User talk:Ningauble/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on : from Jul–Dec 2010. Do not edit this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the |current talk page.

User:Gregcaletta
Hello Ningauble, I hope you are doing well. I reported a disruptive w:WP:SPA user to WQ:AN, at: Administrators'_noticeboard. Causing disruption spamming external link to some guy's personal blog site, on a quote page of a living person. Perhaps you could deal with this via block and/or final warning? Thank you very much for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ningauble, continues to post at Talk:Julian Assange, continues to insist that we must include this random blog website link, and continues to refuse to understand both my postings, and yours. Gregcaletta has stated that he will revert and re-insert the link to the blog website. At this point in time, his repeated postings and circular reasoning and argumentative nature arguing for adding blog-website-unreliable links to a quote apge on a living person - are getting disruptive in nature, yes? -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Fully all of the disruption and argumentation by goes against what is described at the en.wikipedia policy page w:WP:BLP, specifically Questionable sources and external links. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys are both just talking past each other. A little less "argumentation" and a little more "explanation" may be more appropriate when dealing with a newcomer whose expectations are frustrated. ~ Ningauble 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, that is why input from a third party such as yourself, is most appreciated! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

After your talk page comment about the site as being unreliable, and YouTube links as being unreliable, continues to disruptively add them in to the page on this living person. Thoughts on what should be done about this user's behavior? -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I already warned the user about re-adding the blog link. I looks to me like the YouTube citations were done in good faith, notwithstanding the contentious history. I am no fan of citing YouTube at Wikimedia projects. However, there is precedent in a large number of Wikiquote articles. I think they are mostly crap, but previous community discussions place me in a distinct minority. The situation is different at Wikipedia, where the WP:V policy says "Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria" and the WP:RS guideline describes "video and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party." I think it is bizarre for Wikiquote to presume the reliability of any open user-submitted content hosting service, but that, in effect, seems to be the case for video. ~ Ningauble 21:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, he reinserted the blog link, again, after your warning. As for YouTube links as sources, use on Wikiquote, in and of itself, is not an endorsement of reliability or acceptance. -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Nothing much, but thank you for blocking the IP address of the user that continuously vandalized the Aqua Teen Hunger FOrce pages. It's relieving that I won't have to continuously keep reediting the pages because of deliberate vandalism.  Thanks again.  -SM

