Wikiquote:Village pump archive 41

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

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

For example


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

etc.

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

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

It may be relevant that Cirt has an extensive history of POV-pushing on these subjects on wikipedia, and in fact was de-sysopped and topic-banned for exactly that behavior there. After that, he concentrated on other wikimedia projects (where he has undoubtedly done a good deal of great work), but perhaps he cannot resist the temptation to return to his obsessions? --MLKLewis (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: ✅. I've gone ahead and voluntarily taken the initiative to move those above-mentioned quotes to the talk page, DIFF. Hopefully this is now satisfactory to . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Furthermore, is not the intense activity this last October at this page: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Forum&offset=&limit=100&action=history a further example of Cirt's attempting to hijack Wikiquote to propagate a personal viewpoint, an activity for which he was sanctioned at Wikipedia? --MLKLewis (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad you've acknowledged that I went ahead and removed entries from that page. If you participate in talk page discussion on the individual page I hope we can come to an amicable resolution together about this. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotes about notable social implications of technology
I would like to add quotes about particular scientific developments to Wikiquote. Is this ok?Open Research (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


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

Delete (not just lock) simple.wikiquote.org?
The simple-English wikiquote project at http://simple.wikiquote.org has been locked for some time, but it's still visible on the web, so it hasn't been fully closed. The simple English version of (apparently) 591 pages taints the whole project by making it look infantile - an impression reinforced by all those pages on the main site that use kindergarten-style images of galaxies and flames to illustrate abstract ideas. Isn't it time to remove it? Macspaunday (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Though there are clearly many differences of opinion between us on many matters, here is something I believe we can agree upon. I never really liked the idea much, but for a time it was clear that at least a few others did, and I am usually loathe to suppress efforts of others needlessly. The quality of their productions never did find broad appeal, and their enthusiasms were eventually dismissed, derided and suppressed by others, and the project killed. As it seems to be a thoroughly defunct site, I believe its presence on the web should probably be removed, and would support any efforts to have this done, within whatever guidelines the Wikimedia Foundation have developed for doing so. R.I.P. Simple Wikiquote. So it goes… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it ought to be deleted. About three years ago, after the decision to "close" the project but before official policy for closures was adopted, I discussed the final disposition of the WikiParaphrase project with a LangCom member, but I did not initiate formal proceedings at the time. If someone would like to do so, the official venue is at Proposals for closing projects, and is governed by Closing projects policy under the auspices of LangCom delegated by the Foundation Board. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:QoDList
This new template transcludes QoDBar and is able to output a list of all Quotes Of The Day for a given month, via Module:QoD. So Quote of the day/January 2014 and such wouldn't have to be handled manually. Do you support implementing it practically? -- Ricordi  samoa  07:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not immediately obvious to me how this works. Viewing the new Template:QoDList, the output of "#invoke:QoD|list" is null. I am guessing, from examining the code of Module:QoD, that it depends on the context where the template is transcluded. Could you provide a sample page exemplifying use of the new template in a context where the module output is non-null, and consider fleshing out some documentation or usage notes at Template:QoDList/doc and/or Module:QoD/doc? Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Ningauble: it depends on the page, but the month-year pair can also be specified manually (as ). You can see QoDList in action on Quote of the day/December 2013 ([ ]). I also added some docs, feel free to edit them. --  Ricordi  samoa  15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This member of this community does NOT think "this is too many images for a page." The VERY highly used Wikimedia Commons places FAR more images on a standard page. I can appreciate that some people who do not have fast connections (for whatever reasons this might be the case) will not easily appreciate many of the pages on the internet with graphics. Yet I do not believe that these relative few who do not use some auxiliary browsers set for faster browsing without images, to hasten the time of downloading pages without such graphics as are quite standard on MOST web-pages today, should keep our pages permanently crippled to a highly constrained standards which might have made some sense 10 years ago, but are hardly appropriate today. I believe nothing is more likely to be "turning anyone off" from editing Wikiquote than such bossiness with constraints as a very few people have been increasingly pushing here in recent years — by which they can control more of what others can or cannot do, and reducing the options available to others here in ways I have frankly found disgusting and contemptible, and often  extremely hypocritical — and I am quite ready to make plain some of the reasons why in the coming months. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

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


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

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


 * I have sometimes engaged in direct action of rather mild and moderate civil disobedience in accord with the principles of Justice and Liberty that others seem quite satisfied to give little more than a lot of shallow and safe "lip service" to. In this particular case, I view "the merits or faults of the policy" that was devised by a few people some months ago as nothing more or less than thoughtlessly or deliberately giving free reign to those most eager to censor, VANDALIZE and remove any traces of MANY of the IDEAS and efforts of others to make generally important points and generally appealing presentations of the quotes here. I am actually inclined to use far harsher terms, but restrain myself for now. Even at the start I recognized these proposed "rules" as contemptible and unworthy of any significant respect, as simply devices providing implicit sanction and approval to the most narrow-minded, intolerant and malicious of people, most eager to denigrate the contributions of others, to destroy as rapidly as they could, and with VERY little consideration, what others might have taken months or years of careful consideration to gradually produce. I truly consider the fact that so inanely destructive and foully fascist an "ideal" and practice as those INNATELY unjust "policies" represent have not been recognized as such by others as simply disgraceful. Such an atmosphere created by the increasing arrogance and smug intolerance of those who seek to control and constrain others, and the bafflement and disgust of those who wish to contribute in the spirit of liberty advocated by the greatest of people, and which was one of the foundational principles of the wiki software, and the Wikimedia projects themselves is what I believe far more people than myself find appalling and sometimes discouraging.


