Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Village pump archive 63

Archive
Archives

Congratulations!

edit

“Wikiquote by now has become a reputable source - at least the English version.” (Originally: „Wikiquote ist inzwischen eine seriöse Quelle geworden – jedenfalls die englische Version, ...“) w:de:Gerald Krieghofer in Der Spiegel (This article is for subscribers only; however, I can provide gift links to the first three people asking for it.) SebastianHelm (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice find, Sebastian! Good work on all us. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of new templates

edit

I don't think it's very controversial, but I wanted to give a heads up to the community that I've been creating a new kind of navigational templates that act as headers to navigate at the top of sequences of articles, such as {{South Park header}}, {{SpongeBob header}}, and {{The Simpsons header}}. This replaces text that was copied and pasted repeatedly in articles and I think it's nice if we keep the formatting consistent across these. I don't care that much how it looks as such, but if they look similar, I think that's preferable. Any feedback is welcome. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the new navigational templates. Consistency in formatting is a good idea. I've checked them out and they look good to me. Let's keep up the collaborative effort! Saroj (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Jahnke

edit

I don't think Danielle Jahnke is notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I've proposed it for deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Rfa, if you want to participate

edit

Ottawahitech recently suggested announcing any new Request for Adminship here, so that more people have a chance for input. I have been active here for a few years, creating some content and doing some cleanup. We are a small wiki, so I am offering to pick up a mop to help out with the admin chores. If you want to ask questions or voice opinions, here is the page: Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/HouseOfChange. Thanks for being part of this great project. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last days to vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am reaching out to you today to remind you that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) charter will close on 2 February 2024. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.

The current version of the U4C charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.

Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 17:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review

edit

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, interface administrator, 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 logged actions for more than 2 years):

  1. Pmlineditor (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, Superpes15 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the results of the UCoC Coordinating Committee Charter ratification vote

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Thank you everyone for following the progress of the Universal Code of Conduct. I am writing to you today to announce the outcome of the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. 1746 contributors voted in this ratification vote with 1249 voters supporting the Charter and 420 voters not. The ratification vote process allowed for voters to provide comments about the Charter.

A report of voting statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published on Meta-wiki in the coming weeks.

Please look forward to hearing about the next steps soon.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag

edit

I propose the creation of a new user group, "flood flag," on English Wikiquote to prevent repetitive changes from flooding the RecentChanges feed. This will streamline the feed and enhance the user experience for contributors. Saroj (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group can be added by sysops and removed by sysops and the users themselves. --Saroj (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saroj, There is no consensus for Fabricator Task T351250 which you started merely two days after posting here. Can you please cancel it until such time that there is proper wq:consensus.
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T351250

Comments

edit

According to fabricator this proposal has received community consensus?

edit
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T351250

According to today's version of the Phabricator (see link to the right), there is consensus by this community to add a flood gate:

  • "The English Wikiquote community has discussed enabling a flood flag user group. Here is the consensus of the community. The group can be added by sysops and removed by sysops and the users themselves."

How can this be true when I can clearly see 2 Opposes? Where is consensus defined?


Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would share your concern that this topic is really not yet decided. But in reading further on the page, I see that the ticket is not currently closed, but rather has been moved from Stalled back to Open, so I believe the discussion can continue. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada survey

edit

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are song lyrics allowed?

edit

Hey folks, new guy here ... I looked through "What Wikiquote is/is not" and didn't see it mentioned, so I'm asking here: May song lyrics be included as quotations? I hope so; I just added a few lines from Pink Floyd's song "Time" to this Category article. If it's not OK, please just revert, no hard feelings. Also, I wrestled with the formatting without much success ... if anyone can fix/improve the way this entry appears, please do, and if necessary, tell me how it should be done. Thanks! Yesthatbruce (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, song lyrics are the same in principle as other material that is likely to be copyrighted, so please just make sure that you're sticking to actually quotable lyrics and not just copy/pasting everything from the Internet indiscriminately. Happy to have you, B. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Will do re copyright; it's important. And I now realize that I was looking at a Category page, as opposed to a page about a person, such as Bob Dylan, whose page includes trillions of lyrics. Duh. Yesthatbruce (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hindsight is 20/20. I appreciate anyone brave enough to ask a good faith question on the Internet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

  • May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
  • June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
  • June-August 2024: Campaign period
  • End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
  • October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
  • Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include a Quote

edit

Good afternoon,

A former teacher of mine, Ramon A. Qeuevedo, that worked at Bebensee Elementary in Arlington, TX would say, "Of course you don't know it, it is called learning. if you knew it, it would be called review.". or "of course you don't know it, it is called learning. if you already knew it, it would be called review." I see that one version of this quote is listed in Quotepark.com and the quote is attributed to him. What can I do to include the quote here?

Thank you, Gabby Estrada 1gabbyestrada (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

edit

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

edit

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 20 March. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 20 March 2024.
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
  • GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF), 00:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caption text is small compared to text in rest of article

edit

Any idea how I can fix that? On the page Victor L Berger.

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on the image is the standard size. It can be modified with CSS, but why is that necessary? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems much too small,[1] no? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a little tiny. Is it smaller than (e.g.) en.wp? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Paid editing is something I would like to know the definition of and how it differs from receiving financial benefit. For example, if you make residuals from having worked on a film, would it be paid editing to make changes to the wikiquote page for that film? If you work for a corporation isn't it a conflict of interest if you added nothing but negative quotes to the page for that corporation's main competitor? What if you're the mayor of a city, can you make edits to the page for that city? What if a family member benefits financially from your edits, like a mayor that benefits from the work of their child editing about their city, it seems pretty extreme to forbid people from editing certain topics because of circumstances beyond their control. Does being imprisoned for your edits count as a form of payment, it does result in food and shelter you might not otherwise have? If jail somehow counts as a form of payment than wouldn't being a slave count as paid editing?
From my present, largely uninformed, point of view a strict definition of paid editing would effectively prevent scientists from writing about their areas of expertise and it would prevent most government employees from writing about pretty much anything, because it seems like pretty much everything has become politicized at this point. Is Wikiquote supposed to be like how the Olympics used to be, where only amateur athletes but not professional athletes were allowed to compete?
Also doesn't reporting someone getting paid for editing require evidence of their identity, which means by reporting them you are doxing them? I thought that was against the rules here as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQ inherits its "paid editing" guideline from Wikipedia, so reading that will answer some of your questions. Doxxing is indeed a much bigger violation of policy than "conflict of interest" editing. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see how anyone could engage in a fruitful degree of paid editing on this particular project. I suppose a wealthy and widely-quoted person might want a page (low-visibility as it may be), or may want to control contents of their pre-existing page. BD2412 T 02:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a much bigger likelihood of COI editing in a negative way -- for example, the George Galloway article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the MO for paid editing being limited to self-portraiture or character assassination is a very limited way of looking at this issue, however the unlikeliness of this rule actually being effectively enforced unless someone self incriminates by posting a photograph onto Wikiquote of themselves being handed money by their financial benefactor (who is also on camera), while publishing an edit with their other hand, makes my concern for this issue laughable. It's a serious issue, but the enforcement of it is essentially nonsensical if it depends entirely on confessions. It also doesn't account for being paid not to edit, like if you work for someone famous that would prefer you not be talking about them on social media, or if you work in the government and your boss doesn't like your politics because it makes your organization look bad. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote as homework

edit

Would it be against the rules here for a teacher to assign contributing quotations to Wikiquote as homework for their class? Would it make a difference whether the teacher themselves was a contributor? Does the age of the students make a difference? I personally think this would be a bad idea, however that's different than being against the rules. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Quote Limit

edit

I have taken issue with the “only two quotes per episode” rule, especially since there are so many pages that have already broken this rule and nobody has done anything about them. Can we raise the limit to something like twenty? As long as we’re not posting the entire script, it should be fine. 2603:7000:1200:825A:4511:238F:3F2C:426A 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please lift the “only two quotes per episode” rule. Two episodes per quote is too few in my opinion, and what if there’s a memorable quote someone wants to post but can’t because there’s already two quotes for the episode? People told me that it’s because there’s risk of the site being shut down if too much copyrighted material is posted, but that’s never happened as far as I can tell. Besides, there’s people who treat the Family Guy Seasons 8 and 9 pages very seriously with this rule, but every other page for the show is ignored. Either we enforce this rule consistently, or we significantly relax, if not out right abolish it. Which one is it? —This unsigned comment is by 2600:1017:b835:be2:c889:d83f:2bb:361a (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 April 2024.

Template:Wikiquotelang

edit

Hi, is it possible to add Bengali Wikiquote (বাংলা) in there? We recently crossed 1K mark. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: শুকরিয়া/মারহাবা! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf, The code is wrong, should be "bn" (not bg), you can add something like this. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two quotes per episode is too few.

edit

Can we please lift the “only two quotes per episode” rule. Two episodes per quote is too few in my opinion, and what if there’s a memorable quote someone wants to post but can’t because there’s already two quotes for the episode? People told me that it’s because there’s risk of the site being shut down if too much copyrighted material is posted, but that’s never happened as far as I can tell. Besides, there’s people who treat the Family Guy Seasons 8 and 9 pages very seriously with this rule, but every other page for the show is ignored. Either we enforce this rule consistently, or we significantly relax, if not out right abolish it. Which one is it? Playland1998 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to avoid violating copyright, but where in policy or elsewhere is there a "two quotes per episode" rule? HouseOfChange (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WQ:LOQ (and the associated talk page). There have also been numerous discussions on this topic elsewhere (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, Wikiquote:Quality and Quantity, and I am sure there are more in the archives - I will keep looking and update if I find others). Much of this discussion originated when a sister project in France was threatened with complete shutdown.
There had been discussion about relaxing this restriction (I believe 5 per 1/2 hour episode and 10 per hour episode had been put forward), but we never got consensus. The Limits on Quotations page is a proposed guideline - it never got enough traction to become official policy. But that being said, the community consensus seemed to be that we need some limits so that we can maintain reasonable pages - there was also discussion that even if limits did not prevent bloat that appears on many TV show pages, that the criterion of quotability should also be applied and would likely limit some of the additions by applying that lens. The idea of this site is to post a selection of notable quotes - not full scripts of films or TV shows. Despite the seemingly arbitrary nature of selecting a numerical limit for quotes, it does seem to have benefitted our film and TV show pages in particular, keeping them to a manageable length and level of quality. I do feel there is some leeway we should have for film pages (especially established classics like Casablanca), but for TV shows (that have so many hours or material), it seems like it would be a bit absurd to allow an unlimited amount of quotes per episode. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that the people in this website aren’t truly practicing what they preach, and it’s just not fair. It’s only those two specific Family Guy pages that have the most restrictions from other people, while everything else is just left alone. Long ago, I anonymously added the entire story of how Debbie Grund was killed to the page on King of the Hill's fourth season, and last I checked, no one has deleted it. Playland1998 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon and Category:Richard Nixon

edit

At d:Special:Diff/2134319560, I was alerted that Category:Anti-Semites is added to these pages. The main article was made first, and I made the category by copying all categories from the main article (I didn't notice about Category:Anti-Semites until the message). I'm not sure if the enwiki article supports this categorization. Should we remove Category:Anti-Semites from these pages? MathXplore (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is dating someone just because they edit Wikiquote paid editing?

