Wikiquote:Village pump archive 56


Adding interviews by journalists and including context from the journalist alongside direct quotes from the interview subjects. edit

I was recently told in an edit summary by Peter1c for the age for Economic inequality that Wikiquote should not include paraphrasing??? Case in point:

  • "While most Americans think of the US as being a country of great economic mobility and opportunity, its economic mobility rate is now one of the worst in the developed world." he wrote. He explained that there is essentially two Americas, for the top 40% and bottom 60%. The former is faring significantly better, and those at the highest level of wealth are as far removed from everyone else as they ever have been...

(Part of this entry is a quote and part is a paraphrase. The paraphrase part does not meet WQ:Q)
I disagree, I believe that this quote, additional explanation and all, does meet WQ:Q, even if it's "smoother"/"less clunky" to quote without the additional context. Any thoughts? I would appreciate being given the official stance on this from an active administrator or two if possible. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review edit

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc. ) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

  1. Jeffq (administrator)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, --علاء (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@علاء: You may wish to update the English version of this template to say "no edits and no logged actions". GMGtalk 22:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A local policy on activity seems most appropriate. I can't speak for others, but two years is an extremely long time. A 1 year policy would make more sense and often (personal experience) has brought me back to activity as a friendly poke that if I don't contribute, I will lose my rights. Looking around, I think this friendly poke is needed for a few admins. @GreenMeansGo: Thoughts? ~riley (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well they just noticed us earlier last year, which caused quite a purge. I wouldn't be opposed to a local standard. GMGtalk 11:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to WQ:IMAGE guidance? edit


I have seen a lot of articles where there have been a dozen or more images all stacked in the lead. Compare the image placement for the current article for France. Ten images, all stacked together in the lead. Now, pull out your phone and view the mobile version of the article for France. On mobile version, you have to scroll through all ten of these images before you get to the text in the first section. And 10 is actually a pretty low count. The article for Freedom currently has 63 images stacked in the lead, meaning the page is rendered basically entirely unusable for mobile viewers.

We've got to stop doing this. The same page for Freedom, that is entirely unnavigable for mobile users, get a sustained 66 average daily view from mobile users. GMGtalk 16:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem that has arisen lately regarding the placement of images at the top of pages is that some users are placing select images at the top that appear to push a POV. Having this elevated placement on the page emphasizes these quotes over others. As a solution to this, for those pages where there has been discussion and argument about this, images have been placed in the alphabetic sections based on the author of the quote (thereby moving them further down the page based entirely on the alphabet and not on anyone's sense of what should be emphasized). This may not solve every problem, since some pages do not have these alphabetic sections, but it would also help with the issue you identified. I would invite further discussion to determine the best approach, but I agree that the problem you have raised is troubling. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was kindof hoping we could get a good consensus on the issue, and maybe I could beg someone to make a bot to disperse images throughout an article. This probably spans most of the non-stub pages on the project if I was guessing. GMGtalk 16:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have long noted both of the above problems on various pages, and certainly not had time to sufficiently address the issues where I had noted them, but will attempt to begin work on both problems in the weeks and months ahead. I am not sure a "dispersal" bot would be easy to construct or apply, but I will henceforth spend more of my own time further re-establishing what was once an extensive norm of 1 lead image and significant and clearly relevant quote as caption in the short intro section, or sometimes 2 where the intro area is extensive. After those 1 or 2 images in the intro area it is definitely preferable that all further images be placed in the sequences and sections in which the quotes used for their captions occur on the page, and believe this should become policy, but one not likely to be immediately clear to all new editors, as there are numerous pages where such procedures as were once norms have now long been abandoned. I am not extensively familiar with the display behaviors using mobile formatting on devices (usually switching to desktop mode on the relatively rare occasions I check in on mobile), but I believe that groupings of these beneath the section headings are not so much as problem as grouping them at the very head of the article before even the intro quite obviously is. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalki: To be clear, the article for Freedom looks like this on mobile, and continues on like that for 63 images before the reader can get to the text. The problem is really the grouping of too many images in any one place anywhere, but grouping them at the top of the article in particular is especially problematic. Many readers may not even realize there is text at all. GMGtalk 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is obviously an extreme problem, and I encourage other editors to set to remedying it with moving of all but one or two of images below the intro sections ASAP, and preferably into the proper sections and sequences on the pages, though I know that this can sometimes be tedious where sequential order was not maintained in the placement of images. I will probably begin attending to some of these pages myself in the coming days, and probably for some weeks ahead. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reorganized the images on the Freedom page to be closer to the norms evident even on that page only months ago. That is all I have time for right now — must be leaving, but expect to be back within a few hours. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the previous state of the article, @Peter1c: when adding images to pages, please don't stack them at the top for the above reasons. Truth be told, there's probably a lot of people doing it, but the last thing we should want to do is make the issue worse and harder to clean up. GMGtalk 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo:, yes I have been adding images at the top of page above the first section heading. I didn't know about the issue of how this affected mobile view. Sorry about this. I understand concerns about mobile view and issues of neutral point of view. I will adjust my methods accordingly. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on Wikiquote. Best regards, Peter1c (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore edit


Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

step by step edit

I'm a new member here, could you tell me step by step guide for a beginner like me?