 * Prior to the above statement I was going to make this relevant point: A standard setting at Wikimedia Commons, which is the source of all the imagery available to us, provides 200 image thumbnails to a page, and such is what I get quite swiftly when I click on Category:Nature. This once could mean a very long download time, but certainly does not with most users who are likely to do much browsing on the internet at all today. I certainly do not plan to use that many on any article page here — but to make large pages with even dozens of images on them, which are relatively rare and probably always will be, seem incredibly burdensome to most users is something I believe is ludicrous. I would probably spend more time saying a bit more, but I have to be leaving now, and am already running a bit late on important matters. So it goes... ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I agree with the comment by, above. However with regards to this particular page I will leave it to others to hopefully take action here regarding the violations of Image use policy that have taken place, as noted by , above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Looks like no admin is around right now, so I've blocked that user for one day. Please review the action and take (if needed) further action. -Barras (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I yet blocked another user: User:Tell me about it!. As above, review the action taken and adjust it as you seem it fits. -Barras (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, both have been re-blocked for 1 month. -- Mdd (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would do a 3 month block, but that's me. -- Golden burg 111 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

Rollback
I am requesting rollback permission is so I can easily rollback vandal edits. I also "participated in the User:YODO (You Only Die Once) vandal attack", and it was pretty hard undoing his edits and I usually got into edit conflicts. Clarifying that Rollback Rights are given to users to easily revert pure vandalism. I just tagged a few spam pages for deletion and reverted a vandal-only account's action of a page recently. I am also a rollbacker on the Simple English Wiktionary, and of course, I would be in big trouble if I was lying. I am an Anti-Vandal Worker at Meta and Wikipedia. I am also an admin and bureaucrat on the Orian Test Wiki and admin at the Test Wiki. I am also, at Wikia, currently an admin on 10 wikis and crat on 5 of those wikis. Thanks! -- Golden burg 111 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The best thing for you to do would be to request Adminship at Requests for adminship so that the merits of your request can be discussed and determined. My sense is that you have made many positive edits and reverted plenty of vandalism. The only question might be the relatively short period of time in which you have been editing here, but that may or may not be a large stumbling block. In the end, it would be best to formally request it and let the discussion begin. Good luck. ~ UDScott (talk)
 * Okay, thanks UDScott, one question, can I take this subject off? -- Golden burg 111 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just leave it and maybe direct readers to the Requests for adminship page, should they wish to contribute to the discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @UDScott: I feel it is unwise to encourage Golden to run for adminship so prematurely, as he wouldn't stand a chance (despite his best intentions), and the result could upset him. @Golden: even if you don't have rollback rights, you can still revert vandalism. I know you want to help out, but please try to be patient. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @DanielTom: As quoted by Jimbo Wales, "no big deal". -- Golden burg 111 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume that Goldenburg111 does not realise that on WQ, only admins can be granted rollback.--Abramsky (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Is this true? Abramsky, what do your elf admin eyes see?) DanielTom (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a separately grantable user right at Wikiquote: there is no "Rollbacker" user group like at Wikipedia. Rollback is included in the rights of the Administrator group, as shown at Special:ListGroupRights. (The corresponding configuration at Wikipedia is much more complex and bureaucratic.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on Commons: Should Wikimedia support MP4 video?
''I apologize for this message being only in English. Please translate it if needed to help your community.''

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

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

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

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

Please join this RfC -- and share your advice.

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

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

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


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

Global sysops
Hello Wikiquote community!