edit

I was wondering if I could go out on a date with someone without it being a violation of the rule against paid editing. I'm assuming not everyone here is single and that those who are in a relationship currently wouldn't be willing to break up with their partner just so they'd be allowed to continue to edit Wikiquote. I mean, how am I even supposed to know if the only reason someone is dating me is because I edit Wikiquote? I would prefer to date someone who sees enough value in this website that they themselves would like to contribute, but I wouldn't want to make it a necessary condition for them having a relationship with me. I would be pretty heartbroken to find out I was being objectified in a relationship just because of one of my attributes, or that someone was getting paid to date me, but there's no guarantee I'd be able to figure it out if they were.
As a follow up question, would mandatory celibacy even be a rule we could officially implement? What about a new rule that excludes editors based off their gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or some other status that is typically protected against harassment; is that something Wikiquote could technically do, or would Wikimedia object to us promoting blatantly discriminatory values that are contrary to theirs? People often mention that we are not Wikipedia, but just how different from them are we allowed to be? I can't imagine something like that going very well with the media, and although Wikiquote might not get mentioned in the news, Wikimedia is, and it receives a lot of donations that it might not otherwise receive if one of the websites it operates starts discriminating against people. I'm just trying to follow the rules and maybe introduce someone to this cool hobby of mine that everyone here shares, but when the rules are vaguely worded and no one responds to my questions it can be kind of difficult to know what is and isn't allowed. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fear, but I'd settle on Black comedy. Wikiquote may not be very popular, however as several of the pages I've created for the abortion category contain more references than the corresponding Wikipedia pages, it is arguably one of the most comprehensive learning resources available for abortion on the internet as it combines text from both PubMed and Google Books. As such, it is a particularly well curated data set for an LLM. Given this is a civil rights issue and civil rights advocates have a history of being unjustly targeted by both criminal and law enforcement elements, I believe my increased concern is at least somewhat plausible. I'd make for a pretty terrible civil rights activist, but I'm a halfway decent scholar if you'd like to test my knowledge of the subject, not that civil rights has ever really come down to correctly answering test questions. I like editing Wikiquote and would like to continue to do so, I'm aware that what most people consider payment is financial transactions that have to be reported to the IRS as taxable income or gifts, not the amount of food you eat during a sleepover. I've been a bit on edge recently because it's an election year. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that "Paid editing" involves getting money or whatever (a promotion, a date, etc.) in exchange for something you are being asked to do in a wiki project. If you already did some work here because you thought it improved the project, that is not "paid editing," even if some third party decides to reward you for what you have already done. That said, WQ articles are not set up to be a source of balanced or reliable information about Beauty, Truth, Abortion, etc. That's Wikipedia's goal, not something we could easily achieve. Creating a reliable guide to some topic entirely by cobbling together a lot of sourced quotable quotes would be like trying to build the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we have to have personal interpretations indicates that the rule is ambiguously worded. I wonder whether that is a communicative error on the part of the editor/editors who wrote that rule, or whether it's intentional to provide enough flexibility that essentially anything can be construed as paid editing. Is paid editing really dependent on the formation of a verbal contract? Isn't dropping a roll of cash in front of a cop as they go to arrest you still considered a bribe even if you didn't say anything? I said that most people wouldn't consider the food you eat while visiting a friend to constitute a bribe, but I don't think that most of the people here have read A Woman in Berlin either, even though the editors of Wikiquote are a particularly well-read group of people and a lot of them present themselves as being deeply concerned for civil rights and social justice. The formation of a verbal contract isn't necessarily a defining feature of bribery and the payment doesn't have to be taxable, it can be a perishable item such as food rations, or like you've mentioned HouseOfChange, a promotion, a date or some other service.
Paid editing is using the carrot, but what about using the stick? We can be blocked for using threatening language in a conversation with other editors on site, Kalki has done it to me before, but what about using threatening language off site? Isn't mentioning offsite activity that reveals details of an editor's identity usually considered doxing them? It's kind of hard to enforce a rule regarding off site behavior when our most important rule is respecting everyone's privacy. It doesn't really matter if offsite harassment is against the rules or not if talking about it is considered the worse offense. Should we be going to the police or journalists instead if that ever happens to us? It would be shameful if that was Wikiquote's first time being talked about in the news. Threats can, and usually are, vaguely worded; similarly, you can imply a bribe without specifically spelling it out for people, it doesn't have to be as obvious as "If you do X I will give you Y".
As for Wikiquote being less balanced than Wikipedia and more cobbled together, Wikipedia attempts to have a neutral point of view while Wikquote is made up of people's points of view, but they are both cobbled together from references to sources that a teacher would consider acceptable to include in a term paper, unlike Wikipedia which is not, and for good reason. Wikipedia summarizes references in much the same way that a streaming service summarizes episodes of a TV show or films. A lot of the nuance of language is lost in creating a brief synopsis of the works of others and in the case of entertainment most of the plot points are simply glossed over. There aren't a lot of Wikipedia pages that are edited solely by one person, but there are several Wikiquote pages with only one editor, I know this from personal experience being one of those lone editors. It seems that not a whole lot of people here seem to be interested in spending their time creating or improving articles about abortion, for whatever reasons those might be.
Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not actually adhere to the Fairness doctrine which stipulated giving equal airtime to both sides of an issue, Wikipedia emphasizes facts, which is a point of view, whereas following the Fairness doctrine means giving equal weight to the words of a NASA astronaut and a moon landing denier. If you look at the Wikipedia page for the moon landing you will see that is not the case. The page for Treatment and management of COVID-19 mentions Ivermectin, but it does so in a section labeled ineffective treatments. If you believe in facts, then you are biased, NPOV may not be the ideal that you think it is, it's not very well defined. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Poetlister case, wikiquote has engaged in enough off-wiki issues that has effect on wiki. You can date with someone, nobody disallows you to do so. However, trying to make promotion about the one you date is COI.
As for BIAS and POV, just take a look on Israel -Hamas related content, Russia -Ukraine related articles. There's something more serious always just happening on this project. -‎Lemonaka‎ 22:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf, HouseOfChange, Lemonaka; as the three of you are administrators, tell me what you would think of the following scenario which is neither complex nor hypothetical. I show some of my contributions to someone who believes in reproductive rights and in social media such as Wikiquote as an effective means of education and outreach, they are impressed enough by what I've done that they decide to let me stay at their house and continue to create pages about reproductive rights because they share my concerns for the future. Is that paid editing, yes or no? If you have different answers to this question, than why is there that little consensus among the Wikiquote administrators as to what paid editing even means? Anyone else can free to state their "interpretation" as well, although unless they are also administrators who are tasked with enforcing the rules here when they are broken, there opinion will not mean much to me, even if it's Jimmy Wales. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your original question is no. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf by original question do you mean, "I show some of my contributions to someone who believes in reproductive rights and in social media such as Wikiquote as an effective means of education and outreach, they are impressed enough by what I've done that they decide to let me stay at their house and continue to create pages about reproductive rights because they share my concerns for the future. Is that paid editing, yes or no?" I'm still a bit confused why if someone gave me three thousand dollars to pay the rent for a New York City apartment so I can edit Wikiquote fulltime it's paid editing, but if they own their own New York City apartment and let me stay there rent free so I can edit Wikiquote fulltime, it's not paid editing. They both sound like a gift of three thousand dollars that is being given in exchange for edits that haven't happened yet, the only difference is that I don't have to report the second one to the IRS, but as HouseOfChange has made clear, they interpret paid editing to include services that lack any financial value whatsoever, like going on the world's cheapest date. I hope that HouseOfChange isn't in charge of interpreting and enforcing the legal definition of prostitution. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Justin, no. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC

edit

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

edit

Aren't this copyvio? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the original source is The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians is a set of eight volumes published between 1867–1877 in London. Any book published in the 19th century is not a copyvio. It would be better to first ask on the talkpage of the article. However, some copyediting is still needed and is work in progress. --ᘙ (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not copyvio then but quotes should not be that long, it's very hard to follow. You know Wikisource exist for this type of book. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The India they saw: Foreign accounts is a compendium of quotes on India, in which the same extract is quoted in full. This means that at least another published editor found this particular episode interesting, quotable and coherent enough to quote in full. Smaller parts of the episode have of course been quoted often elsewhere. But the extract could be split into smaller quotes and perhaps trimmed, to make it more readable. As I said in my last reply the article still needs copyediting and is work in progress. I will have a few more tries at the article when I find the time. Thanks for reminding me. --ᘙ (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
 

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senator:RamonRevillaSr.@JoseBautistaSr.com

edit

The Senaator is Planning to run for President at 2028 Presidential Election.As the headline of [{PDPLaban/com})Mb.com 124.106.110.221 04:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy change proposal: More quotes per episode

edit

I’ve been trying to add more quotes to the pages for Family Guy's eighth and ninth seasons, but people kept preaching to me that there should only be two quotes per half-hour episode, or else they will get a copyright claim. Anonymous user 100.8.243.246 said to me on UDScott’s talk page that the event it never happens is “unlikely”, but cannot disagree with him more. The page for Season 18 for example has 14 quotes for the episode The Movement, and not a single copyright claim has happened to that. I also added the entire story of Debbie Grund’s death to King of the Hill’s fourth season, and guess what people did about it? Nothing! Besides, why would anyone copyright claim this website anyway, when there are so many other quote websites that are just left alone?

So I’m coming up with a new proposal to raise the maximum number of quotes per episode, since not a single copyright claim has happened to Family Guy Season 18 or King of the Hill Season 4. The maximum number of quotes should be: five quotes for a show less than a half-hour long; 15 quotes for a half-hour; 20 quotes for an hour; 25 quotes for an hour and a half; 30 quotes for two hours; and 40 quotes for 3 hours. Because since no one is copyright claiming those pages, then why should we even care?

P.S. I expect a satisfactory response as soon as possible. I don’t like it when people ignore my words. Playland1998 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A slight increase might be OK but fifteen quotes per half hour seems much too high. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about ten? Playland1998 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote doesn't have all that many active users, but this is an issue people might realistically vote on in mass, given how much activity on this website concerns television shows. This is just my assessment, but we seem to favor movies over TV, and video games and comic books are largely dismissed despite modern video games being comparable in length to novels in their word count and a large portion of the movies coming out being based on comics. If you think we can normally interest a group of twelve people for a vote on anything than you are sorely mistaken, but raising this issue might actually accomplish that. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may not have that many active users, but my complaint is that whatever users are active only focus on those two specific Family Guy pages, while leaving everything else I edited unchanged. Either ALL pages follow these quote limit rules or none of them do, and I am definitely in favor of the latter option. Playland1998 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing wrong with providing context. Just don’t post the entire script. Playland1998 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

edit

Hi. I've been editing the English Wikipedia for a while now and decided to check out Wikiquote. Is there anything like the Task Center where I can find things to do? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikiquote. We are a small project, without a Task Center as far as I know. Most people work on pages about things/people where they already have some knowledge and some interest. Another source of inspiration can be news stories that contain quotable quotes from notable people. I hope you will find areas you enjoy working on and decide to stay. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote results. We are following up with the results of the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election.

We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term:

  • North America (USA and Canada)
    • –
  • Northern and Western Europe
  • Latin America and Caribbean
    • –
  • Central and East Europe (CEE)
    • —
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    • –
  • Middle East and North Africa
  • East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
  • South Asia
    • –

The following individuals are elected to be community-at-large members of the U4C, fulfilling a one-year term:

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Follow their work on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now on Meta

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now up on Meta in more than 20 languages for your reading.

What is the Wikimedia Movement Charter?

The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

Join the Wikimedia Movement Charter “Launch Party”

Join the “Launch Party” on June 20, 2024 at 14.00-15.00 UTC (your local time). During this call, we will celebrate the release of the final Charter and present the content of the Charter. Join and learn about the Charter before casting your vote.

Movement Charter ratification vote

Voting will commence on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. You can read more about the voting process, eligibility criteria, and other details on Meta.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment on the Meta talk page or email the MCDC at mcdc@wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the MCDC,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Wikipedia people and research on Wikipedia usage

edit

I noticed that the category Wikipedia people only has only four people in it: Sue Gardner, Andrew Lih, Steven Pruitt and Jimmy Wales. Is that it, or are there other Wikipedia people that would meet the standards of notability and quotability for inclusion on Wikiquote? I very rarely see Wikipedia editors give interviews and when they do it seems to be more often than not to be attributed to their username, with the editor citing concerns for their safety should they lose their anonymity. I was hoping one of the Wikipedia editors who has done interviews might have gone into detail about why they have those safety concerns, because if Wikipedia is truly as dangerous as some of the editors make it sound, than it's bizarre that that it's accessed by so many school age children and no one seems to care they could be in danger were they to become editors. The Surgeon General didn't specifically mention Wikipedia when discussing the health effects of childhood social media usage, but it is still a form of social media, so I'm wondering what research is there concerning Wikipedia in particular in connection to issues like cyberbullying or addictive behavior. My hypothesis is that the well-known Wikipedia gender gap might have something to do with a casual acceptance of cyberbullying, or alternatively that there is for some reason a pervasive false impression of dangerousness that scares away many potential new editors, seeing as there is much less of a gender difference in either academia or in publishing. Other more popular social media websites do not seem to have this problem, Youtube doesn't have a noticeable gender difference and you have much less privacy being on camera than writing, and people post photos of themselves and discuss politically sensitive topics on Facebook but they don't have a noticeable gender difference. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your first sentence, there are lots of notable people who have no WQ article. I created the WQ article for Steven Pruitt after I stumbled on some interesting quotes by him. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems all of the Wikipedia people with pages go by their real names; introductory text is hard to write for anonymous pseudonyms, take the page for Banksy for example. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open – cast your vote

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open. The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

The final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is available on Meta in different languages and attached here in PDF format for your reading.

Voting commenced on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

After reading the Charter, please vote here and share this note further.

If you have any questions about the ratification vote, please contact the Charter Electoral Commission at cec@wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the CEC,

RamzyM (WMF) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and dating websites

edit

I was wondering if anyone here has ever mentioned their editing of Wikis when using dating websites and their reasoning as to why or why not. If no one here uses dating websites that would also be an interesting fact to know about our community as to how we feel about other online communities. It may seem like it's a question that has nothing to do with improving the Wiki, but considering the low number of active users and the importance of membership drives I think it's a valid maintenance question, and not just one of research and criticism. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that most people here do not edit under their real names and that doxing is taken very seriously, which is one of the things that differentiates Wikis from other forms of social media where it is often an expectation that people post pictures of themselves. Bragging about how good you are at your job or your hobby isn't particularly attractive behavior on a first date, however secrecy and a refusal to answer any questions someone might have about how you spend your time is also very disconcerting. Not everyone uses dating websites, however enough people do that even in a fairly small group of people you would expect at least a quarter of the population to have some experience using them, so if nobody who edits Wikis uses dating websites than that suggests a unique trend which may be connected to Wikipedia's noticeable gender gap. Not a lot of people use social media in the hopes of obtaining greater levels of social isolation, it's one thing not to make any new friends on a website but it's another when it actively interferes with making them anywhere else as well. In my case I don't think many people are interested in talking about abortion activism on a first date, but if they ask what you do as a job or hobby they are not going to like being told that they ask too many questions or being answered with riddles. What we all do here may feel inconsequential at times and like it's not worth mentioning, but I think most people would have a hard time arguing it doesn't make at least a small difference in someone's life being able to more readily access information on topics that they feel are important, whatever those topics may be. Just thought I would mention this in case anyone else has had experiences that sound similar, or has any interest in the gender gap Wikipedia points out in advertisements and tries to address with campaigns like #SheSaid. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How CensoredScribe is your question connected to Wikiquote which is what this page is intended for? Mcljlm (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what all of the objectives of #SheSaid are, but considering #SheSaid's advertisements are displayed at the top of all of the pages for three months out of the year, I would say that the answer to your question is all of them. What pages, do you think, aren't edited by women? CensoredScribe (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the intro to this page: "This is the place if you (a) have a question about Wikiquote and how it works or (b) a suggestion for improving Wikiquote." HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiedu.org mentions improving Wiki Data in addition to Wikipedia, so how about one of the administrators here asks that they mention Wikiquote? We could use their help just as much as Wikipedia, and unlike Wikipedia's summaries, the direct quotations we've collected can be used as references, which is of more help to students. Seeing real people's faces and not just their screen names helps to improve Wikipedia's public image, making it look safer for new people to use. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not intended for efforts to start a chat about random topics with little relation to improving Wikiquote. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider a gender gap or a race gap to be random topics with no relation to improving Wikiquote HoC, if no X gender or Y ethnicity are editing Wikiquote that looks bad to the press. You have made less than two thousand edits, you may well be the administrator with the quickest rise to power, and it shows. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is ending soon

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U4C Special Election - Call for Candidates

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications in the special election for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Category

edit

I'd like to create a category for people who have been awarded of the w:Compasso d'Oro (presumably "Category:Compasso d'Oro winners", by the logic of established practice here on Wikiquote). As I'm still not fully familiar with the ins and out of this wiki, I thought it best to ask for guidence. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the scheme at Category:People by award, so in principle, this is a perfectly fine approach. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes in context

edit

Lots of political in-groups talk about quote fragments among themselves without knowing the original context of such fragments. When possible, let's make those fragments available in their wider context. Also, when quotes about some politician criticize the person for having said XX, let's have the WQ article include the original XX quote in its context. I'm motivated by recent publicity given a "snippet"[2] of a quote by Joe Biden (made in a private phone call with donors) to claim he urged Trump's assassination, but there are plenty of other examples. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that entirely factual quotations can be sliced and diced or presented in a way that is very disingenuous and misleading. When I add quotations, I always make sure to at least contextualize it by place and time if I can and then any other additional situational information that makes it clear why something was being said and why it's worthy of quotation. This is subjective, but so is selective quotation with no context. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make an excellent point that situational information, e.g. place and time, are important to determine what meaning was intended. Going back to my example, if Biden wanted to issue a call for Trump's assassination, a private phone call with some donors would be an unlikely place for it. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.  