--PutriAmalia1991 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PutriAmalia1991:Wikiquote:Welcome, newcomers is a useful guide. See if this can help. If this doesn't, please leave a note on my talk page (in the following signature). Josephine W. Talk12:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project edit


The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open call for Project Grants edit


Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until Feburary 20 to fund both experimental and proven projects such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

quotes edit

UDScott welcomed me and thank you for that also iam asking if theres any webpages that have sourced quotes on? PoolsHaza181 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PoolsHaza181. To my knowledge, most of the popular private quote websites don't include sources at all, and may or may not be reliable in their content. For our purposes, we can and do pull quotes from lots of things, including interviews, books, and newspapers. But one of the main differences between Wikiquote and a lot of other sites is that we do require sources. This makes things a little more difficult sometimes, but ideally it makes us a higher quality source for our readers. GMGtalk 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing this discussion: is brainyquote reliable on quotes for sources? Thanks. (Josephine W. Talk08:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Why aren't anchors a thing here? edit

I don't edit here, but I do like to link to Wikiquote on internal project discussions. Why aren't anchors regularly deployed on English WikiQuote? If I want to link to my favorite quote, I'm basically stuck linking to the whole page or nothing at all. Can someone please ping an explanation to me? MJL (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See #Anchors. IKhitron (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. Now I'm even more convinced that this is a problem. There could simply be a policy page that says people shouldn't replace manually placed anchors without a good reason. MJL (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert James Masters new article on The Art of the Chase book, a Literary Work edit

I tried to upload 13 MS Word pages containing original quotes from my book, the Art of the Chase

I was not linking to any website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert James Masters (talkcontribs) 06:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robert James Masters: May you accurately describe your problem? You can copy these pages, not upload them. Also, Hi. I wanted to ask you to sign comments in talk pages. The easiest way to sign is to add ~~~~ at the end -- it is automatically transformed to your IP address with a timestamp or, if you register, to a username and a timestamp. This makes it much easier to track discussions, and is the common practice here. Thanks. Josephine W. Talk06:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert James Masters attempted to post a large excerpt (48000+ bytes) from his "book", but it was prevented by the abuse filter (both local and global filters). Why? In short: Wikiquote is not for publishing or promoting your book.

A 19 page PDF was uploaded from Microsoft® Word at Wikimedia Commons, where it has been flagged by OgreBot for review. I do not know whether it will ultimately be accepted or rejected at Commons, but this does not belong at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories sorting templates edit

Hello, I was just wondering if we could insert a template tool searching the usages of a certain template (i.e. a quick tool on the template page which could insert that template onto any one page, or adding the form that will automatically put the page into a certain category for every template). May admins fix this problem? I asked before but there was no fix to this problem. Josephine W. Talk06:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what you are trying to do or what is actually broken. Can you clarify with a more concrete example? Is this related to the HotCat gadget? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that like Babel and Speedy Deletion Templates, templates can automatically mark pages that have the template into a category. Josephine W. Talk00:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you mean mw:INCLUDEONLY. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that as such, there are categories sorting templates? Josephine W. Talk03:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then may I ask how exactly to sort every page including template x into a category? Josephine W. Talk10:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional interface for edit conflicts on talk pages edit

Sorry, for writing this text in English. If you could help to translate it, it would be appreciated.

You might know the new interface for edit conflicts (currently a beta feature). Now, Wikimedia Germany is designing an additional interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. This interface is shown to you when you write on a discussion page and another person writes a discussion post in the same line and saves it before you do. With this additional editing conflict interface you can adjust the order of the comments and edit your comment. We are inviting everyone to have a look at the planned feature. Let us know what you think on our central feedback page! -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) 14:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vector.js Sub-Userpages edit

Are there vector.js sub-userpages since there are monobook.js sub-userpages? (Josephine W. Talk04:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

* Thank you! Sorry for my inactivity recently. (Josephine W. Talk23:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - misquotes edit