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

I could very well imagine that this would help here. Since GS is opt-in only, a vote for this is needed and the same would be needed to remove them at any point when needed. Please take your time and consider this idea carefully. If you've any further questions, please feel free to ping me. Kind regards, -Barras (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Barras, why would you feel uncomfortable blocking obvious rampant vandals? I agree with you, that it should be preferably done "by local people", but global sysops aren't "local" either, and I don't understand how global sysops would do a better job in answering emergencies and stopping rampant vandals than stewards do (besides, as far as I know, there are many more stewards than global sysops). Recent vandalism spree aside (which was done by sockpuppets that need to be checked and blocked), I believe the ideal solution is to have more local active admins, which is why I suggested Kalki to run for adminship again. (At least that would be my preference.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Stewards can't watch everything, simply put. Global sysops help fill in the gaps of steward coverage, which I believe was one reason the group was created in the first place.--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 04:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support adding GS, but I have a COI as I am one myself. ;) See my contributions for all the stuff I could have blocked if this wiki were opted-in. Of course, it's up to the community. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per PiRSquared17. --Rschen7754 19:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Smaller projects should always opt in for Global Sysops, since it is not that simple to get more active local admins. Should the en.q community start a discussion about opting in, I would support (and I have no COI). -- Ricordi  samoa  21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Global sysops cheapen local adminship, and only in cases of the utmost necessity (e.g. really small wikis) should they be opted-in. I, for one, tend to think that any help fighting vandalism should be welcomed. Unfortunately, judging by recent comments on a local unrelated discussion, we can't even expect stewards to stay neutral, let alone global sysops. There are further problems, related to WQ's specific policies, which I'm not even going to get into. I would like to highlight, though, that the description of global sysops as "highly trusted users" should make any thinking person suspicious. Just when did we elect these global sysops? I don't remember voting for any of them myself. Sure, there are some very well-meaning, good users in this group, for example Érico Júnior Wouters and PiRSquared17. But I can also see a couple of names I very strongly distrust, of cruel unhelpful people whose apparent job it is to collect hats, and whom I very much doubt would ever be elected local sysops via normal process. That's my warning, for what it's worth (not much). I think GS should only be opted in after a strong consensus for it amongst our established admins. (I doubt such a consensus will ever be achieved, but who knows.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DanielTom: Global sysopship (along with global rollback and some other global groups) is requested on SRGP. For example, my request, Érico's request. Anyone can comment on a candidate. Global sysops only ever act (in theory) when the request is uncontroversial (such as spam/vandalism) and no local admins are around to deal with it. Does that answer some of your questions? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as you know, Meta elections are kind of a joke. People who'd have no chance of being elected admins at Wikipedia again get elected global sysops... And although it is said that if we opt-in, we can then also opt-out, it's more of a one-way street, as I think it would be very difficult to establish a consensus to opt-out afterwards. Obviously global sysops can't be locally desysopped, so we need to be careful. Your description of what they can do seems misleading. It appears to me that global sysops can act without being requested, and they don't just revert obvious vandalism, but also engage in "routine maintenance" (their purpose per policy), which in turn means they, who are not familiar with Wikiquote's policies, may end up deleting pages they shouldn't. And again, it's not as if we can't ask the help of stewards to block vandals in case of emergency. It also seems to me that Wikiquote is actually out of scope for GS, and I would very much like to hear what our local admins think of this proposal, though I doubt they will be so blunt as me in saying that it threatens Wikiquote's independence. I still think the solution for Wikiquote is through local admins, and if global sysops are so eager to help (*cough*), they can go through the normal process and be elected here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To clear up a couple misunderstandings:
 * Global sysops are not elected. They are appointed by Stewards after taking public comment. They serve at the pleasure of the Stewards, assisting with their workload by handling routine tasks that do not require more advanced rights.
 * Wikiquote is not out of scope. Any project can opt in or opt out: the default described in the policy applies only to projects that do not opt either way.
 * Whether you trust the Stewards to appoint people who can be trusted to respect the bounds of their role, whether you trust the Stewards to step in if someone exceeds those bounds, that is your call. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Global sysops perform routine maintenance. That is their purpose. In practice, this amounts to spam, vandalism/long-term abuse, and noncontroversial routine requests. If enwikiquote is opted in, GS will surely respect local policies, but you can't expect us to read every single wiki's policies before acting. At least I haven't (but I do usually look at the deletion reason dropdown to see if they have a similar "speedy deletion" criterion to what I will use. I almost never block.). Usually the stuff we do is completely noncontroversial, and we tend only to act in emergencies or when local admins are unavailable. m:Special:WikiSets/7: enwikiquote and plwikiquote are the only Wikiquotes opted out of GS help. Ningauble is correct that any project can opt in or out. The scope on Meta is just the default. Also: being a global sysop is much easier and less complicated than being a local admin on (English or another large) Wikipedia, as you mentioned. Global sysops only do noncontroversial maintenance tasks, whereas an admin on enwiki is expected to be able to determine consensus, deal with private matters, act in controversial cases or in drama like ANI, etc. In fact becoming a steward might [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chenzw/Reports/Draubb&diff=prev&oldid=7138137 be easier] than having a successful enwiki RfA. Do you think [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global_permissions&oldid=7271149#Global_sysop_for_JurgenNL this] ongoing RFGS is a joke? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm glad to see two global sysops (Rschen and yourself) admitting that becoming a steward (=> access to IPs) could be much easier than getting adminship – good heavens! am I the only one who thinks something is terribly wrong here? If this is true of stewards, it must be even more so of global sysops, and I might add I personally am shocked and offended to see that someone like Rschen is a global sysop. Opting in will be something of a historical moment for WQ, because in truth there is no turning back, even if theoretically we could opt out again – who would then be willing to oppose global sysops?, how would we ever reach that consensus? In any case, those were just a few observations before our admins gave their opinions, and as they apparently don't seem to mind GS being opted in, it might just be that you'll have your wish. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to attack me, at least get my quote right - I said that it is much easier than getting adminship on en.wikipedia. --Rschen7754 19:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure, who "attacks" who. I am reminded of this. Pretending that a public rename is a sock, just to defame my real name, that seems to me much more of an "attack" than my saying I am offended that you are are in any position of responsibility. I see you keep trying to collect hats, and that after recently failing to get CU on Wikipedia, you are now trying to get stewardship at Meta. What a disgrace. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is attacking who is you. What Rschen did at that particular diff is standard practise at enwiki, if a user is deemed a sock, they are tagged. The fact the account existed even a rename means the account exists ergo, a sockpuppet. The fact Rschen failed to get CU is like me failing to get rollback here and then asking for Bureaucrat at Wikidata, they have 0% relation. Also your description of Rschen actually willing to help out Wikimedia is the disgrace here. Good faith volunteers deserve credit, not defamatory comments. Now that is said, get back to doing something constructive unlike we've seen at metawiki. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The guy who admits to never editing articles tells me to go do "something constructive". Why do you show up here, just to share your ignorance on the difference between socks and public renames? I challenge you to try and make a single edit to an article before commenting here again and embarrassing yourself further. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether I edit articles now or not is my choice. Nothing for you to comment on simply because you're losing the 'but mom, Rschen is the one being mean!' battle. Oh and yes, maybe I don't edit articles but hey, I am constructive. I do SWMT work, did a month of administrator work at a small wiki and do some-what active work on Wikidata. And on enwiki, I active help new users get accounts. See, I give people accounts not create them for myself and then abuse them. Now, as I said, be constructive anyway you want except through derogatory comment at Rschen and arguing about how people follow polices when dealing with clearly abusive users. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You still haven't made even 1 edit to articles, and most likely never will. Calling me abusive doesn't count as an article edit. You have nothing to contribute to Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't both of you stop? Instead of bickering? You guys are acting like children here! I would suggest both of you stop this pointless discussion. Wikiquote's Village Pump is not for both of you to bicker about pointless stuff. I expect better from both of you. -- Golden burg 111 22:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just shut up about god damn editing of articles. I am not violating policies by not doing it. Last comment here. Future comments I'd like at my talk page. If not, I'll just move them over. Peace. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I hit a nerve? Do you feel embarrassed for never editing articles? I certainly would. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would not be averse to opting in. Having been unable to give as much time to Wikiquote myself in recent months as in previous years, no longer being able to review the entire RC log every day, I have a sense that a lot of things are slipping through the cracks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur, as global sysops can already patrol recent changes, just like any other user; problem is, most of them just don't bother to, and this is very unlikely to change even if we opt-in. (What would change is, someone who already patrols recent changes could notify them at Meta of vandal attacks, and they would then be able to step in and block the vandals. But if you think that global sysops are going to start magically reviewing every change to articles once they are opted-in, you are just fooling yourself.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What follows from my observation is that I believe a lot of things are slipping through the cracks, more things than when I was patrolling more. I did not say, and it does not follow (non sequitur) that global sysops would patrol in the manner that I used to do, nor that nothing would slip through the cracks. Things have always slipped through the cracks anyway. What would follow is more little Dutch boys plugging more of the cracks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure SWMT will monitor enwikiquote, if it doesn't already. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It does since yesterday (a contributor from this wiki requested it to be added on IRC). Vogone (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the benefits of having off-project admins able to step in and stop vandalism outweigh any downside. BD2412 T 01:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These global sysops can already revert vandalism, they just don't do it, because they don't patrol WQ's recent changes. They would only be of help in case someone who does patrol it should ask them to block rampant vandals. But for this there already are stewards, who are more in number than global sysops. Opting in will be a historically bad decision. WQ is almost the only wiki standing independent, like a diamond in the desert, but you seem to be willing to trade its independence for nothing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with these comments by and, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone want to close this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Late here, but I'm also in support of opting in here. Hazard SJ 20:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not adamantly hostile to the idea, but I really have not as yet examined the issues involved much, and certainly would not wish to rush into opting in. As there is at least one prominent editor who I generally respect who seems adamantly opposed, I remain reluctant to support it at this point. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, take your time. There's no rush to decide whether you want GS or not, obviously. I just wanted to see if anyone else would comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As a strong believer in democracy, and in the independence of each wiki, I would like to urge everyone again to be extra careful here. Many people try to interfere with wiki processes and decision making in ways we are not (and can't even be) aware of. If you want an example, see this leaked discussion of ArbCom, and read what they say about Wikiquote. This has happened before, and will happen again, sooner or later. Everyone has their own interests in mind, which is fine, but we responsible Wikiquote editors should resist and not give away power to outsiders needlessly, and do our best to keep the Wikiquote project as independent as possible. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Another argument against opting-in: global sysops have recently been deleting a userpage by a user, consisting of a simple picture (right), on hundreds of wikis, claiming it is spam. Here too, the userpage was tagged for deletion, by a global sysop, with the rationale: "crosswiki spam". The speedy deletion was declined, replace by a Prod, and now a VfD is taking place. I predict the page will eventually be deleted. But then, you ask, wasn't tagging the page, suggesting that it be deleted, proper after all? Yes, it was. Then what is the problem? The problem, you see, is that it was only tagged, and not outright deleted, because global sysops are not opted in here. (I say, we should keep it that way.) Each community should be allowed to weigh in, and decide for themselves what to do in cases like this... roar... ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the light of the recent events concerning the request to a global block, I am far from convinced that global sysops and their supporters can overcome the cultural differences. -- Mdd (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Global sysops have nothing to do with global blocking or locking. That is a steward thing. Yes, stewards and global sysops have some things in common, but really there is a huge difference. However, I can see how this would change your opinion of Meta, cross-wiki maintenance, etc. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't feel this wiki has a need for a GS opt-in and looking at Special:ActiveUsers I would rather refuse to perform any actions here. Unless the community wants the GS to play a significant role in countervandalism work (which I don't expect) I am not supporting any movement towards an opt-in. Please also note my COI in this case. Vogone (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Vogone. I would generally agree, except in cases where a vandal is around when no admins are. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a global sysop is completely different from being on the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Global sysops only deal with spam (including spambots, linkspam, etc.) and vandalism. I do not know exactly what made Barras start this discussion, but please note that nobody is trying to force this on you. If you decide against it, that's fine, but GS are experienced and willing to help with tasks that most would find tedious. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Would a local admin like to review the discussion above? Once that happens, if there is consensus to opt-in, stewards can remove enwq from the opt-out list. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bump. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mdd: update? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @PiRSquared. I think Wikiquote will benefit from Global sysops's the most, if the most active users and local sysops's here see the need, and would welcome this initiative. At the moment only half of them do, and the other half have some kind of doubt. When it comes to granting administrator rights here on Wikiquote, there must be more consensus to do so.
 * Now in the first comment here Barras explained "Since GS is opt-in only, a vote for this is needed". Frankly I don't see this discussion as a vote. I am used (at the Dutch Wikipedia), that before some kind of vote started, there first must be an announcement at the Village pump; And I have more or less considered this discussion as such an announcement. Shouldn't a real vote be held at a page, such as Requests for adminship, during a limited period? -- Mdd (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it, only clear consensus in favour of opting in to GS needs to be provided. Which process the community undergoes to reach that is probably irrelevant to the stewards and at the discretion of the local community. Vogone (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let it be clear, that the vote Barras suggested hasn't taken place; In such a situation it would be not appropriate to let a local administrator review this discussion, as Ajraddatz suggested. There is in my opinion no clear consensus about either the procedure, either about the subject to opt-in the Global sysops here. Let it also be clear that only a handful of active Wikiquote users have participated in this matter. In order to get more clearance, and a larger participation I propose to start a vote at Requests for adminship for a period of a week, which can be accepted when 75% of the participants agree. -- Mdd (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open such a discussion under the conditions you mentioned. It's probably time to get this here clear. Regards, Vogone (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all global sysops agree with what happened in that case, FYI. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Global sysops usually don't delete pages on wikis with local active sysops even if the wikis are opted-in. --Glaisher (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Barras: as stated by User:Mdd. No. -- Golden burg 111 21:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin nomination of Kalki
As some are aware, I was once an admin here (from 29 January 2004 to 1 December 2009), and I have now nominated myself to regain adminship at Requests for adminship‎‎. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Requests for adminship/Kalki (3rd request)