As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.

The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows:

Individual vote:

Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).

Affiliates vote:

Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).

Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Nataliia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.  

With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.

We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.

The Charter Electoral Commission,

Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now to fill vacancies of the first U4C

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through August 10, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit

How can languages be added to the language list? The French page of Albert Camus can be found by clicking 45 more at the end of the languages list and then Français but logically it should be in the default list. Mcljlm (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it was done, but checking our Albert Camus today, I see Français on the default language list. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Languages are added via our sister project Wikidata. At Wikidata, there is an entry for Albert Camus and there, you can find two distinct types of information: one is general statements about him (birth and death dates, links in databases, etc.) and the other is links between various Wikimedia Foundation projects about this topic (such as w:avk:Albert Camus and s:Auteur:Albert Camus). If someone wants to add a link between these projects, it should be done there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm, HouseOfChange: see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Universal_Language_Selector/Compact_Language_Links#How_it_works

“With compact language links a short list of the relevant languages for the user is displayed at first. This selection is based on your previous language selections, your browser settings, your location, and properties of the article you're reading. You can read more about this selection at this FAQ: How do you decide which languages are shown to me in the initial compact list?.”
— [[{{{2}}}]], {{{3}}}

1992 FARHAAD (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder! Vote closing soon to fill vacancies of the first U4C

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

The voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is closing soon. It is open through 10 August 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. If you are eligible to vote and have not voted in this special election, it is important that you vote now.

Why should you vote? The U4C is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community input into the committee membership is critical to the success of the UCoC.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory footnotes?

edit

How can I add an explanatory footnote?, like can be done at Wikipedia here. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Wikiquote:Templates#Quotes_by_people, a good place for clarification is the line below the line for the source of the quote:
* English Quotation
** Source of the quote. (with a date of source, when known)
** Optional clarifications, notes on context, etc.
Not quite what you asked, but I hope it's helpful. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to HouseOfChange's helpful tip - at WQ, we try to keep all notes with the quote, rather than at the bottom of the page. So we actually discourage the use of footnotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done something similar here (scroll down to the last quote by John Naughton). Nobody ever complained about that and it complies to the requirement above. I think that might help. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that you've brought it up - I would actually change what you did there to have the Douglas Adams bit as a second sub-bullet to the quote, rather than a footnote. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no problem doing that. But do I mark the place of the footnote within the quote with a bullet (or a number), because it is marked in the source, and WQ should preserve what is said in the source? - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon: A new sub-referencing feature – try it!

edit
 

Hello. For many years, community members have requested an easy way to re-use references with different details. Now, a MediaWiki solution is coming: The new sub-referencing feature will work for wikitext and Visual Editor and will enhance the existing reference system. You can continue to use different ways of referencing, but you will probably encounter sub-references in articles written by other users. More information on the project page.

We want your feedback to make sure this feature works well for you:

Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team is planning to bring this feature to Wikimedia wikis later this year. We will reach out to creators/maintainers of tools and templates related to references beforehand.

Please help us spread the message. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are human categorisations and what theme pages apply exclusively to humans?

edit

In addition to the disambiguation page for race, in keeping with Wikipedia we now have two race pages, one for Race (human categorisation) and another for Race (biology). So what exactly are human categorisations? If you type in human categorizations on Wikipedia does anything come up? Are we suggesting that humans uniquely possess race? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are Wikipedia pages for both: Race (biology) and Race (human categorization). The definitions of each are spelled out in more detail there. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the definition of "human categorizations", can anyone here provide one and cite their source? I'm curious what other pages are listed as a type of (human categorizations) or if this technical terminology in parenthesis is exclusive to this one particular page, which doesn't make it sound very technical. Aren't jobs and religions ways of classifying people, so why are those pages titled differently from race if they only apply to people? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. In my opinion, the more proper place to ask that question would be the Wikipedia Race (human categorization) talk page. And about the Wikiquote, the debate here would be "Does Wikiquote have to keep with Wikipedia?". I am not sure if there would be anybody to debate that. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on August 30th, 15:00 UTC

edit

Hi all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks—on August 30th at 15:00 UTC. If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This participant-driven meeting will focus on sharing language-specific updates related to various projects, discussing technical issues related to language wikis, and working together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, topics included the Language Converter, the state of language research, updates on the Incubator conversations, and technical challenges around external links not working with special characters on Bengali sites.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates or discuss challenges? Please add agenda items to the document here and reach out to ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org. We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria

edit

Hi, sorry if i posted this on wrong page. I don't know what English Wikiquotes policy is about very long quotes. This article contain very long quote. The quote should be verified also as it was created by an IP, now globally blocked for long term abuse, probably an LTA created it. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted it. Thanks for posting. If you do want to see our policy on length as it relates to quotability: WQ:LENGTH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad quotes selected as QOTD for purely political propaganda

edit

Hello,

I once again have to bring the community's attention to User:Kalki's parochial use of Wikiquote's Main Page as a propaganda tool for the Democratic Party.

List of Kalki's single-handed QOTD selections in the last 4 days in a row:

  • August 21, 2024 -- quote by Joe Biden (absolutely unremarkable and unmemorable, nothing new in it)
  • August 22, 2024 -- quote by Michelle Obama (not exactly a "quote", more like a speech)
  • August 23, 2024 -- quote by Oprah Winfrey (absolutely unremarkable and unmemorable, nothing new in it)
  • August 24, 2024 -- quote by Kamala Harris (absolutely unremarkable and unmemorable, nothing new in it)

As Kalki keeps selecting vapid and empty "quotes" for the QOTD, for political purposes, and cannot be trusted to be balanced, I should think the community needs to take action.

While I would not suggest blocking Kalki (though he is seriously hurting Wikiquote's neutrality and literacy-level), I would recommend we implement a new rule according to which the QOTD must be quoted in books (to be of actual quotes that have passed the test of time). At least this would both improve the quality of the quotes and remove the incentive to use the QOTD for purely political propaganda. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that this process is not only de facto personality-based but it's actually the de jure process. I think this is a serious problem with a pretty fundamental part of the site and should be changed to one that is voted on by the community or that has rotating individuals responsible for its implementation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many users from the Wikiquote community have already proposed and !voted for different quotes for each of the above-mentioned days (see August 21, August 22, August 23, August 24), Kalki just chooses to ignore them (preferring instead his own selections, which no one had the chance to !vote for or oppose). ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The events of the political processes of the United States in the past month have been quite extraordinarily historical, and I have selected notable quotes of notable persons involved in those processes in some of these recent days — all of the 4 quotes cited as "very bad quotes" were from very widely noted and very widely lauded statements from the 4 days of the 2024 DNC.
Earlier in the month I had quoted one of the most notable statements of the much maligned Republican president of a century ago:
Being a politician is a poor profession. Being a public servant is a noble one.
~ Herbert Hoover ~
Last month on the 4th of July, I selected on of the more notable statements of one of Republican Ronald Reagan's favorite Republican presidents:
We are not likely to improve our own condition or help humanity very much until we come to the sympathetic understanding that human nature is about the same everywhere, that it is rather evenly distributed over the surface of the earth, and that we are all united in a common brotherhood. We can only make America first in the true sense which that means by cultivating a spirit of friendship and good will, by the exercise of the virtues of patience and forbearance, by being "plenteous in mercy," and through progress at home and helpfulness abroad standing as an example of real service to humanity.
~ Calvin Coolidge ~
Last month, on the 15th, after the attempt on Trump's life by a deranged individual, and before he dropped out of the race, I quoted a Biden statement in response to that:
The choice we make in this election will shape the future of America and the world for decades to come. I believe that with all my soul. I know that millions of my fellow Americans believe it as well. And some have a different view as to the direction our country should take. Disagreement is inevitable in American democracy. It is part of human nature. Politics must never be a killing field. I believe politics ought to be an arena for peaceful debate, to pursue justice, to make decisions guided by the Declaration of Independence and our constitution. We stand for an America not of extremism and fury, but of decency and grace. All of us now face a time of testing as the election approaches. The higher the stakes, the more fervent the passion becomes. This places an added burden on each of us to ensure no matter how strong our convictions, we must never descend into violence.
~ Joe Biden ~
On the 29th I quoted the highly respected UN Secretary-Generals Hammarskjöld on a statement relevant to his times, and our times, and all time:
It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity. It is when we all play safe that fatality will lead us to our doom. It is in the "dark shade of courage" alone that the spell can be broken.
~ Dag Hammarskjöld ~
There are people who like to falsely and foully frame everything they like or dislike in petty pissant partisan terms — and those who can see clearly beyond them. One notable Republican, among the many who spoke at the DNC, as well as very publicly in recent months and years:
I'm going to focus my attention on the millions of Republicans and independents at home that are sick and tired of making excuses for Donald Trump.
If Republicans are being intellectually honest with ourselves, our party is not civil or conservative. It’s chaotic and crazy. And the only thing left to do is dump Trump … Let me be clear to my Republican friends at home: If you vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 you’re not a Democrat, you’re a patriot.
I will note, that I myself, many years ago, though never highly partisan at any point, WAS for many years actually REGISTERED as Republican — and had NEVER voted Democratic in ANY of several presidential elections in which I had voted, but switched to registering as an Independent when I saw the party was clearly becoming far too thoroughly corrupted in various ways for me to wish to have any further official attachment to it.
Though I am willing to tolerate and accept a great deal of error, ignorance and confusion in any living being, I will confess have an extremely strong bias for favoring actual truth rather than falsehoods and outright lies made to sound like truth to those with shallow and small levels of awareness or attention to actual facts. I am well aware that often makes me persona non grata to those who prefer various vapidities and outright lies to many forms of truth, but it is a fate I am willing to accept.
Busy as I am with many projects, I was just about to leave for most of the day when I noticed the above comments on waking my computer — and have made a response for now — but I do not expect to be back soon. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
This gibberish treats your fellow editors with utter contempt. Ficaia (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that you believe that the voluminous Kamala Harris excerpt is actually quotable material. A quotation should be something that someone could plausibly memorize and attribute to someone: a few sentences at most, with a clear point. Issues with your QotD selections go back for several years and it seems like you can't or won't listen to that criticism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikiquote should not be a record of breaking news. Wikipedia:In the news is shaped by dozens of editors and is a much better source for that.
Kalki has a long history of abusing his admin privileges to shoe-horn in his own picks at the last second. As he is the only admin who edits QOTD, this means he effectively controls the process. He also cannot or will not respond coherently to questions/concerns. This makes him unfit to be admin IMO.
I think access to upcoming QOTD pages should be extended to all editors with 1000+ edits, so decisions about quote selection, image choice, etc can be made by everyone actively involved in Wikiquote. Ficaia (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In our small community, typically we let slide a few questionable actions by generally good users (Deuteronomy 25:4) but the problem here is that QOTD is very prominent on our home page. Taking care of QOTD every day is a lot of work, and in general Kalki has chosen good quotes, although on occasion some political drums get pounded -- in this case, over a run of several days. Wouldn't it be possible for any other admin to respond in real time to complaints about the main page? Let's work on solving the problem here, without attacking our valued and very hard-working admin Kalki. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki clearly says above he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. Obviously that is a problem. A refusal to address concerns is unacceptable in an admin. Ficaia (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki clearly says above that he believes his quotes averaged over time show a balance of different points of view. So, what do we want to see happen going forward. IMO if admins can correct mainpage errors then any bad QOTD can be corrected. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find his argument persuasive? Ficaia (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am persuaded that Kalki makes a real effort to be balanced. I am not persuaded that the people objecting to a four-day stretch of pro-Harris eloquence are objecting because they prefer lies or vapidity to truth. I also object to having such a four-day stretch on our homepage, because I think it looks bad for the project, not because I am "highly partisan" in an anti-Harris direction. Au contraire, as the seasick Frenchman said when asked if he had dined. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is attacking Kalki as such: there are problems with his behavior and attitude and it's okay to point them out. No one is denying the long-term investment of time that he's put into this site, nor is anyone saying that all of his editing is problematic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that I implied otherwise. Looking for solutions, would a length limit on QOTD begin to address some concerns? 22:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC) HouseOfChange (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a start. There have been several criticisms of Kalki's ownership of QotD and that's one of them: that excessively long not-quotable quotations are chosen. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making it a requirement that the QOTD has to be from a book is blatantly preferential to a particular medium; plenty of the most famous quotations were first published in newspaper articles and nowadays a television news interview is the more likely medium for a politician rather than print journalism. Would you seriously suggest quotes from the moon landing aren't sufficiently memorable because they were made on television and not in print? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For today's QOTD, Kalki again chose to use a quote he suggested only at the last second and which consequently no one else had a chance to vote on. See here. Ficaia (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

edit
Original message at wikimedia-l. You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote and the Elections Committee have certified the results for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) special election.