Hello, I'm a OTRS volunteer, and I'm processing a ticket about misquotes attributed to Lewis F. Powell. The writer says that the ways of General Maxwell Taylor and Lewis F. Powell hadn't, to their knowledge, crossed. They also mention that the first quote doesn't sound like Powell at all. Could you please review those quotes? I've informed the writer about this discussion, so they can watch it. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is OTRS? By "first quote," do you mean this one: Lewis_F._Powell,_Jr.#1970s? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for confusing you. OTRS is the system used to process contact addresses like You can read more at w:WP:OTRS.
I mean the quotes mentioning General Taylor, so I know of no other nation in history that deliberately fought a major war with no intention or effort to use its full available... and It was abundantly clear from his letters that, virtually to the end, he remained deeply interested in national and world events. Yet he never ceased to engage in self-deprecating. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the text for the cited source is not available at Google books. However, one bookseller site describes the source as having a forward from Justice Powell. That suggests their paths did not cross but, instead, ran parallel for a substantial time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes were questioned because "the ways of General Maxwell Taylor and Lewis F. Powell hadn't, to their knowledge, crossed." We've confirmed that the source given by the original editor (a) exists, (b) is by General Maxwell, and (c) Powell wrote the introduction. That would seem to resolve the concerns that called the quotes into question. I vote for restoring the quotes. (To be fair, my post above could have been clearer. What I meant to say is that the available information suggests that Taylor and Powell were not acquaintances (whose paths merely crossed) but friends (whose paths ran parallel).) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a minor edit. The source cited is a book by General Maxwell Taylor's own son who states (on p. xvi) that Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. was a close friend of his father's, having corresponded with him over the years. I restored the quotations. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, DanielTom, where did you find the text to check? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpts from the book are available on Google Books. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting guidance edit


I am new to wikiquote. In Pakistan there is annual women's right movement march (en:w:Aurat March) held on International women's day 8 March, getting substantial media attention.

Many quotes from social media hashstags are also being covered by Pakistan main stream media. One of such hashtag is "Why I March" under which reasons of March are quoted. Some of that discussion can be covered in Wikipedia but some notable statements made on social media covered by mainstream media as notable can not be covered in wikipedia and likely to be suitable to wikiquote.

Please do guide me know what is better as per wikiquote rules & practice

'Aurat March' and 'Why I March for Aurat March' can be separate articles ? Ought to be clubbed together in single article with separate sections? Or Ought to clubbed without separate alphabet only sections ?

Please let me know Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted a few sentences from "What Modern Warfare Looks Like When Experimented Upon Helpless People", a 1936 speech by Malaku E. Bayen, on English Wikisource. It's out of scope over there; would it belong here? The only source I can find for it is this 2006 online newsletter. Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common here to have 3 languages other than english pages but.. edit

Is it common at wikiquote to have 3 languages other than english pages but no english language page? Example: Stephen Chbosky. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive link in a Walt Disney article edit

While investigating a quotation for a book I'm copyediting, I clicked on a link that said I could find the full text of a book on Walt Disney. Clicking it brought me to a porn site. I don't know how to edit, but I wanted to ask someone in the knowledge community to fix it. It's the "Walt Disney" entry. Within the article, there's a heading "Deeds Rather Than Words (1963)." The line immediately below the heading ends with a link, supposedly providing full online text for the aforementioned book. That's the offending link. Yuck. Thanks

 Y Done. Removed hijacked link. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limits on quotes from news articles? edit


I am trying to create a page for Bangalore Nagarathnamma, with quotes from this article from a news website -

Is there a similar limit on news articles as books, novels or written works? I was unable to find a specific limit for news articles -

The Quotes are directly from her, made before the 1920s.

Is it appropriate to add some or all of them into Wikiquote?

--Wallacegromit1 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools edit

19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, after reaching 260 threads on the requested entries page, my browser crashed when I went to edit the page. This extreme length, combined with entries going back over 14 years, was counterproductive.

I have done some preliminary improvements including:

  • Archiving completed requests, removing spam and self-promotion, and removing non-notable authors.
  • Creating a user-friendly main page with 10 main "categories" (based on the common request types) to choose from
  • Creating subpages with a header and "add entry" button
  • Moving the 250~ requests into their applicable subpage

To be done still :

  • Add instructions to the top of each subpage
  • Add a pre-load template to the button and help header for what information is specifically requested
  • Format previous requests so they aren't a complete mess
  • Do a final review to see which are non-notable and which are already completed.
  • Set up a system for marking requests as complete and auto-archiving.

Please let me know your thoughts on this and if there is anything I can further do to improve the page/process. If you would like to help, please let me know. ~riley (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding out who the editor was edit

I saw an interesting quote on Patricia Churchland, and was wondering who was the editor who added it, so that I can thank them. Unfortunately this wiki has no access to wikiblame which is software that is available on enwiki which allows any user to annonymously reseach who contributed a certain piece of content to a wiki-page.

Is there any tool on wikiquote that can be used for this purpose? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My new project – Stubs! edit

I'm making a focus on creating more (and maintaining the existing) stub templates. There are currently 60 stub templates as of posting this. My goal is to make that 600. If you have nothing to do, check the page out, and maybe even contribute your own stub templates from the list of needed templates :D

Visit the page here, these contain guidelines on creating your own stub templates, and a list of already created stub templates. I look forward on helping Wikiquote! dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 09:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you bringing some structure to this but can you explain a little more about why you think we should have an order of magnitude more stub types... That seems excessive for such a small project. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I first got into this by discovering there aren't even any stubs for chefs and other professions, and discovering that many of these don't even make sense grammar-wise. I'm also considering nationalities for these (also, Template:Asbox is unprotected...) If I see something stub-template-wise, I'll try and fix it. maybe scale it down to 350.. dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 22:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories edit

