggestion, I noticed most of those articles (over 200) are already tagged as unsourced. -- 14:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, pretty awful, but it is actually much improved. We have been chipping away at them, sometimes industriously and sometimes gradually, since unsourced sections were deprecated about five years ago. On a brighter note, almost all of the sections labeled "Attributed" that didn't actually cite any attributions have already been resolved – there were several hundred of them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done After the last batch tonight almost all unproblematic unsourced sections have been moved to the talk page. This were about 750 of the 1000 articles. -- Mdd (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remarkable work! BD2412 T 23:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, unfortunately this problem is reduced, yet far from solved. It is just another (hidden) cleanup problem. -- Mdd (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page with citations of a not notable person edit

Need to be able to delete a login account edit


For several months I have been contributing to wikiquotes, but I now wish to dissociate myself from the project. (I am being bullied by Mdd.) I have zeroed out my watchlist and zeroed out my talk page, but I wish to remove my "account" altogether. I cannot find a way to do this. Could anyone either point me in the right direction or else add this needed capability to the underlying code?

Thanks, Dan Styer

Hi Dan, you can read more about deleting a login account at Right to vanish/en. If you want the communities feedback on Talk:Aldo Leopold, just say so. I already expressed there, that "I think you are doing a great job improving the content of the article. It is just lay out, we don't agree on..." I had started altering the layout of that article, and other pages you significantly improved, for example the John Muir article. If you have a problem with that, just say so. If you (still) think you have been treated unfair, you can file a complain at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard, and this will be further handled by other administrators. -- Mdd (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)/10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: Note that the text on Right to vanish/en says you can't delete accounts, but they can be renamed to some meaningless name, and user page can be deleted, etc. (so the user sort of "vanishes"). -- Mdd (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, I hope that you will reconsider your wish to disassociate, because despite some contentions against some of the formatting conventions here, you have added significant material to the science articles, and there is definitely a need for more quotes within those and within pages for many other of the ranges of human interests.
Most of your contributions of quotes have been very welcome ones, by me, and I believe by Mdd and others. Though I can perceive you seem frustrated by some lack of flexibility in your favor, I truly do not perceive that any of Mdd's admonitions or acts of which I am aware actually constitute any form of deliberate harassment. I myself am not one for needlessly rigorous impositions of any norms, but agree with Mdd that the norms he was attempting to restore are indeed well established ones here, and sometimes ones which were developed after long consideration of many alternatives.
Though you seem to disagree on author's pages having the generally sourced quotes with only a few from some particular work arranged above those of sections for works with more extensive quotes, this usually permits a broader variety of good and famous quotes near the top of the page, even though some of the most famous quotes or works might often appear far lower on the pages. Having some of the more significant or famous quotes bolded and in captions with images usually helps to alleviate that problem, and helps the interested to find them.
I truly do hope you decide to stick around, and perhaps add much more material in the months and years to come, but whatever you decide, I wish you well, and close this note with thanks and Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]