I am pleased to announce the following individual as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a term until 15 June 2026:

  • North America (USA and Canada)
    • Ajraddatz

The following seats were not filled during this special election:

  • Latin America and Caribbean
  • Central and East Europe (CEE)
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • South Asia
  • The four remaining Community-At-Large seats

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. You can follow their work on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the U4C and the Elections Committee,

RamzyM (WMF) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have your say: Vote for the 2024 Board of Trustees!

edit

Hello all,

The voting period for the 2024 Board of Trustees election is now open. There are twelve (12) candidates running for four (4) seats on the Board.

Learn more about the candidates by reading their statements and their answers to community questions.

When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote. The vote is open from September 3rd at 00:00 UTC to September 17th at 23:59 UTC.

To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Best regards,

The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing

edit

Hello. I have this idea about including the paraphrasing of quotes for modernizing or less complicated interpretations of them. For example, including a modern English version of Shakespearean quotes and modern English versions of Olde English quotes or even just less complicated paraphrased iterations of certain harder to grasp quotes to go along with ones already listed? My idea is that just below the quote we could indicate the paraphrased version. Like so:

  • Lorem ipsum odor amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
  • Paraphrased as: Lorem ipsum odor amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.

Huggums537(sign🖋️|📞talk) 03:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If RS can be cited for a paraphrase, I believe it could be added below a quote. Creating your own paraphrase would be "original research," and/or "synthesis" IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altering another user's edit history to include death threats

edit

Maybe I'm the only one here who has ever noticed another user's page being scrubbed clean of offensive comments they later regretted making. It wasn't on this particular Wiki but on Wikipedia. I assume it could happen here as well and it might be even easier given the vastly smaller number of page views and users. But for those of you who haven't personally witnessed it happen before, let's say that hypothetically someone could change page histories. Doing that for main space pages is going to get noticed obviously because those pages have lots of page views, but what about a talk page? Only users normally look at those. The village pump here gets a lot of views in part because we have fewer discussion pages than Wikipedia, so I think Wikiquote might be harder to tamper with. But hypothetically, say someone altered another user's contributions to include death threats of the kind that warrant immediate action from law enforcement (I think it would be wise for me not to specify further with any specific examples or say which law enforcement agencies would be tasked with that, but you get the point.) Or alternatively, what if someone created a sock puppet which was determined to be linked to your account. Do you think law enforcement agencies are going to immediately trust our records and the amateur detective work of Check User? Of course not, they are going to do their own investigations because they don't trust a bunch of amateur journalists who call arguing with one another wars and who have a single investigator that doesn't leave any notes that can be reviewed. I also don't think they are going to like the fact that a wiki makes it easier to make anonymous death threats or attribute them to others, and they might mention that to the media next time a government official gets asked about Wikipedia. So when was the last time a government official got asked about Wikipedia during an interview and what were they asked about? Does anyone have an answer? CensoredScribe (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No.
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this div with your comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wikiquote treat malicious quotes

edit

There are quotes which are spoken to convince other people to be malicious, such as encouraging discrimination. How does Wikiquote treat such quotes if they have reached notability standard? DutchOff (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've taken a look at Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines, you may have seen that we defer a lot of content policies to en.wp. Even there, we do not link to w:en:WP:NOTCENSORED and the only thing that really comes close to what you're describing is Wikiquote:Neutral point of view. So inevitably, if you have a list of quotations for Adolf Hitler, you're going to have some pretty vile sentiments and we try to be comprehensive, so a important historical figure like this will have to have relevant, but grotesque quotations. I think the only real guideline here is good judgement: make sure that if you are adding what could be viewed as a pretty controversial or malicious quotation, ensure that it's actually notable and you have sources and it's added in an appropriate place (e.g. don't add some gross racist comment at a mundane topic just because the quotation mentions that mundane topic). Anyone else who thinks I'm overlooking policy here, please do correct me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

edit

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 25 September. The switch will start at 15:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 25 September 2024.
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
  • GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.

Please share this information with your community.

Trizek_(WMF), 09:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Vector 2022 skin as the default in two weeks?

edit
A two minute-long video about Vector 2022

Hello everyone, I'm reaching out on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team responsible for the MediaWiki skins. I'd like to revisit the topic of making Vector 2022 the default here on English Wikiquote. I did post a message about this almost two years ago (where you can find all the details about the skin), but we didn't finalize it back then.

What happened in the meantime? We built dark mode and different options for font sizes, and made Vector 2022 the default on most wikis, including all other Wikiquotes. With the not-so-new V22 skin being the default, existing and coming features, like dark mode and temporary accounts respectively, will become available for logged-out users here.

So, if no large concerns are raised, we will deploy Vector 2022 here in two weeks, in the week of September 16. Do let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's still terrible unusable garbage. Sorry for not pointing that out earlier! DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikiquote be licensed for use in an entertainment product?

edit

I was wondering if the image of Wikiquote could be used in a music video, television program or film and for what cost and who would be responsible for approving that decision. Our individual contributions are released under a creative commons license, however the website itself and the associated imagery is not. I was thinking a music video would be the most likely option as I doubt anyone wants us to be featured on a police procedural. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Apologies for cross-posting in English. Please consider translating this message.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T66315

Hello everyone, a small change will soon be coming to the user-interface of your Wikimedia project. The Wikidata item sitelink currently found under the General section of the Tools sidebar menu will move into the In Other Projects section.

We would like the Wiki communities feedback so please let us know or ask questions on the Discussion page before we enable the change which can take place October 4 2024, circa 15:00 UTC+2. More information can be found on the project page.

We welcome your feedback and questions.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the categories on Wikipedia

edit

I have to post this here instead of on the Wikipedia pump because my IP range is blocked for no reason when zi edit on my phone. What happened to the categories at the bottom of articles on the mobile version of the site? You finally added them, then they disappeared for a while, then they came back, then they disappeared for good and that was years ago. Please bring them back and keep them there, there is no reason to not have them there and it is extremely inconvenient 2603:7080:8140:8A60:BD5C:A9F2:A0A4:B28B 20:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Participate in Wiki Loves Ramadan Community Engagement Survey

edit

Dear all,


We are excited to announce the upcoming Wiki Loves Ramadan event, a global initiative aimed at celebrating Ramadan by enriching Wikipedia and its sister projects with content related to this significant time of year. As we plan to organize this event globally, your insights and experiences are crucial in shaping the best possible participation experience for the community.

To ensure that Wiki Loves Ramadan is engaging, inclusive, and impactful, we kindly invite you to participate in our community engagement survey. Your feedback will help us understand the needs of the community, set the event's focus, and guide our strategies for organizing this global event.

Survey link: https://forms.gle/f66MuzjcPpwzVymu5

Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts. Your input will make a difference!

Thank you for being a part of our journey to make Wiki Loves Ramadan a success.


Warm regards,

User:ZI Jony 03:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Ramadan Organizing Team

Recent repurposing of year pages

edit

I recognize that year pages are held for placeholders, but I see some years being repurposed for a movie list (see 1998, 1999). Are these changes OK, or should we revert them? MathXplore (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undone. This is silly: this site is not Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary results of the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

edit

Hello all,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. Close to 6000 community members from more than 180 wiki projects have voted.

The following four candidates were the most voted:

  1. Christel Steigenberger
  2. Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz
  3. Victoria Doronina
  4. Lorenzo Losa

While these candidates have been ranked through the vote, they still need to be appointed to the Board of Trustees. They need to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the Bylaws. New trustees will be appointed at the next Board meeting in December 2024.

Learn more about the results on Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,

The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group


MPossoupe_(WMF) 08:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using profanity in conversations on Wikiquote and an official list of prohibited words

edit

It's against the site rules to call another editor a slur, right? So can someone share a link to a page that states as much? Or is this not really a rule and more of a guideline, one of those things left at the discretion of the administrators. What about a misspelled version of a slur, like referring to other editors as naggers and acting surprised that someone would misconstrue your language to mean something else? Are the offenses that warrant blocks just the slurs for race, sexuality and nationality, what about the derogatory B, C and P words used for women? Can we call male editors the D word for men or is that also hate speech? Most profane words are also derogatory slurs, but not all of them; are we allowed to say the synonyms of Heck or Darn? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which spells out some of what you are mentioning. There is no hard and fast list of acceptable words or phrases, but this page provides clarification on the topic. Do you have specific examples of such behavior (preferably with links) that you wish to have some assistance with? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees

edit

Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.

Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:

Applications for the committees open on 16 October 2024. Applications for the Affiliations Committee close on 18 November 2024, and applications for the Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on 2 December 2024. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cst@wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.

For the Committee Support team,


-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

edit

what does john dewey say about critical thinking 41.74.57.198 19:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: John Dewey. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Hello everyone, I previously wrote on the 27th September to advise that the Wikidata item sitelink will change places in the sidebar menu, moving from the General section into the In Other Projects section. The scheduled rollout date of 04.10.2024 was delayed due to a necessary request for Mobile/MinervaNeue skin. I am happy to inform that the global rollout can now proceed and will occur later today, 22.10.2024 at 15:00 UTC-2. Please let us know if you notice any problems or bugs after this change. There should be no need for null-edits or purging cache for the changes to occur. Kind regards, -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) 11:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic talk page archival

edit

Hi all, is it possible to configure the automatic archival of old discussion threads (say after 3 months of inactivity) similarly to Wikipedia, and what's the best/recommended way of doing so? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I've looked around and not found anything obvious. Gawaon (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few pages that are automatically archived by a bot, such as Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress. Note the code at the beginning:
{{User:MABot/config
|archive = Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress/Archive/%(counter)d
|algo = old(10d)
|counter = 15
|maxarchivesize = 300K
|minthreadsleft = 2
|archiveheader = 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}
Which tells the bot when and how to archive that page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. Gawaon (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final Reminder: Join us in Making Wiki Loves Ramadan Success

edit

Dear all,

We’re thrilled to announce the Wiki Loves Ramadan event, a global initiative to celebrate Ramadan by enhancing Wikipedia and its sister projects with valuable content related to this special time of year. As we organize this event globally, we need your valuable input to make it a memorable experience for the community.

Last Call to Participate in Our Survey: To ensure that Wiki Loves Ramadan is inclusive and impactful, we kindly request you to complete our community engagement survey. Your feedback will shape the event’s focus and guide our organizing strategies to better meet community needs.

Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts. Your input will truly make a difference!

Volunteer Opportunity: Join the Wiki Loves Ramadan Team! We’re seeking dedicated volunteers for key team roles essential to the success of this initiative. If you’re interested in volunteer roles, we invite you to apply.

  • Application Link: Apply Here
  • Application Deadline: October 31, 2024

Explore Open Positions: For a detailed list of roles and their responsibilities, please refer to the position descriptions here: Position Descriptions

Thank you for being part of this journey. We look forward to working together to make Wiki Loves Ramadan a success!


Warm regards,
The Wiki Loves Ramadan Organizing Team 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Android app for Wikiquote

edit

Hi, is there an Android app for Wikiquote? How does it work? I have been advised that there is no infrastructure for push notifications for Android apps for sister wikis and I would be interested to know more. Related: phab:T378545. Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in SheSaid Article

edit

I just spotted racist, sexist and antisemitic vandalism in SheSaid (Version: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:SheSaid&oldid=3611712).

I reverted it to the previous edit, is there anything I can do to report the user? MoPaMo (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user and hidden the edit summary and edits made. Although reporting it here is fine, you can also use Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress as a place to report vandalism. Thanks for reporting it! ~ UDScott (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: #SheSaid 5th Edition Interviews: [#2 Ciell]

edit

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/10/16/shesaid-5th-edition-interviews-2-ciell/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/10/18/shesaid-5th-edition-interviews-3-bashir/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/10/20/shesaid-5th-edition-interviews-4-adjovi-essenam-fumey/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/11/02/shesaid-5th-edition-interviews-5-masana-mulaudzi/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/11/03/shesaid-5th-edition-interviews-6-abigail-agbenomba/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/11/08/shesaid-5th-edition-interviews-7-nanour-garabedian/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Containment

edit

Hello, community. I have posted a few tentative guidelines for dealing with controversial material at Talk:Controversial Reddit communities. You are welcome to review them, and offer feedback. BurningLibrary (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on November 29th, 16:00 UTC

edit

Hello everyone,

The next language community meeting is coming up next week, on November 29th, at 16:00 UTC (Zonestamp! For your timezone <https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1732896000>). If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Language_and_Product_Localization/Community_meetings#29_November_2024>.

This participant-driven meeting will be organized by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Language Product Localization team and the Language Diversity Hub. There will be presentations on topics like developing language keyboards, the creation of the Moore Wikipedia, and the language support track at Wiki Indaba. We will also have members from the Wayuunaiki community joining us to share their experiences with the Incubator and as a new community within our movement. This meeting will have a Spanish interpretation.

Looking forward to seeing you at the language community meeting! Cheers, Srishti 19:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Let’s Connect

edit

Hello Wikiquote editors,

I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is Anthony Diaz and I am a part of the Let’s Connect working group - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America.

Why are we outreaching to you?

edit

Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Wikipedia, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics here.

We want to invite community members who are:

  • Part of an organized group, official or not
  • A formally recognized affiliate or not
  • An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
  • An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.

To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this registration form.

Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about Wikiquote or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at letsconnect@wikimedia.org . We look forward to hearing from you :)

Best,

Anthony Diaz

Let’s Connect Working Group Member

  Kunokuno (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a more compact section for linking to other projects?

edit

See: Wikisource:Author:Edgar Allan Poe for compact links to the other projects that have entries on Poe. If you scroll to the bottom at Wikisource you can see it has the "Authority control" template "Authority control|wikidata=######" will allow Wikidata to automatically link to Wikiquote. Here at Wikiquote Edgar_Allan_Poe, the links to other projects take up a lot of room at the bottom, they would be better and be more compact at the top like at Wikisource. What do you think? RAN (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Wiki-sisters

edit

What is up with this page, it seems like it doesn't meet notability guidelines. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Wikiquote namespace and shouldn't be categorized with standard entries. Thanks for mentioning it here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we even have a page for it at all though? It says the page is humorous, but it has an about section and normally having to explain jokes means they aren't very funny. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I agree. There's no reason for this page to exist. — FPTI (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

edit

In 2012, an anonymous user recreated the page Russian proverbs. The tiny problem is that while doing so, he used a significant portion of an earlier revision of that page which (the page, that is) was seemingly deleted at an earlier time, to which many other people (including yours truly) have previously contributed; but in the process of such recreation, the names of these participants were lost to the void, so now it looks like the entirety of that page was created by that user, although for example they include see some things that I personally added, like, in 2006. Such destruction of the edit history, and thus erasure of contributor's names, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Let's discuss this matter. -- Wesha (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in fact, over 1,000 deleted edits. @UDScott: deleted the page in 2011 because it was unsourced. UD, since this page is now sourced, would you object to undeleting these revs?
As a secondary issue, it seems like this is all sourced to a single source. While it may not be obvious, you can have a copyright on the arrangement and collection of quotations from others, so as someone who has not seen the source material, is this page infringing on that copyright? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like I claim "copyright" of these edits, as we all obviouly leave any "copy" rights it at the door when we edit Wikipedia, but I am just saying that it is a very least not good manners to take creaion of somebody else and put it under one's own name — without the actual creator's name associated with it: it's colloquially known as "plagiarsm". -- Wesha (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do you want us to do? -‎Lemonaka‎ 13:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that you are claiming someone else's copyright. What I'm saying is, we cannot break a copyright here and the arrangement, translation, etc. of quotations can itself be copyrighted. I'm no legal expert, nor have I seen the original source, so it's not obvious to me that it's inappropriate, but it could be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesha:
How would you feel if the page was recreated from scratch instead of using its previous content? I am asking because I am frequently faced with this dilemma when I try to add a new page and am told that I (paraphrasing) should think carefully about recreating a page that was previously deleted.
What would you do if you were in my shoes? I realize this does not answer your question, but I feel that an answer to your question must address problems inherent at several levels of the operation of this site. For example: why have the previous responders to your question after more than 3 days on the village pump been administrators only? Is this discussion forum meant for the community at large or are admins the only ones permitted to post their opinions?
The deletion log of Russian proverbs says this:
  • 01:43, 28 December 2011 UDScott talk contribs deleted page Russian proverbs (Proposed deletion: No sourced quotes)
so why was this page deleted without a VFD discussion?
That is all I have to say on this matter, since I do not wish to be considered "disruptive". I hope I (together with my autocomplete) am/are making sense. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this comment by @Ottawahitech, perhaps you should read the Wikiquote:Proposed deletion page to better understand the proposed deletion process. Not every page needs a VFD prior to its deletion. A PROD tag is placed on a page when it has an issue (there is a list of possible reasons for this, outlined on the policy page) and other users may correct the problem or even dispute it and remove the tag (after which it could then proceed to the VFD process, if the problem still exists). ~ UDScott (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know how to solve this connundrum, but I can tell with an absolute certainty that on the current (or at least the current as of the moment of me writing the original comment) version of the page are certain centences that I personally typed back in 2002'ish, that are no longer attributed to me, but to some anonymous user. If I know a thing or two, taking somebody else's brainchild verbatim (to the letter) and putting one's name on it is called "plagiarism" and is generally frowned upon. I don't have a good idea of solution at this moment -- but that's precisely why I am here: so we all can have a discussion. -- Wesha (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, given that the page was competely deleted and then re-created, it would be fair to undelete all the old revisions, so the original edits (from which the anonimous user made the newly re-created page) along with their authors' information would be visible to the public again. That way, both the edit history and original authorship information are preserved, and the current look of the page remains exactly the way it is right now. I think it's a good middle ground. -- Wesha (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a Quote template optional

edit

The Template:Quote, is obsolete, but perhaps it could be revived and made optional for use, as suggested by myself several other users at Wikiquote_talk:Manual_of_style.

The French wikiquote has such a template fr:Modèle:Citation and its use is recommended by their layout guide at fr:Wikiquote:Conventions de style.

We would benefit from making this optional, as its too late to standardize and change everything. It would make linking to wikisource easier for quotes that are in the public domain, and it would make sharing quotes between here and wikipedia and other projects much easier - just copy and paste the wikicode text without any need for extra re-formatting. Consequently, the quality of both projects would be likely to improve overall: especially this one because it would encourage be better referencing. Ideally, there would be one common interface with two unique implementations: Each project could implement the eponymous template to represent the quote according to each projects's unique styleguide. C.f. w:Template:Blockquote

Our quote template should be programmed to conform to our styleguide: end users would not see a difference between a quote formatted with the quote template and one formatted without.

Thoughts? Opinions? Has this been tried in the past? Jaredscribe (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is wheel reverting really just as simple as three strikes in 24 hours and you're out?

edit

These are survey questions about an informal policy and there is no wrong or right answer. I would appreciate anyone's answer but particularly those of administrators who have implemented blocks for this reason.
How many times do you think an editor can revert someone before a block is justified? Is the answer different depending on what the page is and who the editors involved are? Is this something an administrator has ever been blocked for doing, if so, I would like to see some links. Does it matter how spaced out the reversions are? I've heard somewhere before that 3 revisions in 24 hours is too many, but what about just 1 revision every day, endlessly? I don't think endlessly undoing edits on your own is a particularly good use of anyone's time, because you could at least make it a team effort to try to demonstrate you are on the right side of the community's consensus, however I'd like to know what is allowed and what isn't and whether it's any more complicated than three strikes and you're out. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to no more than 3RR in a page, unless you are reverting vandalism. While in fact, I'm even oppose edit warring with vandals, since your time is priceless. -‎Lemonaka‎ 13:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your answer and saying that our time, including mine, has value; I feel spending my time here was the right choice, even if it cost me a friendship, or most of them. I feel like reversions are better done as a group activity, two lone wolves fighting doesn't present much of an example of civility, even for Romulus and Remus. Like the old saying goes, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." CensoredScribe (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

question about content removal at the English wikiquote

edit

Since I joined enwq in 2020 I have contributed over 20,000 "edits" to the project according to xtools. Almost 17,000 have been to content, but I have also participated in various talk spaces (VP, AN, VFD, UTP, and more). However, I still have not figured out whose "edits" I am permitted to undo. Am I permitted to undo edits of enwq-admins? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by permitted? By whom? Your question seems disingenuous, like you already know the answer is that anybody can revert anybody and that anybody can get banned after 3 reverts in 24 hours, including admins should they choose to infight amongst one another, which for some reason never happens. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launching! Join Us for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025!

edit

Dear All,

We’re happy to announce the launch of Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025, an annual international campaign dedicated to celebrating and preserving Islamic cultures and history through the power of Wikipedia. As an active contributor to the Local Wikipedia, you are specially invited to participate in the launch.

This year’s campaign will be launched for you to join us write, edit, and improve articles that showcase the richness and diversity of Islamic traditions, history, and culture.

To get started, visit the campaign page for details, resources, and guidelines: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025.

Add your community here, and organized Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 in your local language.

Whether you’re a first-time editor or an experienced Wikipedian, your contributions matter. Together, we can ensure Islamic cultures and traditions are well-represented and accessible to all.

Feel free to invite your community and friends too. Kindly reach out if you have any questions or need support as you prepare to participate.

Let’s make Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 a success!

For the International Team 12:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikiquote's Google search results

edit

I've been talking to HouseOfChange about this a bit and I'm wondering what other people's experiences are with Wikiquote's search rankings for various topics on Google, I know that there are numerous other websites for quotations about popular topics, however we have considerably more pages than most of them. How often does anyone here see Wikiquote listed on the front page of Google when searching for quotes about a topic? I normally see us listed somewhere between the end of page one and the start of page two, and I wonder how much more popular these other quote websites actually are in comparison and why that is. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WQ had a lot of good pages of quotes. We need to keep making and improving such pages. We also need to do more to prune pages of longform nonnotable/unquotable editorializing. Websites like BrainyQuote not only do SEO (search engine optimization) and paying for sponsored listings -- they also curate useful pages so that satisfied users become repeat customers. It's remarkable to me, however, that Reddit does better than we do in "quotes" search results. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
edit

This may sound like a stupid question (I'm new here), but during editing/creating a page, it says in red and bold, "Do not just copy material from another website!", which I am assuming is because it is a copyright violation. So do you have to type up the quote in your own words, or do you have to copy it from the original source material? - AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, a given quotation is not copyrightable. What is in principle is the arrangement and editing of various quotations into some collection. So you definitely can mechanically press Ctrl+C and then Ctrl+V to copy material, you cannot wholesale copy the general arrangement of quotations from other sources. I'll amend the wording to make this explicit. Thanks for asking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying and updating the text. AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm having a hard time finding that system message. Can you tell me either exactly what it says word for word or tell me the steps to reproduce seeing that message? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's here: MediaWiki:Newarticletext —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

edit

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon

edit

Please help translate to your language.

This is a reminder that the first phase of the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines will be closing soon. You can make suggestions for changes through the end of day, 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta. After review of the feedback, proposals for updated text will be published on Meta in March for another round of community review.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Language Community Meeting (Feb 28th, 14:00 UTC) and Newsletter

edit

Hello everyone!

 

We’re excited to announce that the next Language Community Meeting is happening soon, February 28th at 14:00 UTC! If you’d like to join, simply sign up on the wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting where we share updates on language-related projects, discuss technical challenges in language wikis, and collaborate on solutions. In our last meeting, we covered topics like developing language keyboards, creating the Moore Wikipedia, and updates from the language support track at Wiki Indaba.

Got a topic to share? Whether it’s a technical update from your project, a challenge you need help with, or a request for interpretation support, we’d love to hear from you! Feel free to reply to this message or add agenda items to the document here.

Also, we wanted to highlight that the sixth edition of the Language & Internationalization newsletter (January 2025) is available here: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter/2025/January. This newsletter provides updates from the October–December 2024 quarter on new feature development, improvements in various language-related technical projects and support efforts, details about community meetings, and ideas for contributing to projects. To stay updated, you can subscribe to the newsletter on its wiki page: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter.

We look forward to your ideas and participation at the language community meeting, see you there!


MediaWiki message delivery 08:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review

edit

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, interface administrator, 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 logged actions for more than 2 years):

  1. User:Aphaia (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, EPIC (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment

edit

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know that proposed changes to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter are open for review. You can provide feedback on suggested changes through the end of day on Tuesday, 18 March 2025. This is the second step in the annual review process, the final step will be community voting on the proposed changes. Read more information and find relevant links about the process on the UCoC annual review page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) 18:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/IOHANNVSVERVS

edit

Please note that a request for adminship is now open at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/IOHANNVSVERVS. BD2412 T 19:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finding quotations with AI

edit

I did a quick search and didn't see this covered, so I thought I should raise this topic. When searching for quotes with AI, editors should be aware that the AI engine is more concerned with satisfying the request in your prompt than with producing a correct quote. I have often received a memorable quote with a reasonable looking source from AI, then I look it up and often the quote doesn't exist. Sometimes the source is made up too. Make sure to always fact check everything that comes from AI, including AI response from google and other search engines. This is a public service announcement. Peter1c (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small text not working

edit

Small text isn't working for me. See Luigi Mangione, in the Manifesto section's caption ("Note found during his initial arrest, December 2024 ...")

Example/test

Seems to be working here, but not there. Any help appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mangione page example, the text is shown correctly as small text on desktop but not on mobile.
In the "example/test" text above it shows as small on both desktop and mobile. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

edit

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 19 March. The switch will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 19 March 2025.
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
  • GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.

Please share this information with your community.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Summary of mass deletions in United States:

  • 1. Lack of due process
  • Over 97% of content deleted
  • No VfD process followed
  • No prior or subsequent attempt to obtain consensus for article reorganization from prior contributors
  • No prior or subsequent attempt to obtain consensus from editor community for removal of material contributed by other editors
  • 2. Transparency about purpose of mass deletions
  • No attempt to review project of mass deletions with wider Wikiquote editor community to obtain consensus
  • Some statements imply mass deletions are intended to enforce uniform POV, contrary to WQ:NPOV.
 
The United States can create chaos, they've been creating chaos for the last 56 years around the world, It's not something new. Are they going to make it more...worse, more prevailing? ~ Bashar al-Assad
 
Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the U.S. caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair. ~ William Blum
 
I don't believe that any country can arrogate this task of bringing down other countries' governments. The CIA has been involved in probably 90 or 100 covert regime change operations since it was founded in 1947. My whole life has been the United States at war. It's sickening. It's tiring. These wars are disasters. It's just not our business to say, "That one's despicable. That one has to go." ~ Jeffrey Sachs
 
I don't give a shit who says what. If the muthafucka is wrong, he's wrong. ... In this country, authority is a cover for wrong. I don't respect wrong and I don't respect authority that represents wrong. ~ H. Rap Brown
 
For a century, this nation has been like an octopus of exploitation, its tentacles stretching from Mississippi and Harlem to South America, the Middle East, southern Africa, and Vietnam; the form of exploitation varies from area to area but the essential result has been the same—a powerful few have been maintained and enriched at the expense of the poor and voiceless colored masses. This pattern must be broken. ~ Stokely Carmichael
 
I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one. ~ Ward Churchill
 
And throughout the history of the borderlands, the military or armed militias have been dispatched there to keep black slaves from fleeing, remove Native Americans from ancestral lands and suppress Mexican-American revolts stemming from anger over white mob violence. ~ Russell Contreras
 
The prejudices of patriotism, the pressures of our friends and fear of unpopularity and death should not hold us back any longer. It should be total war against the economic and political and social system which is dominant in this country. The American system has been destroying human life in peace and in war, at home and abroad for decades. Now it has produced the growing infamy of atom bombing. Besides these brutal facts, the tidbits of democracy mean nothing. Henceforth, no decent citizen owes one scrap of allegiance (if he ever did) to American law, American custom or American institutions. ~ David Dellinger
 
The essence of U.S. military predominance in the world is, ultimately, the fact that it can, at will, drop bombs, with only a few hours' notice, at absolutely any point on the surface of the planet. No other government has ever had anything remotely like this sort of capability. ~ David Graeber
 
Ironically, the founders of the republic have been hailed and lionized by left, right, and center for—in effect—creating the first apartheid state. ~ Gerald Horne
 
The essence of a U.S.A. totalitarian socio-political capitalism is concealed behind the illusion of a mass participatory society. We must rip away its mask. ~ George L. Jackson
 
Average Americans have little or no influence over the making of U.S. government policy. ... Wealthy Americans wield a lot of influence. By investing money in politics, they can turn economic power into political power. ~ Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens

Dear Wikiquote community,

I wanted to bring to your attention a pattern of clearly politically motivated edits on Wikiquote.