User ‎Akhiljaxxn has reverted my edits of singer-songwriters, like Bruce Springsteen. If anyone, Bruce is a singer-songwriter, I think. That editor also claims that Michael Jackson, Adele and Lana Del Rey aren't singer-songwriters. So what's the definition? There's confusion in subcategories, too: Musicians from the United States is the main category, guitarists from the United States a subcategory. Do we need both in the same article? - Academics from the United States has over 800 persons - should there be more subcategories (only economists at the moment)?--Vilho-Veli (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user is confused with the singer-songwriter and a singer who also a songwriter. The category singer-songwriter is not the same or equivalent to category singer or category songwriter. Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material, including lyrics and melodies. whereas a songwriter is a musician who professionally composes musical compositions and writes lyrics for songs. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Springsteen write, compose and perform his own musical material? And why don't you change the categories at English Wikipedia also?--Vilho-Veli (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did en-Wikipedia accept your POV?--Vilho-Veli (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Del Rey: guitarists from the United States is a subcategory of Musicians from the United States, so both are not needed. The same is with singer-songwriters from the United States/singers from the United States. Record producers is necessary 'till we have the category Record producers from the United States. Model is mentioned in the text. And so on.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose, and perform their own musical material, including lyrics and melodies" (en-Wikipedia). Bruce Springsteen does exactly that. So please don't waste my time anymore.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"please don't waste my time" is not a phrase that tends to promote a resolution of disputes. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear exactly what you two are fighting over. Akhiljaxxn, would you please provide a link to the Vilho-Veli Bruce Springsteen reversion that you find objectionable? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest comment at en-Wikipedia by 1995hoo: come on, folks, this is a bit ridiculous. The singer-songwriter article even mentions Springsteen by name as an example.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At en.Wikiquote we cannot do anything about some link (not linked) at en-Wikipedia. Is discussion intended to be constructive in any way? ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to find out what's the definition of the singer-songwriter - so that we don't have to discuss it concerning ALL other singer-songwriters.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. I should have said "Vilho-Veli, would you please provide a link to the Akhiljaxxn Bruce Springsteen reversion that you find objectionable?" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is a singer-songwriter at Wikipedia, she/he is that also here.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good statement of your position. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us how that position differs from Akhiljaxxn's position. Is this the link to the edit you gave as an example above? If so, why not solve the problem by using both categories ("singer ..." and "singer-songwriter ..." - and, what the heck, add "songwriter ..." as well)?
Yes, that's it. In my opinion we don't need unnecessary categories. "Singer-songwriter" tells that one's a singer and a songwriter. "Singers from the United States" would have too many people without subcategories. --Vilho-Veli (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are mainly for showing the most essential facts, so you don't have necessarily to read all the text. That's why we don't need the bloody infoboxes. Could somebody tell how to copy images from those. I had to go to the Occitan Wikipedia before I found the image (Ayn Rand) that wasn't in an infobox! Only very few people actually go to search the categories: Singer-songwriters from the United States 3 daily, Singers from the United States and Songwriters from the United States only one.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "In my opinion we don't need unnecessary categories." Putting aside the issue of who gets to decide what is unnecessary and what is needed, what is the harm of having unnecessary and unneeded categories? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The principle: not a main category if there's a subcategory.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is what I think you are saying: When an artist is both a "singer" (maim category) and a "singer-songwriter" (sub-category) then editors should use only the more specific "singer-songwriter" sub-category because otherwise there would be too many listings under the general "singer" category. Do I have that right? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly!--Vilho-Veli (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick search I couldn't find anything on Wikiquote about this issue. However, I did find something at w:Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_tree_organization . As I read that text you are right. You may want to cite this link when making similar changes in the future. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!--Vilho-Veli (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiquotian here - how is it determined which quotes should be put in the article? edit

Thanks in advance, User:Thatoneweirdwikier User talk:Thatoneweirdwikier 20:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneweirdwikier: I think that Wikiquote:Quotability is probably a good reference for quotes, but usually, it's just the best quotes from the person (or about the subject). Make sure to actually reference them though~ dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 09:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pratap Pandit edit

Pratap Pandit (talkcontribsglobal editspage movesblock userblock log) has been edit warring across some articles. I was asked to report it here.

Last month he began by removing quotes he didn't like, claiming they are non-notable, are not "enduring" (even though we are talking about a current event, so "enduring" cannot be measured in any case). However, they were from a very notable journalist, who furthermore is also well known for his stance on this particular lynching. The journalist was also very critical of the police handling of the case and has made himself many enemies due to his reporting. As such, the quote is not just pithy, eloquent, and poignant, but also represents a particular perspective on the lynching.

We are also talking about an ongoing lynching incident. The lynching is highly controversial and political, with developments still ongoing, claims of media bias and police bias, and just now the lawyer of one of the victims in the killings was killed in a car accident.

The rule is to move quotes to the talkpage, not just remove them but Pratap has even deleted ("censored") the same quotes on the talkpage.