Been over one week.

RFA presently at 66.7 percent.

Plus additional Comments.

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


 * Requests for adminship states that "Adminship nominations must be posted for at least one week, to provide opportunity for comments and voting, before a bureaucrat will make the promotion if warranted". This sets a minimum time but not a maximum. We have routinely allowed these discussions to stay open for longer times, to allow the community the greatest opportunity to find and weigh in on the discussion (see, e.g., Requests for adminship/Mdd). Indeed, since your request for closure, an additional opinion has been offered which has changed the proportion of support from 66.7% to 60%. I would give it a few more days. Cheers! <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 16:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. Thank you,, I'll defer to your judgement. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User Creation Logs
We need an active sysop to block the recent account creations. Since YODO was blocked, we have been getting some recent vandals here. Any opinions? --<font face="Utah MT-SJ-NI"> Golden burg 111 19:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's definitely a vandal/sock attack currently. I'm watching and can get stewards if needed. Maybe User:Jni could help...? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mdd. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And thank you both. Mdd (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be online for next couple hours and can help with pest control for sure! I was tracing one sock/vandal from en-wp to here in fact. I've been mostly inactive for few years so please tell me if I do something stupid with the admin tools. jni (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am thinking about adding a template where we can place it on a user talk page saying that their name is not appropriate for wikiquote. But we need a sysop to block the inappropriate username. --<font face="Utah MT-SJ-NI"> Golden burg 111 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Contributions
Anyone can contribute to User:Goldenburg111/Wikiquote in 2014. --<font face="Utah MT-SJ-NI"> Golden burg 111 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The page says "This page is to document issues with Wikiquote since January 1, 2014." What kind of issues? I for one think that we need a complete top down reimagining of the software, so that quotes can be sorted by every kind of data (topic, author, date, kind of work, etc.). <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Issues = Sockpuppetry, canvassing by Cirt at Meta, causing drama and disruption. Different sockpuppeters and new accounts made for vandalism. --<font face="Utah MT-SJ-NI"> Golden burg 111 22:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's your userspace, you're free to do as you will with it. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 02:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I understand that Kalki and I have had disagreements over interpretations of his behavior patterns in the past. For this reason after much thought I've decided not to comment further upon the ongoing RFA. I'll instead respectfully defer to the community in the discussion there. Have a great day, -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While it's your userspace, you can collect notes of that nature there if want to, but is it really that constructive activity? Sounds like stirring more drama and disruption. Sockpuppet notice board might be useful though, especially tracking for cross-wiki sockpuppeteers. jni (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you jni for clarifying, is it okay to add notes about main points instead of specific users being "called out"? --<font face="Utah MT-SJ-NI"> Golden burg 111 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is certainly better than calling out individual users. But I'd avoid even creating such a page in first place. That is just my personal opinion, I don't think there is any policy forbidding user's maintaining bulletin/notice board kind of pages in their user space (and I'd hate bureaucrazy like that here). jni (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation error
Hey, I've got no idea what's wrong with the citations over at Stephenie LaGrossa. All I did was copy it over from Wikipedia. Is citation style different here? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. You forgot to add markup, which was later removed by Kalki (diff). And basically I was afraid of accidentally stepping into what seemed to be a small dispute over formatting refs, so I reverted myself when I noticed the previous change to the   layout. I know Kalki's been here longer than I or Geezerbill have been, but I'd like to know the community's opinion on this. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I thank you very much for your inquiry. It has made me realize how very much many of our help pages still need simplifying and updating, and despite the tediousness of that and my aversion to prescriptive assertions, I might actually start focusing on that problem within the next month. As to citation styles, though we have come to tolerate many that people have carried over from other types of citation, including those found in footnote and endnote stylings, we avoid using footnote citations in favor of interlinear citation. Personally, I avoid using templates and do not recommend them, and since the wiki began in 2003 the favored styles have been something along these lines, but with minor adaptations and extensions permitted:


 * On Author pages, or pages for an author's works:
 * Quote text.
 * Name of Work (YYYY) or (Month YYYY) or (DD Month YYYY), Ch. 1 : Chapter title, p. xx
 * And on theme pages or in sections where various authors are cited:
 * Quote text.
 * First & Last Name, in Name of Work (YYYY), Ch. 1 : Chapter title, p. xx
 * If there are internet links used, I personally prefer to place them so that the entire title becomes a link, for both aesthetic and practical reasons, as it makes the link cleaner and clearer, but that is not any kind of mandate.


 * I am sure there are other things that can be specified, or advised, but that provides a summary of some of the practices and norms which were established early on, and have endured here, despite an increasing importation of other cite styles. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 09:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

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


 * Alright, thanks @Kalki and @DanielTom: I have a consideration for you though, if you will. Wiktionary uses a similar style of quotation to demonstrate that particular use of a word reflects a particular definition; see go for example, which has "quotations" dropdowns (JavaScript hack from their Common.js) that you can click on to see the full list. Do you mind if I use that as examples of sourcing? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There probably could be some use for such a format option here in some regards, but I would not recommend it for standard citations, which I believe should remain visible as interlinear citations. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * TeleComNasSprVen is correct about the guidelines not describing the layout conventions that have evolved here over time. Since the earliest days of the project, these were largely ignored in favor of a "learn by example" approach (and even "discover by experiment"). E.g., the use of interlinear citations is exemplified at Guide to layout and Templates, but the practice is not stated or explained anywhere except in discussions. It is also rather tricky to give general guidance that avoids unnecessarily arbitrary specifics, as many details of presentation are subject to considerable variation. (E.g., in contrast to Kalki's preferences, I usually link just the title rather than the whole citation, and for serial publications I do not usually parenthesize the date that identifies the issue unless volume and issue numbers are also given. Neither approach is wrong.) I am not exactly volunteering to rewrite the guidelines, but I have long felt that greater clarity would be a good thing for orienting newcomers, and that it would be better if the generic cleanup templates could link to specific conventions that need to be addressed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * In any case, I like a little bit of standardization, and templates go quite some ways toward that, so I threw together a template that might be worth trying out at testwiki:Template:Quotation-author. I'm also considering moving it to Wikiquote but I'm afraid it might be deleted for lack of consensus. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some levels and types of standardization are quite acceptable but templates often become ways to automatically impose some which prevent exceptions and useful variations, thus I generally tend to avoid them when I can. I am not sure there are any desirable advantages to having that template here, and I perceive there might be problems with the overuse of such. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 09:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but in that case we could try stipulating on the template documentation page itself that the template is not the only way to source our quotations. What if instead of making a template "official", everyone had a way of having their quotation-sourcing style attributed to them? For example,  would be attributed to me (in the source code) and uses my style, while   is attributed to you and uses your style. For one-off exceptions we could always subst/delete the original transclusion and replace it with a custom-made sourcing style, and it would be relatively easy to change all existing tranclusions by modifying the master template. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @DanielTom: Well no, I don't mean exactly in the way they use it, but in terms of the source code and JavaScript/wikitext implementation involved I was thinking of something similar to the template I created above. Try it on a few pages on the testwiki (since they're mostly garbage anyway) and see if you like it.
 * I fear that would be even more confusing to new editors. I think sources should be simply written in plain text, so that in the future they can be easily altered, and corrected, by different people. We already have a few templates (see, e.g., Category:Citation templates), but I personally avoid them altogether; it's much easier for me to just write down whatever information I have of the source, without having to follow strict parameters. That's just me, though, maybe other editors see it differently. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I know you object to the use of templates in general, but as a matter of personal style preferences would you, or anyone else in this thread, object to me moving the template from testwiki over here? As I said, since it seems you disapprove of templates in general, instead of moving it to template-space and make it an "official" widely used Wikiquote template, I could relocate it to my userspace to mark it "This is my personal style and others are likely to use their own", at least in the source code. You can implement your own styles using plain wikitext or whatever, but my opinion is in favor of a template, as you can probably guess. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would object to you moving this new template to your own userspace. (You can even move it to WQ's template space, as far as I'm concerned.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On general principles I don't think it is a good idea for articles to transclude things from userspace. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe he could use "subst:"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Some of my general ideas:


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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some initial thoughts: I feel that having a more robust process for selecting the QoD is an admirable goal, but being realistic I feel that we may have problems with participation. I for one used to participate in the voting process, but found that I was often unable to find the time to do so and still manage all the other tasks I wished to do here to improve other areas. I sincerely doubt I would have the time to participate on a daily basis. I think that the legacy of having Kalki perform much of the work simply grew out of the lack of available others to help with the large effort required to keep producing them. That being said, I do not have a problem with trying something new - I just fear that (as with many other discussions or ideas) we really do not have enough active editors that might participate. I don't want to discourage new ideas, but that's my initial thought.


 * As to some of your other points, I do agree that there are times when there seem to be too many images and that these tend to overshadow the quote. But I also believe that this is the exception and not the rule. I believe that in some of the recent discussion, a loose rule of approximately four images was generally deemed acceptable - and is something I would also support. I also agree that the selected images should be related to the quote, but I am not so disposed to pose strict limits such that only the author of the quote is pictured. Although on occasion I have disagreed with selected images (and if this happens, I would rather address that on a case by case basis - maybe we should require the proposed layout to be posted at least a week in advance so others can comment? - Just thinking out loud) I have not often found the images selected to be all that bad - the Image use policy does allow for more latitude than just the author. Finally, I do not have a problem with the wikilinking - in fact I consider this to be a positive aspect since it leads readers to explore other pages on the site (and has been common practice on all WQ pages for as long as I can remember). ~ UDScott (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, I respect your opinions. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with UDScott's analysis. I view QOTD as ephemeral, and am just not particularly interested in being involved in that process. I have suggested a quote or two over the years, but working on it day in and day out seems like a grind, and I'm glad someone else is willing to take up the task at all. That said, I certainly don't think it would harm the process for more editors to be involved in suggesting quotes to be used or evaluating suggestions that have been made. As for layout, I generally agree that we should have fewer images (one on each side should be enough), and I like UDScott's suggestion of having the layout presented in advance for community review. As for wikilinking, I also think that this is a good thing for our project, and would actually like to see a lot more of it, not just in QOTD, but in our articles generally. While we are not an advertising click farm that profits by getting people to view more pages, we do want the reader to have the best possible sense of the breadth of our project, and the greatest ease in jumping to other pages that might be of interest. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So moving forward, we have three editors so far that support the suggestion of having the layout presented in advance for community review, and having the community more involved in the layout process. -- Cirt (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The layout usually is present for review a day or two in advance, and I will endeavor to have some ideas presented even earlier in the future, as they often have been. I had to laugh out loud a bit here, because in rather typical fashion, you choose to ignore what praise or recognition my past presentations have generally had for over 10 years of nearly daily efforts here and ONLY emphasize what you wish to emphasize, which you reiterate in ways which, to the casual scanner of the comments, could make it seem previous responses were primarily critical of them, and present them in such ways as seem designed to develop more means to actively constrain or counter my involvement in various ways. I will note that over the years I believe that I have received far more praise for my efforts from casual visitors to the site and regular editors than disrespectful criticism, though some of the few people most prone to that have gradually accumulated into a small but relatively effective pack in their efforts to constrain the options available not only to me, but to everyone, and they have done this, thus far with relatively little notice or opposition from people more inclined to appreciate and include imagery in their presentations.