In the United States article, I have compared the revision dated 28 October 2020 revision to the 6 March 2025 revision, and I find a very distressing pattern of changes.

The discussion below documents this pattern in two aspects (1) at a high level using w:lexical frequency analysis, and (2) at the level of individual quotations.

Lexical frequency analysis of two dated revisions of article text
term 10/28/2020 03/06/2025
segregation
segregate 		12 0
racism
racist 		31 1
slavery 87 19

Searching for "segregation" and "segregate" (segreg*) yields 12 results in the earlier revision. In the new revision, this is reduced to zero.

Searching for "slavery" in the earlier revision yields 87 mentions. In the new revision this is reduced to 19.

Search results for "racist" or "racism" (racis*) are reduced from 31 to 1.

It seems that User:Ficaia has reorganized the entire article from alphabetical to chronological, and in the process removed a large number of quotations from Black people, including Martin Luther King, Jr, Stokely Carmichael, George Jackson and others. This user has removed many quotations critical of the USA, its history, and its role in the world. Here are just a few examples of the many quotations that have been removed:

Erasing Black voices and the history of racism against Black people
  • We must work assiduously and with determined boldness to remove from the body politic this cancerous disease of discrimination which is preventing our democratic and Christian health from being realized. Then and only then will we be able to bring into full realization the dream of our American democracy, a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men do not argue that the color of a man’s skin determines the content of his character.
Erasing Native American voices and the history of violence against Native Americans
  • I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one.
  • If you're a real American that is, an American Indian you're lucky to be alive. For whether he really believed it or not, the white man has acted on the principle that "The only good Indian is a dead one". This was certainly one of the foundation stones upon which the white European invaders of North America and their descendants established and built the republic of the USA.
    • Stetson Kennedy, Jim Crow Guide: The Way it Was (1955), Ch.1, "No Room For Redskins".
Erasing dissent on the U. S. role in the world
  • We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.
  • Benjamin Harrison, Statement of 1888, as quoted in Treasury of Presidential Quotations (1964) by Caroline T. Hamsberger

This is only a small sample of the massive removal of all critical voices from the article. It is clearly a hatchet job intended to erase everything critical of the United States. I am working on further documenting the situation, but I wanted to raise an alert immediately in case there is a way to prevent further damage to the Wikiquote project.

Best regards,
Peter Capofreddi
Pennsylvania State University
Peter1c (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to accuse someone of racism, you better have good evidence. Ficaia (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ficaia, I have already presented a small sample of the evidence above. I don't know what your agenda is but it is very obvious that your edits exhibit a clearly politically motivated pattern of removing Black and dissenting voices which I intend to document thoroughly. You are trying to stage a white supremacist coup on Wikiquote and it will not happen without opposition. Peter1c (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like being called a white supremacist.
Consider the following quotes I added to the article:
  • Sell a country! why not sell the air, the clouds, and the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?
  • They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one; they promised to take our land, and they took it.
  • "Is it the master?" returned the girl....
    "The master!" said Colonel Diver, stopping short and looking round at his war correspondent.
    "Oh! The depressing institutions of that British empire, colonel!" said Jefferson Brick. "Master!"
    "What's the matter with the word?" asked Martin.
    "I should hope it was never heard in our country, sir; that’s all," said Jefferson Brick; "except when it is used by some degraded Help, as new to the blessings of our form of government, as this Help is. There are no masters here."
    "All 'owners,' are they?" said Martin.
    Mr Jefferson Brick followed in the Rowdy Journal's footsteps without returning any answer.
How very racist of me. Ficaia (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Ficaia,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I'm sorry, I should have given you credit for adding those quotes. It was generous of you.

Now please compare your first and last revisions and determine how many quotes you removed representing the voices and interests of Black people, Indians/native Americans, victims of U. S. imperialism, and other oppressed and marginalized peoples. I will count them also and we will see if we can agree on the number.

Then your assessment would be the number you added (at least 3) minus the number you subtracted.

Also on further inspection I see it was unjust of me to do my comparison based on an earlier edit that is actually long before your first edit, so I will redo my analysis considering your first and last edits.

The article is now less than half of its former size. If your criterion of inclusion for previous content is as skewed as I have found it to be so far in my investigation, I can only expect you surgically decimated voices standing up for oppressed peoples.

In the latest revision, there is exactly one mention of racists or racism, exactly zero mentions of segregation. How is this a competent "cleaning up" of an article on the United States? It is more like a whitening up, an erasure of the real history and present situation of Americans and the victims of U. S. imperialism.

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

Best wishes,
Peter
Peter1c (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The article is now less than half of its former size. If your criterion of inclusion for previous content is as skewed as I have found it to be so far in my investigation, I can only expect you surgically decimated voices standing up for oppressed peoples in order to promote the racist agenda of whatever racist organization or person is funding your hacks."
So now you're accusing me of paid editing. Ficaia (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge I made these unsubstantiated claims as quoted. I have removed them from the text of my remarks since they do no represent my considered position. Peter1c (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't believe this is okay to say, @Peter1c. It's an aspersion and it's not at all assuming good faith. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IOHANNVSVERVS. I did assume good faith. I have provided ample evidence that these editors are not acting in good faith. They are claiming their motive for removing material is that it is not widely quoted, but a quick google search shows it is widely quoted. I think we need to uncover their actual motives. See below for the evidence. Peter1c (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have offered a good faith settlement: to help the editors who created the latest revision merge the material they have added with the material previous editors have added. Their failure to offer any kind of response to my good faith proposed settlement also indicates bad faith. The previous material that was removed is not just from me, it is from many editors. Their motivations are clearly different from what they are saying out loud. Their hack job will arouse indignation in you also if you look at all the widely quoted material they have removed. Thanks for weighing in on this. Peter1c (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When editors delete an entire article and then rebuild it according to their own criteria, neglecting to include more than half of the content of the previous article, perhaps in some sense they are acting in good faith (faith to whatever criteria they choose), but they are certainly not displaying good faith to the previous editors who have worked hard to compile and curate the article. This is why my reaction from the outset was to perceive these edits as vandalism. The correct method for removing material is to do it one quotation at a time with clear justifications for each removal. The method of demolition and reconstruction adjudicates previous content, in effect, as unquotable until proven quotable. And the editors who created this revision have made little effort to adjudicate quotability by searches or any objective criterion. They have removed many widely quoted texts with no justification. The presumption of good faith has to have some kind of limits when I see ample contrary evidence. Do you really think the pattern of obliterating all explicit mentions of segregation and racism is a coincidence in a pattern of good faith edits? I don't know how to calculate the probability that this erasure occurred purely by chance (p value), but it is clearly very low. This was a demolition job, not a good faith edit. Peter1c (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of cleaning up the neighborhood is kicking out all the Black people, demolishing and rebuilding a gentrified white enclave. It is really disgusting that you call this a clean up operation. What was your motivation for decimating Black voices and obliterating all dissent from the narrative of American innocence? Please break it down for me. Peter1c (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the need to explain things to someone who repeatedly calls me a racist. Ficaia (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, before I came along there was no Tecumseh. No Sitting Bull. No Crazy Horse. No Red Cloud. No Geronimo. All added by me. Ficaia (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ficaia, I give you credit for the new material. The problem I have is how you handled the previous material. Why is up to you to unilaterally decide what stays and what goes? Why did you choose to demolish and start from scratch? It is very problematic that you call this a clean up and the product is sanitized of Black and dissenting voices, as if America were pristinely innocent of any racist past. Do you consider Black people and their concerns to be dirt to be removed to clean things up? That is the impression you are giving by your actions. It is not an onotological question of your identity as racist, the issue is that these edits show a blatant and unmistakable racist character. I have not reviewed your other edits to see if they show a similar pattern. But I intend to do so. This kind of demolition approach is not welcome here. I think the other senior editors must have moved on to greener pastures, or they would all be calling you out on it. Peter1c (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've accused me of being motivated by racism. You've called me a member of a white supremacist coup. You've called me a paid editor. Someone should ban you. Ficaia (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would advance your white supremacist agenda significantly. You have still not offered an alternative explanation besides the two I have already offered for surgically removing Black and dissenting voices from the updated article. You are deflecting discussion onto issues about identity when the question is not about a racist identity, it is about the racist character of your edits. Why did you remove all mentions of racism and segregation from the article? What was your motive? I will help you do a merge of your material with the existing material if that can be an acceptable settlement. I do not agree with chronological organization of theme pages, and it is rare on Wikiquote. I'm not sure why you chose to organize that way, but this is a minor issue. Peter1c (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've also claimed that I think black voices are "dirty and unclean". Well, you "guess" so -- I guess that makes it okay, right? Ficaia (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for some explanation for why you removed all mention of segregation and racism from the article. Please explain your actions. Then I will stop hypothesizing explanations, which is a natural although admittedly not helpful response. I am still waiting for your explanation. Why did you remove all mention of segregation and racism from the article? Peter1c (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed anything because of what it was about; I've removed it because it was unquotable/hasn't been quoted anywhere before. We only do a disservice to minorities by representing them with sub-par material. I've spent the last 4 months improving the article. I've added plenty of quotes about racism, slavery, American imperialism, etc. Minority voices are, if anything, overrepresented in the captioned images. Not every quote about slavery has the word "slavery" in it:
Deep in the festering hold thy father lies,
of his bones New England pews are made,
those are altar lights that were his eyes. ~ Robert Hayden (also added by me)
Maybe stop using ctrl+f and read the article. Ficaia (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the revised article, that is why I am responding with so much indignation. The updated article is clearly a politically motivated hack, an attempt to provide a sanitized version that obliterates canonical, widely quoted Black and dissenting voices to maintain the false but convenient narrative of American innocence. The fact that you have included other quotations that you prefer is not a persuasive defense for removing important, canonical quotations.

Your statement that the material removed is not quoted anywhere is a blatant lie. Here are a few examples of how widely quoted that material in fact is:

  1. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22experienced+only+the+American+nightmare%22
  2. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22church+is+still+the+most+segregated+major+institution+in+America%22
  3. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22remove+from+the+body+politic+this+cancerous+disease+of+discrimination%22
  4. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Between+1945+and+2005+the+United+States+has+attempted+to+overthrow+more+than+50+foreign+governments%22
  5. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22unjustifiable+war+of+one+portion+of+its+citizens%22
  6. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22this+nation+has+been+like+an+octopus+of+exploitation%22
  7. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22United+States+you%27re+not+allowed+to+talk+about+class+differences%22
  8. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22memo+that+describes+how+we%27re+going+to+take+out+seven+countries%22
  9. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22economic+elites+and+organized+groups+representing+business+interests+have+substantial+independent+impacts+on+U.S.+government+policy%22
  10. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22The+most+unpardonable+sin+in+society+is+independence+of+thought%22
  11. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Americans+have+no+commission+from+God+to+police+the+world%22
  12. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22if%20America%20is%20to%20remain%20a%20first-class%20nation%2C%20it%20cannot%20have%20second-class%20citizens%22

You can see that, even limiting the search to books and not including peer reviewed articles, each of these quotations produces more than 100 search results! Your claim is entirely false, unsubstantiated, and the fact that you make this claim casually without checking indicates a dire lack of intellectual integrity. You have not in fact checked each quote you removed to ascertain how widely it is quoted. You have claimed (both of you seem to agree), "I haven't removed anything because of what it was about; I've removed it because it was unquotable/hasn't been quoted anywhere before." Clearly this is not an accurate description of your motives and methods. You are lying about your motives, your methods, and, with this pattern of prevarication established, I can only assume you are lying about other things as well.

You say that Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, George Jackson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other canonical Black thinkers are "low quality". Your standard of quality is entirely subjective and makes no reference to peer reviewed material from the African American Studies or Indigenous Studies discursive regimes. It is just what you subjectively like, which reduces to whatever provokes no feelings of guilt or discomfort in you.

You are designating Black thinkers that challenge your false ideas about history as "low quality," i.e., trash, and cleaning up the neighborhood by taking the trash out. I am not sure what your agenda is, but you are not arguing in good faith on this.

One of the principles of Wikiquote is that editors are bound to respect the contributions of previous editors and not demolish entire articles and build them up from scratch. That would be bad enough in itself. But the way you have built up your new gentrified article is deeply problematic.

You have said that "minority" (not the correct term) and dissenting voices are already overrepresented. By what criterion did you establish this? Was it on the basis of the percentage of the population in the USA? Or in the world? Again, you are dissimulating about your motives and methods. What is the true motive you are trying to conceal with these disingenuous fabrications?

You have also failed to respond to my good faith settlement offer: to merge the two versions in order to preserve both prior content from other editors and your new content. I will help you do a merge of your material with the existing material. I do not agree with chronological organization of theme pages, and it is rare on Wikiquote. I'm not sure why you chose to organize that way, but this is a minor issue. Your failure to offer any kind of response to this good faith settlement offer indicates a lack of good faith. Peter1c (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are shamelessly mischaracterizing my point.
I have included quotes by Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. I've even provided proper sourcing for them. But we don't have to include everything they ever said.
Quotes by those authors also constitute a very small percentage of the content you want to return to the article.
You continue to call me a racist and smear me in various other ways. We don't do personal attacks here. You should be banned. Ficaia (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For any admins watching:
  • "Your criterion for removing quotations is in fact something entirely different and more fatal: blatant racism, a desire to silence dissent. You are lying about your motives, your methods, and, with this pattern of prevarication established, I can only assume you are lying about other things as well" -- I don't think I should have to put up with this.
Ficaia (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ficaia, Thank you for telling me I should be banned. You are doing the colonizer playbook to a tee. First, demolish the existing structures in the place you want to colonize. Then rebuild according to your own plan. Then when the indigenous people who survived the bombing are angry and therefore less than diplomatic, you can label them as troublesome (angry Black woman, Palestinian terrorist, etc.).