As pointed out by Dibbydib already, Pratap also made blatantly false accusations against me (claiming it was I who was removing quotes, when all I did was reverting his edit that simultaneously deleted quotes while adding his quotes in the same edit).

Pratap Pandit (talk · contributions) has been on a campaign to shut down and censor a perspective on this lynching since last month. He did the same at wikipedia with success (?), but was now blocked on wikipedia. He has been the most active editor on wikipedia about this lynching before getting blocked.

Pratap has also been edit-warring with Rupert at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC

Most of the accusations above are useless bickering. Serious comments meriting a response have been replied at the appropriate threads on the talk page of these 2 pages. On the accusations of edit warring on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India, you should understand that you are not supposed to restore Content that is copyright violation. If you think I have mistaken then let another editor judge. By repeatedly re-adding the disputed content that is also blatant copyright violation, you are edit warring and making copyright violations. That is 2 offence at the same time. Regarding Arnab's comment I would like to see that evidence how those comment have achieved fame and deserve to be added to this article. I haven't found any and you have not produced any either. Now instead of establishing on the article talk page first how these comments / rants/ libel by Arnab Goswami against someone qualifies as "has achieved fame", this user has decided to attempt getting the other editor blocked by hook or by crook. I would like to note that Arnab Goswami has been sued in India for his libelous claims. So much for yellow journalism. The issue on Wikipedia is none of your business and I feel there is no need to discuss it here on Wikiquote. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this discussion to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Discussion has been moved to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard--Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

დამოკიდებულება edit

დამოკიდებულება (talkcontribsglobal editspage movesblock userblock log)

First, Can this editor add an English name so that it is easier to communicate, instead of copy pasting every time. Communicating with fellow editors should not be made difficult by adding non english text not supported by English Keyboards.

Second this user has been adding massive amount of non notable content from propaganda sites like MEMRI, that are also copyright violations, on political topics related to India. I have challenged some of his edits and in retaliation, a report has been made here on VP. This users behavior should also be checked in light of these findings. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this discussion to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Butwhatdoiknow, thread has been moved to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Pandit & დამოკიდებულება edit dispute edit

@დამოკიდებულება, Pratap Pandit:

There has recently been an edit dispute between these two contributors recently. I've put the thread from Pratap's talk page here for conveniance.

There are current concerns over first notability, and then copyright infringement at 2020 Palghar mob lynching and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. I currently have my suspicions on Pratap who first removes a few quotes based on "notability" (quotability), then changes it later to "unreliable source" when said source (MEMRI) has been used plenty of other occasions on Wikiquote, plus the fact that MEMRI didn't even publish the quote. The quote was actually first published at New Age Islam and then republished by MEMRI.

This notion of an "unreliable source" was tried by Pratap, and links to this page, of which is of dubious origin, is a wiki, plus almost all the references for the page link to the MEMRI site itself. Also, the last time this page was edited was in 2012, and their logo is sketchy as hell. This is 100% a conspiracy theory website and shouldn't be cited to resolve a dispute.

Then, Pratap Pandit later claimed it also to be a copyright infringement in "Please do not add entire paragraphs from copyrighted websites. These are not quotes.". I don't know what exactly to say of this since it's literally a quote in the website itself, and would have been fine to add in, I might leave this here.

These are sensitive topics and I fear that POV has played a part in this. I advise you two to sort this stuff out. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dibbydib for commenting.
The case at 2020 Palghar mob lynching is very easy:
  1. Arnab is a very notable journalist.
  2. He is known for having been very vocal (and some say, controversial) about the case. So he for sure deserves a quote about this lynching case. His voice is a unique perspective on this lynching.
  3. Furthermore, Arnab's reporting had political and even physical consquences. As widely reported, Arnab and his wife were physically attacked in Mumbai while driving in their car by some leaders of the local youth Congress party.[1]
  4. And last but not least, the quotes are also pithy and eloquent.
All this makes it clear that a quote of Arnab is deserved. One could of course still discuss which quotes of Arnab to include. See also my comments above at Wikiquote:Village_pump#User:Pratap_Pandit.
I don't know if there has been a coverup in this lynching case, as some claim, but what I do know is that the way that facts and quotes have been removed on wikiquote (and wikipedia) has all the signs of a "coverup". --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@დამოკიდებულება: Oh, that changes everything. I've also noticed Pratap was blocked for sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia.
Users Cedix, Pratap Pandit, Bajrang Ram, TedCarl, Apyn, and Mr.Regalis (from enwiki) were proven to be the same user from this sockpuppet investigation. If you see two or more of these accounts contributing, hit up AN.
I also looked through Pratap Pandit's contributions and found that the user was most likely a single-purpose account. All signs point to NOTHERE. Will put on AN if this escalated. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I have violated any rule, you are free to report me. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding MEMRI here is what Media Bias Fact Check says about them. "we rate MEMRI a Questionable source based on promotion of Israeli propaganda, poor sourcing and a few failed fact checks."
Do you still need more evidence that MEMRI is a shitty propaganda site and not a reliable source ? If a shitty propaganda site is all this user can find to support a random comment on the internet then that is a good indication of that random quote not meeting the criteria to be included on Wikiquote. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These issues are already discussed at WQ:AN (After User:Butwhatdoiknow asked to move it to WQ:AN) so I will not participate here. If you read the threads at WQ:AN , it would be clear to you. The only diffs worth looking at in their report are the ones from Wikiquote, and they are all from content disputes being discussed on the respective talk page. After failing to find any evidence of policy violation against me, these members of the "We group" have added diffs of content dispute, hoping to mislead others into thinking that this is some kind of offence to have a content dispute and discuss it on the talk page. In fact User:Dibbydib himself is a big part of the problem here. While the content dispute was ongoing, it was Dibbydib who first escalated this by asking to take "Content dispute" to Village pump. And in his comment above he accusing me of reporting the other editor's behavior. Dibbydib is now turning a blind eye towards all the disruption and harassment against me and is siding with the other harassers in trying to bludgeon me on the AN thread. He seems to be incapable or unwilling to look at things from a neutral perspective. Reading the threads on that page, it would be clear to anyone, that they have no evidence for violation of any policy against me. It seems this group is hoping for sanctions based on "imaginary violations" and content disputes. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done Discussion has been moved to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Do something about these glarish year articles! edit