Michelle Obama
Sir, I just added a quotation of Michelle Obama which is sourced by the German Wikiquote. I cannot translate it into proper English and in consequence I wanted to adress an administrator who could help further. I have written the German version and my poor translation on the discussion page. The German original source is weekly news magazine of reputation like Newsweek.--79.231.24.99 04:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no German. Does Michelle? ~ Ningauble 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At last, the source might have translated an interview. But I would have supposed sufficient a correction of my translation. If the printed source was not English, it would harm the original English quotation of Michelle Obama. - I suppose it to be almost improbable that she could speak German. English should have been the lingua franca of the German journalists, too.--79.231.25.230 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Inertia
I feel like I need to tell you about this user who's been putting deletion bans on articles he considers "worthless" and banning people before even making the nominations for it.72.184.129.252 07:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? It has nothing to do with me. I am the user - German, 32 years old - who asked Ningauble about the correction of a quotation of Michelle Obama. On this discussion page. Normally I am not used to visit the English Wikiquote.--79.231.23.243 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has nothing to do with you. This is under a separate heading. ~ Ningauble 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Inertia appears to have come down from whatever he was high on, and apologized at the Vandalism in progress noticeboard. ~ Ningauble 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange
Please take a look at Cirt's reversion of my most recent contributions to the article (with sources this time, as you and he requested). Do you not feel he being more unreasonable than I am here? And do you not feel that what he is doing could be considered "edit-warring"?just as easily, if not more easily, that what I have been doing? Gregcaletta 07:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * YouTube is not an acceptable source. What makes these quotes noteworthy of inclusion on Wikiquote? Have they been quoted in any books, newspaper articles, academic journal articles? -- Cirt (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my question was directed at Nigauble. I am not really interested in your opinion.  You have shown yourself to be unreasonable, unwilling to properly explain your actions, and unwilling to attempt to achieve consensus.  However, your question is an easy one to answer.  No, they haven't been "quoted in any books, newspaper articles, academic journal articles".  To assert that they ought to have been is to assert that this is not a site for quotations, but a site for quotations of quotations, which is absurd, and clearly not the case for other articles.  Have the quotes on the Ralph Waldo Emerson been "quoted in any books, newspaper articles, academic journal articles"?  The quotes on the Emerson page come from things that he wrote down himself (because video did not exist in those days) just as the quotes of Assange come from things he has said in public (because he is a speaker, not a writer).  It is up to the Wikipedians decide, through discussion and consensus building, which of Emerson's statements are worthy of inclusion in the article. Our job is to pick quotes which we believe significant and to provide evidence that, beyond reasonable doubt, the person actually actually said that thing.  I have already explained why these quotes are noteworthy and why there is no reasonable doubt that Assange actually said these things.  The date and location of the conference or interview and proof that Assange spoke there have been given.  The quotes appear on a site publicly endorsed by Wikileaks.  The fact that a YouTube link has also been included does not make it less likely that he said these things.  In fact, it counts as supplementary evidence.  It would just  not be evidence enough on its own, if we had a reasonable concern that the video were a hoax.  In this case, there is no reasonable doubt that these videos are a hoax, or that Assange actually said these things.  Gregcaletta 04:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see talk page, Talk:Julian Assange. Interestingly, I have come to find that seems a bit more capable of engaging in polite discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "noteworthiness" of the quotes: The situation with Emerson is different because the quoted works are themselves notable. Quotation in secondary sources is a way to show one of the elements of quotability for remarks from speeches or other works that may not be so obviously notable. ~ Ningauble 13:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I don't understand that argument. You are saying that Emerson's books are notable, whereas the events at which Assange spoke are not notable?  Gregcaletta 10:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the sense of Wikipedia's general notability guideline, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," it is fairly obvious that Emerson's works are notable, including speeches and letters that have been republished generations afer his death. Although Assange is a notable person and events at which he spoke may have been newsworthy, it is less obvious that particular speeches or remarks of his are notable. ~ Ningauble 15:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod, agree with everything said, in this comment by Ningauble. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The general notability guideline is an explanation of how to decide whether a subject deserves own article, which has already been the established for Assange. The relevant guideline for individual quotes is instead the one you previously mentioned, quotability.  Emerson's works are all highly notable; the guideline explains how one is to determine the quotability or particular statements: "(in particular) where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions. How a quote is weighed under this factor is a very subjective decision, which may be determined by consensus of the community".  So as I said, it is determined by "consensus of the community", not by the fact it is a quotation of a quotation.  Although it is inherently subjective, the quotes I recently included in the article, (which Cirt reverted) I think are clearly some of Assange's best, to even the most remotely reasonable observer.  It is clear that Cirt has not been making an effort to reach consensus.  He created the article, and has since reverted every attempt by others to contribute.  To further establish quotability (beyond the subjective) this is a set of quotes that have been publicly endorsed by Wikileaks, most likely by Assange himself, which is essentially the equivalent of Emerson saying, of an independently published selection of quotes "these collection quotes marvellously represents the essence of my teaching", or something of that nature, which I would have expected would only further compound the quotability of those particular quotes.  Gregcaletta 04:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those quotes were discussed "in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and we should rely on secondary and independent sources to establish noteworthiness of quotes - not the subjects' personal opinions about their own quotes, themselves. -- Cirt (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nigauble, have you noticed that Cirt avoids responding to any of my points, or even the guideline I quoted which directly contradicts what he is saying? This is not consensus building, so it is Cirt who is guilty of edit warring.  Gregcaletta 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * False characterization by . Note that due to the polite and matter-of-fact tone by, we were able to come to a resolution on one particular quote and source, and I added a quote back into the page . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * False characterisation? So you did respond to some of my points, did you, Cirt?  Which points did you respond to?  Gregcaletta 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to have this argument on your talk page, Ningauble, but Cirt keeps "responding" to the questions I mean to direct to you. Gregcaletta 01:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