Fascists do your bombing calmly. I don't know how, but you do. But the people you are bombing do not have the luxury of remaining calm.


You know the fascists murdered George Jackson for speaking the truth. They murdered Malcolm X. They murdered Martin Luther King, Jr. I brought their voices back to life on Wikiquote. And you have just murdered them again.


I am not going to react calmly to your murder of all these voices. They are my comrades.


You propose to come in and demolish everything and rebuild it according to your plan. That is a colonizer mentality. I will continue to assert the right of the indigenous content on this page to speak, and not be murdered.


You can't expect me to remain calm and level headed. No person with a conscience would remain calm and level-headed. You are trying to silence the opposition. It is clearly a fascist coup.


And of course you recognize me as your opposition, so you want me silenced too.


I am 57 years old and you are raising my blood pressure with your attacks. You begin by attacking, deleting more than half the content of the page. Then you become upset when I react and step out of line. It is such a classic colonizer move. You calmly inflict a coup and enjoy watching me react.


And now after your demolition and reconstruction, the previous inhabitants of the page have no rights to be rehoused and reheard. Maybe the colonizers will build a Trump tower on wikiquote too.


Anyway if you succeed in silencing me, you have still provided good material for my research. This case will make a good publication, or maybe a chapter in my dissertation. I will continue my analysis with this in mind. I get sympathy and approval from academia and they are sympathetic to my abrasive prophetic voice. I object to your edits because they constitute a travesty according to the academic standards I have been taught. You are choosing your own judgement over peer review, totally arbitrarily. To whom are you accountable? I think it was also you who removed Jeffrey Sachs from the War article. He passes peer review, but you don't like him. What makes you feel authorized to pull these authoritarian moves?


You are trying to deflect from the substance of the issue onto the question of how diplomatically and politely I raised the issue. It is a kind of argumentum ad hominem. My politeness or lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on the substance of the issue. You still have not answered the question: Why did you remove all explicit references to segregation from the article? Why did you remove all but one explicit reference to racism? Why did you demolish the page and start from scratch instead of following the usual procedure of deleting one quote at a time? It is suspicious that you did a massive deletion in the guise of reorganization. Why are you (rather than the professors in my AFAM classes) the authority on which African American voices are most relevant? If you have already completed your PhDs, you are ahead of me. Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have the credentials you would need to merit the authority you arrogate to yourselves. But if you had these credentials, you would not do an unqualified hatchet job as you did.


I am bringing the people you murdered back to life again. Perhaps you will have your way, and you will have me silenced along with them in this venue. It might be better for me anyway to focus on my dissertation.


You seem to enjoy silencing voices you disagree with. I didn't silence anyone when I added opposition quotes. I preserved every single George Bush quote justifying killing innocent Iraqis.


You have to understand the difference between migration and colonization. Colonization means conquest, genocide, displacement, destruction of existing land rights. Migration means recognizing sovereignty of current inhabitants, sharing land rather than stealing it, cohabitation rather than conquest, dialog rather than dictatorial control, listening to prior inhabitants rather than enforced silence.


You have colonized the page rather than joining into the community that created it. I am so surprised no one else has objected.


But fundamentally you are right, my tone is off. I should accept seeing murder before my eyes without batting an eyelash. I hereby apologize that I failed to live up to this expectation.


Peter1c (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to level personal attacks against me. You should be banned. Ficaia (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fascists have decided "minorities are overrepresented" and it's time to "clean up". But it is unacceptable to call out this cleanup for what it is. When you selectively silence voices that challenge the ideology of American innocence, that makes you a burner of books, a fascist. I don't know your motive, but destruction is not benevolent. Trying to silence voices is not what wikiquote is about. So now that Trump is in power, you fascists are empowered to reduce the representation of African Americans everywhere online. It is so blatant. You are abusing the assumption of good faith of this community as you remove valuable material. Peter1c (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These personal attacks on Ficaia are completely against policy. Edits are to be judged on whether or not they improve the article, not an the basis of your guesses about the motivation behind them. In my opinion, Ficaia has made a concerted effort to improve the article, spending a lot of time and edits to add good material and remove the POV-pushing unquotable stuff with which the LibraryClerk sockfarm larded it. Looking at the images you put here for illustration, the only one that has a quotable quote on the topic United States is Rap Brown. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is making personal attacks. We are just objectively pointing out that Ficaia has made a real transgression of good faith to the community by disguising deletions as a reorganization. If you actually look at the NPOV policy, it clearly indicates that in cases where there are differing views that are mainstream, peer-reviewed, widely discussed, etc., differing views should be given weight in accordance with their prestige. Ficaia's edits not only failed to follow the correct procedure, they are clearly enforcing a slanted pro-USA POV that does not account for the diversity and disagreement in views about the U.S.

WQ is an international community. The nations being bombed, destabilized and couped by the U. S. in its fatal imperialist hubris also have a right to weigh on what they think of the United States. We will include your well-sourced views as well. It's just not acceptable to delete the views added by other editors to enforce your point of view monolithically.

Your buddy is making a real, unethical attempt to hack the WQ project to enforce their POV. I am calling that out. Maybe you like the resulting slanted POV, I don't know. I know you are trying to gaslight me by saying me calling out the problem is the problem. These kinds of tactics are really sleazy and underhanded.

Peter1c (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just put all of the removed/contested quotes on a subpage of the talk page and work through them individually to see if anything is salvageable? BD2412 T 05:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:BD2412. Thank you. That would be OK with me. I am ok with whatever method we use to adjudicate and merge the contents. I have a strong preference for alphabetic organization because in my experience maintaining the chronologically sorted theme pages is a nightmare. I am open to all suggestions to how to resolve the situation and I will cooperate with the consensus of the community. Peter1c (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my two cents: First, while I understand the sentiment of moving all questioned quotes to a sub-page, I would actually go in the other direction - meaning that I would revert to the full condition of the page (with all quotes restored and sorted alphabetically) and then quotes that are in dispute can be discussed on a talk page regarding potential removal. I am inclined to lean in the direction of preserving quotes that are obviously notable and properly sourced.
Second, I would also protect the page to prevent further edit warring while this discussion occurs.
Third, all talk that labels either user with disparaging terms or other name calling must cease immediately. Regardless of anyone's motivations for adding or subtracting quotes we should try to remain civil in figuring all of this out. If any of this continues, the perpetrators should be blocked (which of course makes it difficult to work this out - so please refrain from such behavior).
Surely we can solve this without all the noise and the personal attacks. UDScott (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the reverting continued without further discussion, I have protected the page for the next two weeks (can be extended as needed). Please discuss any further proposed changes and try to resolve the current conflict. As stated above, also please refrain from any further personal attacks - if they continue, individual blocks will be imposed. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:UDScott. I am OK with whatever approach we can agree on to merge the original and added content. Based on my experience I would strongly recommend alphabetical organization. It is a nightmare to maintain chronologically organized theme pages. Peter1c (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I would like to offer some clarification on the meaning of the assumption of good faith in the Wikipedia community.

Table 2. Clarification of meaning of assumption of good faith
editor action or statement referent of statement assumes good faith? comment
removing quotations added by other editors without (1) indicating removal in the edit summary or (2) making any attempt to discuss proposed removals with the community N/A
no statement		 No Assumes open discussion with other editors would not resolve the issue and removals must be done covertly.
edit warring N/A
no statement		 No Assumes open discussion with other editors would not resolve the issue and fails to engage in open discussion.
confronting other editors about edits and editing patterns edits,
editing patterns		 Yes assumes (often contrary to evidence) that confronted editors are capable of recognizing the problem with their edits and editing patterns.
Assumes a possibility of learning, repentance and reform.
confronting other editors about language and tone used in discussions,
suggesting less confrontational methods of presenting disagreements		 editor's language Yes Making the editor's language and tone rather than their personal identity the subject of the confrontation allows for the possibility of learning, reform and repentance.
saying an editor needs to be banned or removed as a reaction to being confronted the editor's person
the editor's entire career on Wikipedia		 No Saying an editor needs to be removed in the context of a discussion of edits or editing patterns constitutes an example of escalation of conflict and personalization of conflict. This kind of statement represents shifting the locus of the conflict from edits and editing patterns to the person, their competence and their viability as a member of the community. This kind of statement specifically negates any possibility that the problematic editor might be able to learn from the discussion, reform or repent for their problematic attitudes and actions.
  1. When editors delete an entire article and rebuild it according to their own criteria, neglecting more than half the content of the previous article, they hardly assume good faith in the previous editors who worked hard to compile and curate the article.
  2. I hope it was always clear from the context that everything I am saying is a reaction to particular edits and editing patterns, and is not intended as a personal attack.
  3. When editors stated they perceived my comments as a personal attack, I have always attempted to clarify that this is not at all my intention, and I am criticizing editing patterns, not making ontological denigrations of the editors as human beings.
  4. I think it is clear from the context that even my most hyperbolic statements are intended to be in inspiration to learning and repentance.
  5. I have never suggested, implied or intended to suggest or imply that another editor should be banned or removed.
  6. The accusation that I am "not assuming good faith" seems like gaslighting, projection, i.e. using counter-reprovals and other deflections as a means for evading discussion of the original issue.
  7. Any accusation that I lack an assumption of good faith is entirely false. I have a lot of faith in the good hearts of the WQ community!!!

Peter1c (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve certainly questioned Ficaias contributions on more than one occasion, examples are:

  1. Mistranslations or out-of-context translations from the Talmud
  2. In the article Dasa, he added quotes which are outdated racist, colonial misrepresentations of a major religious text of a world religion,
  3. Adding images and maps promoting questionable views on archaeology and that conflate race with language and religion
  4. Deleting quotes because of his 'pov concerns' rather than because of quotability, some of these deleted quotes were critical of racial interpretations of history

I could provide more details if necessary, but since these actions have ceased, I’d rather not dwell on them. While I do not want to make any accusations, these examples did highlight a degree of insensitivity and a poor understanding of the sources. That being said, it’s also important to acknowledge that Ficaia has made many outstanding and commendable contributions that have significantly enhanced the project. --ᘙ (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other mass deletions

edit

This issue is part of a pattern of mass deletions of content. I am working on documenting the situation further and will continue to report my results on this thread.

Table 1. Mass deletions of prior content on Wikiquote
date article edit edit summary comment status
July 3, 2024 Indomania Mass deletion of content, including table of contents. Empty edit summary. - -
November 27, 2024 Poverty reduction Blanking entire article. Empty edit summary. - (Status: Reverted 29 November 2024 by C.J. Griffin)
February 2, 2024 Persephone Blanking entire article. Empty edit summary. - -

Peter1c (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate or automated removal of content is definitely something that either should never be done or at the very least should get a clear community consensus for being done prior to someone doing it. It seems like that is what is happening at your diff. That said, the content of what was removed was also not entirely wrong. E.g. the quotation that begins, "The year 1863 will remain cherished and blessed..." is clearly far too long and contradicts Wikiquote:Quotability, which is a reasonable guideline if not a strict policy. It's unfortunate that this edit is certainly inappropriate but also includes some reasonable elements in it. @Ficaia: it seems like you are routinely removing a lot of material such as here and here. Can you please explain here what is going on? Are you using any kind of semi-automated tools here? What is your goal with these mass removals? Is there any kind of consensus for your edits that I'm ignorant of? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be a sub-topic to the above one about mass removal on United States. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to avoid these kinds of unnecessary disputes in the future

edit

Here are some relevant Wikipedia policies to keep in mind to avoid disputes:

  • Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather than edit warring.
  • Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. An edit that one editor thinks is minor or clearly warranted might be seen as major or unwarranted by others. If you choose to be bold, provide the rationale for any change in the edit summary or on the article talk page. If your change is lengthy or complex, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and start a discussion that includes a link to it on the article's talk page.
I see Ficaia created a draft as a subheading of Talk:United States on November 18, 2024 so clearly some effort was made to comply with this policy. I'm not sure why this approach was not continued.
  • Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted.

Peter1c (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to restore all your personal attacks against me above, including the original title of this thread. You can strike through anything you no longer believe, but you don't get to change arguments which have already been responded to. Ficaia (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions about justifications offered for mass deletions

edit
Table 3. Justifications offered for mass deletions of material contributed by other editors
justification for mass deletions comments and questions about justification
"The LibraryClerk sockfarm spent literally years adding unquotable POV-pushing quotes to many articles."
See, e.g. Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037#Clean up on Aisle Five. 		Other Wikiquote users have pointed out that the material contributed by the LibraryClerk sockfarm constitutes only a small fraction of the material removed in the mass deletions. Is the LibraryClerk sockfarm issue the actual reason for the mass deletions, or a pretext for a wider cleanup project?
Where can the Wikiquote editor community review the reasoning behind the mass deletions as they are actually being implemented?
The removed material is POV-pushing. Editors are abusing Wikiquote "to push pro-Kremlin, anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel, and anti-US editorializing, presented as quotes."
See, e.g. Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037#Clean up on Aisle Five. 		From w:Wikipedia:NPOV: "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective."
In the context of Wikiquote, this means bias in an article should be remedied by adding rather than deleting material to correct the bias.
From w:Wikipedia:NPOV: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
Views critical of U. S. foreign policy are not by any means marginal or minoritarian when we look at global peer reviewed literature.
From WQ:NPOV: "'Neutral point of view' should not be confused with 'point of view espoused by an international body such as the United Nations'; writing in NPOV style requires recognising that even widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing."
The example used in the policy document is the United Nations. Does this also apply to the U.S. State Department?
Wikiquote is an international community. Differing viewpoints should in theory be able to coexist, without a single nation dictating the editorial policy. Why does the U. S. viewpoint on international relations receive priority?
The removed material is not widely quoted This would need to be established on a quote by quote basis. I have found many quotes that were removed are in fact very widely quoted. The problem with mass trials is that the individual doesn't get a fair hearing.
The removed material is not quotable See Wikiquote:Quotability for the established criteria of quotability. Criteria include quality of source, notability of author, etc. Notice that "agreement with my personal views" is not one of the criteria. I see many quotes from very famous figures cited from high quality sources being removed. It is clear that in citing "quotability" to justify these removals, something different is meant from the meaning of quotability as traditionally defined in the Wikiquote community.