This is a pet peeve of mine. Almost every article on a year does not have any quotes, and is always replaced with a placeholder.

Since the community "has not come to a consensus" since 2007 ([2]), I propose we actually do something relating to these "year" articles. When quotes are found, add them instead of putting that annoying placeholder and leaving everything.

I propose three formats for these pages, which would go on the year article 2011 if implemented:

  • 1: Quotes about the year (e.g. "...and May 1st, 2011 there's gonna be a terrific earthquake, way greater than anything the earth has ever experienced, and that'll be the beginning of Judgement day..." — Harold Camping on the 2011 end times prediction)
  • 2: Quotes from the year (e.g. "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." — Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’ last words on Oct. 5, 2011)
  • 3: Why not both?

Consensus needed! dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 06:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that quotes from the year would be too numerous to be of any use. I'm good with quotes about the year. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planned maintenance operation (read-only time) on May 19 @ 5:00 A.M. UTC edit

Hi, There's a planned maintenance operation in the upcoming week. It will happen on Tuesday 19th May at 05:00 AM UTC, for 15 minutes. This wiki will go read-only during this operation. During this operation, Wikidata would also be in read-only so services targeting Wikidata may not work during the meantime. See also: phab:T251981. --Kaartic (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Electronic games to Video games? edit

Planned maintenance operation (read-only time) on May 19 @ 5:00 A.M. UTC edit


This is a reminder about the planned maintenance operation that is will happen happen on Tuesday 19th May at 05:00 AM UTC, for 15 minutes.

This wiki will go read-only during this operation. During this operation, Wikidata would also be in read-only so services targeting Wikidata may not work during the meantime.

See also: phab:T251981

--Kaartic (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category pages in one place edit

Is it possible to view all pages for a major category on one page. For example, if I view the Scientists category, I then must pick a subcategory (e.g. Geologists), and then often a sub-subcategory. Rather than this, I would like a list of the pages for all scientists in one place.


Block evasion by Pratap_Pandit edit

Pratap Pandit (talkcontribsglobal editspage movesblock userblock log) was recently blocked on wikiquote during which time he used socks to edit wikiquote. At a time when he was blocked at wikiquote, he edited on wikiquote with socks. A number of similar edits were made on similar topics by similar IPs on wikiquote, for example here: [3][4][5][6][7][8] The edits were of the exact same type and topics (articles) as the editing of some of his other socks. There are many other examples where Pratap edited articles that were edited by me (or Rupert) previously [9]. There was similar block evasion on other wikimedia projects on articles and topics Pratap edited before with similar account names/numbers. I am sure that this is a sock used for block evasion.

Pratap was already criticized for the hounding against me and Rupert, by for example going through dozens of articles edited by me or User:Rupert loup and making spurious claims, for harassing, for hounding, for stalking, and for not being WQ:CIVIL.

Rupert loup already told Pratap many times:

This is hounding, you should stop stalking and making baseless accusations. WQ:CIVIL and WQ:WQT.

--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit edit

Pratap has now added the checkcopyright template to dozens of articles without giving any evidence or proof explaining why they are needed. The only criteria seems to be if the article was edited by me or Rupert. The way this is done is disruptive. An admin has already reverted his edit on the Copyrights page.

The same pattern of Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit is seen in his mass nominations at Articles for deletion. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump is the place to ask "[i]f you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works." Do you have such a question? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Butwhatdoiknow this is in relation to User:Pratap Pandit, who has been blocked as a sock, troll etc on en.wp; although I've got absolutely no idea whatsoever why that's an issue for WQ... ——SerialNumber54129 16:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still not clear what the question is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first report about Pratap, and I was just dropping a note on the continued Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit. It was already noted by others for example that Pratap's account may need a "global lock", that all signs point to WP:NOTHERE that he is engaging in continuous harassment and edit warring and that action should be taken by admins.