T E Hulme

 * thank you ,I have revised the presentation.Ichthys58 14:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Dean Martin?
Is that really the policy...to delete a famous person's entire entry, just because the initial quote is erroneous, even though there are a great many other quotes that could be added...Or is this another example of runaway wikilawyering, where someone takes loose guidelines, that are often invented to justify removing things when someone has an agenda, and misapplying them to everything, as if they were absolute and necessary rules? Surely you could have taken ten seconds to find some other common Dean Martin quote, or at least left it to someone else to do. Deletion should be a last resort, not an obsession. --Kazvorpal 15:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not just made up: There is longstanding precedent at Wikiquote that quotes are to be associated with authors and works, not with performers. Removing the misattributed quote would leave no quotes in the article at all—a situation that calls for the last resort. There is no objection to creating an article with quotes by Dean Martin but, unlike Wikipedia, where placeholder articles for notable subjects are normal, Wikiquote does not keep articles with no actual quotes in them. Having already spent ten minutes (not seconds) tracking down the lyric, I am not especially interested in looking for quotes by him, and leave it to somebody else. ~ Ningauble 16:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And actually, that is the point of using proposed deletion - it allows a week for someone to potentially correct the issue with a page. ~ UDScott 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I forgot to mention that. I ought to write some boilerplate so I don't get distracted by, e.g., something in the tone of the enquiry. ~ Ningauble 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I came here to make the same complaint as Kazvorpa. I just created Mau Piailug and went to sleep. When I returned to add quotes, I found that it was deleted. This is really discouraging and if you are trying to turn people away from using this site, you are doing a great job. A three second search would have turned up numerous quotes, all of which have been in the media in the last week. It appears careless and short-sighted to delete pages on notable individuals without attempting to fix the problem or alert others to it, first. I am curious how deletion in both cases was necessary or required. Viriditas 03:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just restored the page. Viriditas 03:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating an article with quotes. I appreciate your frustration about the previous version being deleted, but Wikiquote is all about the quotes. I know it seems cold, but pages without any quotations are just not Wikiquote articles, and are routinely deleted. Please keep on quoting. ~ Ningauble 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

About a potential merger
Hey, I believe that you suggested Fantasy_novels be merged into the fantasy books category. Won't it be suitable if we made it a subcategory of fantasy books? I mean there are Fantasy poems and other fantasy literature too, so making it a subcategory will help people locate the books easily. Aarsalankhalid 21:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of what is in the "books" category are novels, so I mainly wanted to eliminate the mistake of using two different categories for the same thing. (Note that several works are listed in both categories.) Articles on actual genre fiction books that are not novels are quite rare, and probably do not need a separate category. I don't like the idea of making the larger category, "Novels," a subcategory of something that would only exist for rare exceptions, which is why I suggested merging them all into "Books". (Notice the same situation with Category:Science Fiction novels.) ~ Ningauble 13:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiroo Onoda
hello! you suggested additional citations for Hiroo Onoda, but all quotes are sourced. could you please explain your suggestion?


 * The individual quotes were not associated with specific sources. I have fixed it using interlinear citations and removed the tag. ~ Ningauble 13:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for advice
Thanks for setting me straight in "How to contact a contributor" which followed on to my query in WQ's Village Pump. Now I know at least that WP and WQ have different user talk pages. And I guess that the way to contact another WP or WQ editor is to edit that person's talk pages, as here. Mahnut 04:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User page
Plaesy delete my page. --Somerwind 14:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deletion
Hello! Which sources will count as valid for the article? Is a fan site a valid source? --Tucayo 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fan sites are considered unreliable sources, because they generally lack professional editorial control and are often full of rumors. Since this person has been the target of numerous hoaxes and slanders, only the most reliable sources should be used. Thanks for checking. ~ Ningauble 20:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Better now, thanks. I removed the prod from Justin Bieber. ~ Ningauble 15:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

VFD request
Ningauble, I got a bit lost in trying to create just one vfd for the group of newly created categories of films by studios (code is definitely not my strong point on here). When you nominated a similar group a while back, you were able to consolidate this into one entry on the VFD page. Can you maybe help do the same here? If not, I guess it's OK to have individual ones for each category, but I did like how you did it before - I just got a little tripped up when I tried to do the same. Thanks! ~ UDScott 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I may write a crib sheet on how to do this. I have done it a few times, but find myself reinventing the wheel each time. ~ Ningauble 15:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, see User:Ningauble/Useful/VFD tips (also linked at my userpage). ~ Ningauble 21:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I will refer to this in the future. Thanks. ~ UDScott 23:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tell me plainly what cleanup at all?
Talk:The Meaning of Meaning --Hyde Park 10:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied at the above linked discussion page. ~ Ningauble 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
. Sincerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado. Vapmachado 00:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Joran van der Sloot
Hello, I am learning about the different notability requirements here vs. Wikipedia. Perhaps my fault is in being too inclusive about the subject without regard to the individual quotes themselves (I had used political figures as a template where I suppose almost anything said would be notable). Do you think it may make a difference if some judgment was exercised to narrow it down to quotes of greater relevance? Thank you. KimChee 04:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied at the article talk page. ~ Ningauble 14:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting

 * Hi, I've been working my way through the list of TV shows to cleanup, and I want to split this page because it is very long (442kb). I also wanted to thin the quotes down a bit, as it's in danger of breaching copyright, to only a few per episode (which would also bring the size down. I just wanted to check this with an admin, as there doesn't seem to be a "propose for splitting' page, unlike wikipedia.
 * Another very Bold textlong one is this one, which I also propose splitting.
 * I've previously split the One Tree Hill page, so this will be no trouble. Soph 22:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cleanup work you have been doing. Splitting is really an editorial decision rather than an administrative matter. As an administrator I just delete what has to go and block the troublemakers. But as a contributor who has been around the block a few times, I am happy to share my thoughts on editorial questions. Perhaps we do need something in Category:Merge and move templates for proposing a split, but for TV serials there is ample precedent to break up large pages by season. I don't think it would be a problem. Compare also The Simpsons and The Simpsons (disambiguation) for a way to split the article and still have a huge page. I don't really like that approach because, while it breaks it up for editing, the main page is still gargantuan for reading. About Beavis and Butt-Head in particular, see my comment on its talk page: splitting out the music video segments would likely lead to too many quotes per program, as tends to happen whenever quotes from one production are spread across multiple articles. Finally, if I may share an unsolicited, non-neutral editorial opinion: I think that articles on television series that come even close to the limits on quotations are crappy articles, because including too much mediocre material defeats the purpose of highlighting the good stuff! I will not complain if you remove more than the limits require, but other contributors may complain very loudly. Hence, I generally stay away from television articles. ~ Ningauble 00:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Itaca
Caro Ningauble ho visto la voce che ho scritto Francesco Mucci e credo abbia bisogno di essere sistemata.Lo fare io,ma non conosco ancora bene l'inglese.Potresti darmi un'aiuto? Grazie--Itaca 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have only English. ~ Ningauble 19:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Appel

 * I strongly disagree with your effort to remove Appel quotes en masse and have reverted where possible (this is not my fulltime job and i'm sure i missed some; at a minimum, they should be relocated to the talk pages or (better) to Appel's page, as he himself is notable; in addition, some of these quotations have been widely quoted (did you try plugging the one on cats into google?) and require individual assessment, not trowing out baby and bathwater. In addtion, please do not refer to quotations as fatuous, as it suggests you are judging the content rather than the notability, which i'm sure you're not  173.244.219.133 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have opened a request for comment at the Village Pump to discuss whether it is appropriate to keep or to remove these quotations. To be clear, I am indeed judging the Quotability of the content, which is quite distinct from the notion of Notability of a subject at Wikipedia. I am sorry if you felt "fatuous remark" was too strong a characterization of some of the quotes. I did not mean to impugn the intelligence of the author or the contributor, for silly remarks can be used by anyone for humorous or rhetorical purposes, and I have been known to do so myself. I meant only to indicate why I thought the material was inappropriately trivial for the theme articles in question. As for editing "to make a point," I do not know what point you have in mind. My only purpose was to clean up the content described in the above linked RFC.~ Ningauble 18:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ningauble, can't these IPs just be blocked as socks ? -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was trying to assume good faith. These are not from the same IP ranges I previously observed appelizing, and there is no rule against editing from a dynamic address as long as it is not done with intent to deceive. (Unlike a considerable number of named accounts that showed up in the last month or so, unrelated to appelisms.) I see you have already taken action. (Shrug.) ~ Ningauble 19:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly socks and meatpuppets organized from offsite somehow. -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Code Lyoko Quotes
Hello!

I saw that you added the tv-cleanup tag to the Code Lyoko page, and I'm undertaking the challenge (please see the progress I've made thus far).