Fundamentally, the problem with mass deletions of material is the same as the problem with mass trials, mass deportations, etc. It is very unlikely that each individual will receive a fair trial. It is very unlikely that the criteria for removal will be established beyond a reasonable doubt for each individual. The defense of each individual never gets a chance to be heard.

I see User:HouseOfChange indicated his intent to undertake a project of removing contributions of LibraryFarm sockpuppets at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037#Clean up on Aisle Five. This is good that HouseOfChange has shared this intention with the community. But the actual edits I see in these mass removals seem to be of a scope far beyond removal of the LibraryFarm contributions. My impression is that this wider intention is more accurately described as removing all quotes critical of the United States domestic and foreign policies. For example: critical history is a burgeoning field in academia, but the editorial policy of removing all quotes critical of the U. S. is in effect silencing this entire domain of historical scholarship and making it inaccessible to Wikiquote readership.

Why are we moving away from Wikiquote's longstanding inclusive policy that allows our readers to be exposed to many different perspectives on important issues and make up their own minds? Why are we moving away from the well established policy that POV issues are resolved by adding more material and organizing the page in a neutral way that doesn't give undue prominence to a single view?

In philosophy, the idea that only what supports the material or political interests of a certain nation or party deserves an audience and qualifies as a candidate for truth is sometimes called "partisan epistemology" or "epistemic partisanship". This is contrasted with objectivity, neutrality, fairness. Nonpartisanship requires an international perspective that includes the viewpoints of all nations and peoples. I am not sure when the Wikiquote community decided it was so pro-U.S.A. that all dissenting voices needed to be silenced? I was certainly not privy to the discussion where these things were decided. It makes me feel like a decision is being made on behalf of the editor community without an attempt to survey what our actual positions are.

Why should the editorial staff of Wikiquote enforce a monolithic pro-U.S. view and silence all dissenters and critics?

Peter1c (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been just as objectionable is the LibraryClerk sockfarm added long unquotable pov-pushing material to promote pro-US, pro-Israel, rah rah stuff to the project. Nobody is trying to silence dissenters and critics, but unquotable POV-pushing is not acceptable from any viewpoint. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HouseOfChange. Thank you for explaining your position on this. One might have been misled from some of your statements. If the question of pro-US/anti-US material interests affected by the quote is irrelevant to your verdict as your revised position indicates, perhaps we might hope that in the future this justification will not appear so prominently in justifications for removals. I am now reviewing your deletions in War crimes. Most would be 100% kosher with me if not for the section heading. I am finding a few that are notable and I will audition these for re-inclusion on the talk page. I really appreciate your clarification of your position. Peter1c (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HouseOfChange was/is right about the war crimes page. I made some improvements on that front. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IOHANNVSVERVS. Thanks for your comment. I see there were a lot of quotes with non-notable sources and I am glad they were removed. I know USA is not the only nation that commits war crimes. I think this implies we need to be expanding coverage of other nations' war crimes, not concealing our own sins.

From w:Wikipedia:NPOV:
Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective.
Seems to also apply on Wikiquote.

I found three quotes that were removed that pass my check for notability and sourcing. I have put these on the talk page for discussion. Peter1c (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed settlement approaches

edit
Table 4. Proposed settlement approaches for United States
user most recent proposed settlement approach
Ficaia
HouseOfChange BD2412 proposes a method that has worked well in the past. Could we start small with this, discussing proposed changes just to the image quotes and the A section? If we can build consensus on this mini-project, going forward might be smoother.
IOHANNVSVERVS
BD2412 Put removed/contested quotes on a subpage of the talk page and work through them individually.
UDScott Revert to full condition of the page with all quotes restored and sorted alphabetically.
Disputed quotes can be discussed on talk page regarding potential removal.
Preserve quotes that are obviously notable and properly sourced.
Justin Removal of content requires prior community consensus.
Some of Ficaia's removals are justified per WQ policy.
It's unfortunate that this edit is certainly inappropriate but also includes some reasonable elements in it.
Other mass removals require justification.
Request clarification on possible use of semi-automated tools.
Request clarification on goal of mass removals. Request documentation any prior consensus for the edits.
Peter1c Merge new additions into alphabetically organized revision of 8 March 2025.
Then proceed to discuss proposed deletions and chronological reorganization.

I think whatever way we choose to move forward should honor the intentions of other editors who have contributed to the article. This implies all deletions of material require some kind of due process. Mass deletion of material with no due process is not a good precedent. It seems to me the intentions of prior contributors can best be honored by restoring all quotes that were removed without due process and then processing removals one by one with with due process.
Administratively, the most straightforward way to accomplish this would be something like this:

  1. begin with the currently locked version (alphabetical)
  2. add in all quotes contributed by Ficaia
  3. remove poorly sourced quotes
  4. remove other quotes with due process by obtaining consensus
  5. decide whether to organize the final article alphabetically or chronologically or in some other way

I hereby volunteer to do 1-3 if there is consensus for this. Peter1c (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter1c has made the identical proposal at Talk:United_States#Discussion_of_settlement_approaches, and two other editors have responded there. Qnyone who wants to join that conversation is invited to join it at Talk:United_States#Discussion_of_settlement_approaches HouseOfChange (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to other language Wikiquotes

edit

I tried to link an English Wikiquote page to its corresponding Russian page. [3]

It isn't working for some reason [4]

Any help appreciated, thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked it through Wikidata. I suggest using Wikidata for consistency across languages. If you want to add an interlanguage link manually, use the format: [[ru:Михаил Нехемьевич Таль]]. Hope this helps! Saroj (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how did you connect it to Wikidata? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata and Sister Projects: an online event

edit

Hello everyone, I’m writing to announce an upcoming event called Wikidata and Sister Projects that will be a mini online conference to highlight the different ways Wikidata can be connected and integrated with the other WM projects.

We are currently looking for session ideas and speakers for our program and wanted to reach out in case there were any editors here that might have a cool idea for a session proposal. Sessions can be found on the event discussion page.

As previously mentioned, we would like to showcase any relationship between Wikiquote and Wikidata and in what ways the two projects can benefit each other.

The event is scheduled between May 29 - June 1st, 2025. If you have any questions about the event, would like more information or have a session idea to propose, please feel free to get in touch by replying to this post or writing on the event page or on my talk page. Thanks for reading, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final proposed modifications to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter now posted

edit

The proposed modifications to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and the U4C Charter are now on Meta-wiki for community notice in advance of the voting period. This final draft was developed from the previous two rounds of community review. Community members will be able to vote on these modifications starting on 17 April 2025. The vote will close on 1 May 2025, and results will be announced no later than 12 May 2025. The U4C election period, starting with a call for candidates, will open immediately following the announcement of the review results. More information will be posted on the wiki page for the election soon.

Please be advised that this process will require more messages to be sent here over the next two months.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

edit

There's a discussion on my talk page here about the use of footnotes/inline citations. Others are welcome to give their opinions, either in that discussion on my talk page or here in this thread. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make it clearer what you want to discuss and why? E.g. give an example of something related to footnotes that you want to see changed on WQ? HouseOfChange (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott informed me that "we don't usually use Reference sections or footnotes here on WQ. We try to remove them whenever one appears on a page". I added a footnote to Dorothy Thompson (the first/top two entries) which I think is reasonable / should not be removed.
There's no real need for a discussion on this, but UDScott stated that "Change is OK, but I would suggest perhaps opening up some discussion about it before making such a fundamental change that would ultimately affect nearly every page here." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In those two cases, I think the normal way of citing a source would actually be better and less confusing. I think I see your point that citing things in Wikipedia gives more information about the source than we normally do, but since in both cases you have an available URL there isn't really a need for that extra information on the WQ page. I am not "against" footnotes if they have a useful case, but I don't see one there, just my opinion. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about in this this case? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd prefer to stick with the standard style for both those examples (no footnotes). In the case of Dorothy Thompson, if an original source cannot be found, it could be moved to a separate section (e.g. "Attributed"). We usually allow secondary sources if they are sufficiently old or sufficiently close in time to the time of the quotation, e.g. [5]. Cagliost (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I have found the original for one of those Thompson quotations, and I have confirmed the other as Misattributed. See my edits and Talk:Dorothy Thompson. Cagliost (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata and Sister Projects: An online community event

edit

(Apologies for posting in English)

Hello everyone, I am excited to share news of an upcoming online event called Wikidata and Sister Projects celebrating the different ways Wikidata can be used to support or enhance with another Wikimedia project. The event takes place over 4 days between May 29 - June 1st, 2025.

We would like to invite speakers to present at this community event, to hear success stories, challenges, showcase tools or projects you may be working on, where Wikidata has been involved in Wikipedia, Commons, WikiSource and all other WM projects.

If you are interested in attending, please register here. If you would like to speak at the event, please fill out this Session Proposal template on the event talk page, where you can also ask any questions you may have.

I hope to see you at the event, in the audience or as a speaker, - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for studios

edit

The various templates that have been established for films by studios (like Template:Warner Bros. and Template:DC Comics animated films) appear to be another way of identifying which studios created which films - in the past, we had categories that served this same purpose, but they were deleted. See Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Films by studio and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Animation films by studio categories (as well as discussions: here, here, and here). These templates have grown quite large and unwieldy and the value of having them is not readily apparent. I am inclined to nominate them for VFD. Anyone have any thoughts? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now on the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter

edit

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines ("UCoC EG") and the UCoC's Coordinating Committee Charter is open now through the end of 1 May (UTC) (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review of the EG and Charter was planned and implemented by the U4C. Further information will be provided in the coming months about the review of the UCoC itself. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new to Wikiquote

edit

Hi, I'm Sparkle & Fade, a Wikipedia editor. I'm completely new to Wikiquote, and digging through all of the instruction pages leave me confused. I'm trying to dip into other sister projects, and here I want to make a collection of quotes for a band I've been working on across several wikis. My question is: is there any sort of 'criteria for inclusion' or is the premise to just put a bunch of standout quotes into the compendium? I'm very much lost here because of the lack of guidance, and I would appreciate any help. Thanks! —Sparkle & Fade (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the band has a Wikipedia article, then it would be "notable" enough for an article here. In addition, a WQ article needs "quotable" quotes, i.e. "witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant" quotes that are less than 250 words long. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on proposed modifications to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter

edit

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter closes on 1 May 2025 at 23:59 UTC (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community in your language, as appropriate, so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C --

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about two concepts

edit

Hello ! "Wikiquote project" is a thing for which I'm not familiar yet.
I read "Wikiquote:Quotability".

I don't understand the concept : "Highly notable person".
Also , I don't understand the concept : "person of minor notability".

I'm a Wikipedian with more than 500 edits on "Wikipedia in English" if we take into account the total of edits in all w:Wikipedia:Namespace.

Therefore , I'm familiarised with the concept of "notability".
Nevertheless , I don't understand the concepts mentionned above.

How do we consider than someone is a "Highly notable person" ?
How do we consider than someone is a "person of minor notability" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will be enabling the new Charts extension on your wiki soon!

edit

(Apologies for posting in English)

Hi all! We have good news to share regarding the ongoing problem with graphs and charts affecting all wikis that use them.

As you probably know, the old Graph extension was disabled in 2023 due to security reasons. We’ve worked in these two years to find a solution that could replace the old extension, and provide a safer and better solution to users who wanted to showcase graphs and charts in their articles. We therefore developed the Charts extension, which will be replacing the old Graph extension and potentially also the EasyTimeline extension.

After successfully deploying the extension on Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew Wikipedia, as well as on MediaWiki.org, as part of a pilot phase, we are now happy to announce that we are moving forward with the next phase of deployment, which will also include your wiki.

The deployment will happen in batches, and will start from May 6. Please, consult our page on MediaWiki.org to discover when the new Charts extension will be deployed on your wiki. You can also consult the documentation about the extension on MediaWiki.org.

If you have questions, need clarifications, or just want to express your opinion about it, please refer to the project’s talk page on Mediawiki.org, or ping me directly under this thread. If you encounter issues using Charts once it gets enabled on your wiki, please report it on the talk page or at Phabricator.

Thank you in advance! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Audio feedback

edit

Audio feedback seems to have a very long intro. Does it need cutting down or is that not an issue? Cheers, Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right - this intro was quite long. I've added some links, but trimmed much of the content there. In general, we try to keep the intros fairly short, with just relevant or essential information in them. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you UDScott. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 23:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and pasted from Wikipedia

edit

Hi, what is the copyright status if an intro or couple of sentences are copied and pasted from Wikipedia? I've come back here after a long break and noticed it on some articles almost immediately. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alextejthompson: it's completely fine to do, with attribution. You can give that in the edit summary with something like "Copied from URI of Wikipedia article". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks Koavf, nice to see you again! Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 13:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call for Candidates for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

edit
The results of voting on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter is available on Meta-wiki.

You may now submit your candidacy to serve on the U4C through 29 May 2025 at 12:00 UTC. Information about eligibility, process, and the timeline are on Meta-wiki. Voting on candidates will open on 1 June 2025 and run for two weeks, closing on 15 June 2025 at 12:00 UTC.

If you have any questions, you can ask on the discussion page for the election. -- in cooperation with the U4C,

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_63&oldid=3766157"