I was previously told to report Pratap's harassment and edit-warring at Village Pump (see the earlier reports above), and since most reports are still on this page, I added it here. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not the place to "drop a note." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move the content to AN, but this was reverted by Pratap. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on your talk page. Please Stop Spamming WQ:AN. These threads had already been moved to WQ:AN when User:Butwhatdoiknow asked them to be moved. Those threads already have replies on WQ:AN. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Improper reversion on AN is undone. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-introducing the Navbox? edit

Showing off some cool stuff + RfA advice? edit

So I was tinkering around with userscripts lately and made two cool things:

  1. A link to NewPages in pt-personal
  2. A link to Administrator's Noticeboard in the sidebar

They should work 100% of the time but if not, bring it to my talk page. I'll work on scripts that add text to pages later once I figure out what the heck I'm doing.

Would also like some advice or tips on a potential RfA I might do in the not-too-far future? It'll be in my sights when I get ~5k or ~10k edits. Happy editing quotians :) dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the userscripts contributions. For those of us who are not Wiki-wizards, would it be possible to show the result when they are used? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna fork some code from scripts that I already know, which first show a diff preview before saving. The ones currently used are just handy links right now. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Advice edit

Dibbydib cannot understand a basic fact that matter on Wikipedia are not discussed on other projects. Despite comment by 2 different admins Dibbydib repeats matter about Wikipedia not once but Eleven times. (see link for diffs). This is a classic case of Unable to get a point. Such a clueless user becoming an admin will be an absolute disaster to Wikiquote which is already in a very bad shape. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is premature. Three is no pending RfA. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read above, he says that the RfA is not-too-far in future. Hence the advice on the impending RfA. In addition to what I noted above, I also see a major problem in his assessment of NPOV. An Editor spams WQ article with far right POV, when the spamming is challenged, Dibbydib concludes that the editor challenging the user adding far right POV is having an Islamic POV. If such people become admin then the chaos that will ensue is unimaginable. WQ users should watchout and be careful. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Dibbydib has repeatedly tried to censor my comments on this page, Village pump. He must understand that Dibbydib is not allowed to do that. This further shows your poor judgement skills and how inappropriate Dibbydib is for a job of a responsible admin.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Copied from my talk page (yes, Pratap took it to my talk page)
You were derailing the conversation in order to try and justify yourself in the AN argument. It's unnecessary and I viewed it in my revert as an attack. Again, I've said what I've said in the AN thread. I will be taking another break from this dispute as it's getting too toxic again, and I'm trying to distance myself from it to work on other things.
Or, should I use your own words: "hijacking each thread and spamming it with drama" :P
Also, some clarifications, I'm not solely against you. I'm against your action pretending like I ignored GMG's comment in edits when I clearly didn't blah blah blah it's on AN - I have nothing against you as an editor, even if you have something against me.
This isn't "advice", it's you trying to win a pointless argument in a month-long dispute that I'm taking a break from. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are not off-topic. If you believe it was off topic, you can share your opinion, as a comment here saying you believe it is off topic. You are not allowed to remove or close threads discussing "your" actions on a community page, like village pump. You do not have any authority to stifle or corrupt my comments. An admin will do it if it is needed. If you repeat corrupting my comments, you will be reported for edit warring and violation of talk page guidelines where you are tweaking my comment.
Dibbydib, you asked for feedback on your impending RfA and you got your feedback. If you dont have a stomach to digest honest feedback, why are you even asking for it. On top of that you call a honest feedback on some of your recent actions as an "Attack" and then go on to remove the feedback. When I restored my comment you then tried to stifle by corrupting my comment using CSS and tags added in between my comment. I reverted your corruption of my comments. As if that was not enough you then asked your coterie ( User:დამოკიდებულება) to join in and edit war to corrupt my comment once again. These are further examples of your poor judgement and lack of even a basic understanding of Talk page guidelines, that ask editors not to tweak or corrupt another editor's comment.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. @Pratap Pandit, დამოკიდებულება: I didn't ask დამოკიდებულება to revert your edit and have no relations with them or other editors.
  2. It's not feedback to me, it's just an excuse to attack me which as you can assume I didn't take well.
  3. Don't get in an edit war again. That also counts for დამოკიდებულება.
  4. If you take offense to notes I've placed on the texts, perhaps you shouldn't have gone out of your way to attack me.
  5. I'm not doing an RfA in at least 3 months or so.
  6. If you think "corruption of my comments" was adding a note correcting yourself, perhaps you (and quoting you), don't have a stomach to digest honest feedback.
Don't go after me, period. Yes, I thought, and still think, like it's an attack. Nothing against you, just maybe don't go discussing about me again. I also won't be on for tomorrow. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 12:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not ask User:დამოკიდებულება to corrupt my comments by restoring your edits, then why dont you ask User:დამოკიდებულება to not do that ? You are free to disagree with me feedback, you have no right to remove them or corrupt my comments as you have been doing repeatedly. I am as much a part of this community as you are. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If you did not ask User:დამოკიდებულება to corrupt my comments by restoring your edits, then why dont you ask User:დამოკიდებულება to not do that ? " I have, which is why I've pinged დამოკიდებულება in the previous comment.