I have a question. My method of collecting quotes is to re-watch every episode and collect every quote that looks promising. How would I cite that? Is there any specific way? Am I going about collecting quotes the right way?

Thanks for your time,

Matthewrbowker 05:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You have the right idea about organizing the quotes by episode. Refer to List of Code Lyoko episodes at Wikipedia for information about episode numbers, which can be shown in square brackets after the titles. Note that the prequels should be listed in chronological order, between seasons 2 and 3. Also, please review Limits on quotations:  There should be at most two quotes for any half-hour program. The challenge is to find the very best quotes, and not every episode will have one. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I'll be sure to keep in mind the limits on quotations. Thanks for your help. Matthewrbowker 19:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing other users' sect headings
Please do not remove other users' sect headings, as you have done, here. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't appear to be opposed to such refactoring in general and I thought the reason I gave was an appropriate one, but it doesn't really matter. Sometimes these discussions are just impossible to organize anyway. It was certainly not my intention to redact or obscure the point you were making. ~ Ningauble 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it as is. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it doesn't really matter. ~ Ningauble 13:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Main page QotD
Your recent post to my talk page and my response:
 * Please note that the main page today, All Hallows 2010, is displaying last year's Quote of the day/November 1, 2009 instead of the current Quote of the day/November 1, 2010 because someone has altered Main Page Quote of the day and other components of QotD processing. To avoid disruption of the process, you will either need to adopt the new method (and complete its implementation) or to roll back the changes that were made. ~ Ningauble 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please revert the changes Cirt recently made to the Template:Main Page Quote of the day page so it doesn't display last year's misplaced page. I do not presently have sufficient editing privileges to take care of the matter. As you or someone else noted earlier in the month the changes he made to the templates seem to have NO clear positive affect or advantage, and I clearly perceive many detrimental effects to them which I had intended to note soon. I actually did not expect the changes made would actually have such effects as these so soon, but anticipated the changes would have to be reverted. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 02:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, as a quick fix pending further discussion at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please undo your reverts to Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day
Please see Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hat hab
Kalki now has IP block exempt. Kalki can now edit through IP blocks. This will obviously be revoked if Kalki show himself not worthy of this privilege and userright. All issues are now resolved. Please do not remove the hat/hab formatting at WQ:VP - otherwise Kalki will probably continue to post walls and walls of text at that discussion and attempt to draw out the discussion ad infinitum. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I only un-hid the discussion because, at the time, there was still a major unresolved issue. It's fine now; although there is little hope that we have seen the last of the walls of text. ~ Ningauble 16:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with you as to the first part of your comment. Unfortunately, also agree with you as to the second part of your comment. :( -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong about SkyTeam
Hello Ningauble, I've read the message that you sent me. According to the guidelines, I don't know what's wroung with SkyTeam; could you please point the flaw out for me? I was reading Microsoft, and I used that page's layout to build on SkyTeam. Sp33dyphil 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that neither of the quotes at Microsoft is from a press release? One of them is critical of Microsoft; the other is a slogan, attestable in third-party sources. Here at Wikiquote, we don't rely on companies to tell us without bias which of their statements are notable; we require some external confirmation that a quote is quotable, that a third party might recite it to make the point encapsulated therein. BD2412 T 03:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The layout is not the problem, it is the content. Wikiquote is for famous quotations (see Quotability), not for publicity (see What Wikiquote is not). ~ Ningauble 14:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the article SkyTeam better now? Sp33dyphil 06:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review Quotability, and discuss at Votes for deletion/SkyTeam rather than my personal page. ~ Ningauble 14:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Matsuo Bashō and Archpoet
Hey Ningauble. I'm curious as to what is the exact policy (or guideline) on these sister-project template external links such as the ones you've added on these two articles after I removed them. I mean, isn't it redundant to have a link to the Wikipedia article both in the lead section and at the very end, in the "External links" section? Please clarify this matter for me, as I've perused the MOS and couldn't find anything. &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {KLAT}  &bull; 19:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the boilerplate templates for starting articles. It is a bit redundant to link in both places, but that is the standard practice. Tags like wikipedia are informative, and serve to explicitly cross-promote Wikimedia sister-projects. ~ Ningauble 14:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Thanks for the answer! &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {KLAT}  &bull; 19:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Update
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)