"You are free to disagree with me feedback, you have no right to remove them or corrupt my comments as you have been doing repeatedly." It's pretty easy to spot that it isn't "feedback", it's off-topic attacks. This was not advice, it was attacking and sometimes straight-up incorrect, as explained in the AN thread. Don't go after random discussions I make trying to "prove me wrong".
No harm given, but this seems too far, even for you. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it is too hard for you to understand the basic talk page guideline, that you are not allowed to edit another person's comment. You are free to disagree with my comment, but your reply, "has" to be in the next line and not right in the middle of another person's comment, as you did above. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You say "the RfA is not-too-far in future." The future - even the very near future - is not now, it is later. I stand by my statement that your comment is premature. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Advice on RfA that hasn't been made on a page (Village pump) where it won't be made.
Butwhatdoiknow, I would appreciate if you stop messing with the section header that I had created. There is nothing wrong with it. I have moved your header below. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dibbydib has been violating copyright licensing requirements of attributions while copying content into Wikiquote. this page that Dibbydib created "today" was copied from here without providing any credits as mandated by CC Terms, while copying. This is a failure of basic requirement from an editor and repeated violation is a blockable offence. Another reason that shows how unfit and clueless Dibbydib is, to stand for an RfA. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to do that. If you think it's not, it's time to delete this page you made to the Simple English Wikipedia which you copy-pasted from Wikipedia.
WMF wikis (and wikis in general) have been sharing templates and features back and forth for years. For example, Template:Done was also likely copied from Wikipedia, is on almost every WMF wiki, and none of them have been taken down for copyright concerns since its creation in 2005. We're allowed to do this since in-wiki copyrights only apply when going off of a project not covered by the WMF. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not fine. Your comment clarifies that you have a very poor understanding of Creative Common Attribution requirement. Copying within Wikipedia projects is allowed but You NEED to FOLLOW some rules that you did not follow, hence I flagged your Copyright violation here. When I copied I attributed it in the edit summary. When you copied you did not list the source. This is not optional. This is a mandatory requirement according to the Wikipedia license. Instead of wasting both mine and your time in arguing here, you should go and educate yourself about the mandatory attribution requirement explained at . --Pratap Pandit (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then what about Template:Done?
That's originally created from the English Wikipedia, and has been distributed on almost every WMF project (including this one), and has been spread far and wide without any attribution to the original template. (wikisource wikivoyage metawiki wikispecies wikinews wikidata wikibooks).
Icon templates are continually spread far and wide across WMF wikis without attribution for years, and popular consensus is that you don't have to attribute the original wiki for them. If you want to link back to the original source, go ahead, but this is not a copyright violation, otherwise the hundreds of {{Done}}'s would be. I'll put up a discussion though. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closed: off-topic attacking from unrelated dispute dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No you dont get to close threads about you. Find an admin and ask him to do it for you, if at all it is necessary. This discussion must remain open for others to chime in. Since you have continued violating the CC by SA licensing requirements I am taking this to AN now. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dibbydib: Having read the brief discussion on this topic on the Administrator's noticeboard, I can't see a good reason why you wouldn't provide attribution when copying any content from Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project. It would certainly be useful to enable editors to contact the original creator of a template if they have any questions about modifications, for example. BD2412 T 01:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Butwhatdoiknow messing with the headers of the thread above edit

Hi Butwhatdoiknow, Please stop messing with the headers. Dibbydib asked for the RfA advice and he got it. If you have comments you are welcome to post in the thread "as a comment" like you have already done. Please stop messing with the headers. They are as neutral as they can be and you should use your time elsewhere to do somthing more productive then messing around with the perfectly valid headers. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratap Pandit: I do not know why you choose to start a private conversation with me on the Village Pump page, but I have transferred it to my talk page. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help please edit

Where can I find sourced quotes since wq doesn't allow unsourced.??? Yagtruman (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikiquote:Sourcing#Specific_preferences help answer your question?

Editing news 2020 #2 edit

20:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, could somebody revert edits of this user here? The quotations are now translated to some other language. Best, --Ján Kepler (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precautionary log out of all users edit

Hi all,

According to the linked mailing list post, everyone on Wikimedia wikis will shortly be logged out and will have to log back in again.

Due to a configuration error, session cookies may have been sent in cacheable responses. Some users had reported that they saw the site as if they were logged in as someone else. The number of affected users is believed to be very small. However, resetting all sessions is done as a prudent measure to ensure that the impact is limited.

See also, the complete mailing list thread.

--Kaartic (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]