 * Despite occasional procrastination or tardiness, I have usually had presentations ready at least a couple days in advance, and yet I am certainly against any authorization that these simply be butchered by specious arguments or assertions by those not interested in doing much layout work themselves. Though there are certainly further complications which could arise, opening up the processes more is not something I certainly am NOT adamantly against, but IF things are going to become more formally complicated and there is to be some final contestation for final layout I say it should be without any pre-determined constraints, beyond the legally necessary ones such as have always been recognized. IF there are alternate layouts to be proposed, by anyone, they should probably be presented on the talk pages of the related date, and if it seems there is a need for a vote between any alternatives we should let the most popular layout, within actual legal limits, become the chosen one, without PRIOR constraints and conditions of WHAT and HOW or WHY it can be presented. I know this might seem a somewhat frightening proposition to those who most seek to actively constrain the options available to others, and of course greater participation might not be what some people are actually after, and they merely seek to subtly or overtly diminish the options of others to devise layouts and present them — but I believe that opening up even more layout options is far more fair and likely to produce actually GOOD results, and more participation, IF that is truly what people are in any way after, than simply allowing more ways a few people, noticeably hostile or critical to my work in the past, to simply butcher it down on a nearly daily basis, as a means of further personal harassment of an avid worker. THAT of course is something I believe any person of genuine integrity MUST oppose as a betrayal of the principles with which wiki projects were founded, and also of the more general ethical principles of Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with UDScott's comments 100%. I would just add, that Kalki is very receptive to QOTD suggestions; for example, today's QOTD (that you can currently see on the main page) was actually suggested by me. Although more participation would be welcome, the reality is that very few people participate in the voting process, or suggest quotes. This is unlikely to change. Kalki's work in this area is actually very much commendable, and how he has consistently found the time and energy to keep up with the QOTDs for so long, is simply incredible. Although I enjoyed reading through some pages where quotes are suggested, and voting in them, I must say most of them are filled with unmemorable (bad) quotes, and even selecting the "best" of them is a challenge. I believe the fault here is that quotes are being suggested for the days of birth of authors, so there are some days, that don't have a single good quote. If I had any criticism of Kalki's selections, it would be that he sometimes doesn't choose the very best quotes, simply because they are too short. (I think he prefers longer ones because they give him more liberty in the selection of pictures.) I disagree with BD's comment: the QOTD is not "ephemeral", the main page is by far Wikiquote's most viewed page. It is how WQ presents itself to newcomers. For this reason, other than the avoidance of New Age imagery, I would really like to see sources being presented along the quotes in the main page, which would be a more proper representation of WQ. This could be easily implemented, if Kalki could see, that presenting sources is not aesthetically displeasing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually often choose longer quotes because they often are more extensive in their expressions of ideas and thoughts than some of the briefer ones that are available. I certainly have no aversion to short quotes, and there are many good short ones which I have chosen and have long been among my favorites — but many of the more notable short ones available have already been used. I have often stated that I generally dislike the idea of having the citations in the layouts, because though simple reference to the titles of works are used if they have a separate page, all of the technical info is available on the author's or the work's page, which are linked to, and this can often be aesthetically detrimental or cumbersome in an otherwise appealing layout. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I just want to add that I mean ephemeral in the sense of the QOTD being fleeting - there one day, replaced the next. I prefer to work on permanent installations. I'm not saying that QOTD is unimportant, merely that it is impermanent, and I prefer to direct my energies towards the permanent. I would also like to suggest that, in order to preserve resources and have a contingency available in case there is a dispute, there's no reason that we can't reuse some old quotes and layouts for QOTD. We've been doing this for many years now, and I think that we can grab a handful of the best examples that were used, say, five or six years ago, and have them as a standby. No visitor is likely to remember our quotes from that long ago. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 01:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sad fact is that no matter how much you want to try and revive a process, you can't force volunteers from a volunteer-driven website to work on an area that they have no knowledge nor interest in. I think community participation in the QotD process has always been open, the problem merely is the community has no interest in said participation. A related problem is investment of our limited time and proper allocation of volunteer resources. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to a few of BD2412's remarks, I would point out, that aside from a very few cases of accidental repetition, and one case I recall where the layout chosen and displayed was late in the day replaced with a layout from the year before in an act of censorship of ideas by another editor, there has been no deliberate repetition of layouts, though with limited imagery of some authors, a few used with new quotes probably are similar to those used in the past with others. The archives of QOTD by month provide a record of the past layouts, since November 2007, and some other pages list the selections prior to those. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I am aware that there has been virtually no repetition, and commend the work that has produced original work to this point. However, we have the option of doing some recycling. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 02:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Numbers: the main page is viewed by over 10,000 people every day. I don't think we need to repeat quotes, but the fixation with authors' birth-dates rather than with presenting the very best, most brilliant, quotes we have, sometimes (in some days) leaves much to be desired. I don't know how Kalki feels about this. We could also try to be more flexible, and change the QOTD when someone notable passes away, as a tribute, or when a speech receives great attention, (e.g. Ellen Page's,) though there could be some objections to this (test of time, etc). ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that the guideline of preferring relationships to the date has been useful in preventing or minimizing floods of repetition of similar suggestions or sources over extensive periods of days. It has never been treated as an absolute rule, and where significant authors have no known birth or death dates, there is often a strong case for these. I have sometimes thought of having some days of the weeks or month designated as giving a greater weight to ancient authors, but never came up with what I perceived to be an entirely workable scheme for such. Until 2009, when my long-standing and never-misused admin status was removed, and last minute alterations were no longer reliably possible, I often changed QOTDs at the last moment, to something appropriate to the circumstances of prominent person's deaths. This option is one I believe I have not exercised since that time, even when the pages were not yet locked, believing I lacked any "authority" or authorization to improvise beyond the suggestions ranked highly on the suggestion pages. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the level of participation is a callenge for this process. Note how few people participate in ranking quotes on a regular basis. I recall at least one occasion when Kalki made a plea for more participation, which produced a modest increase for only a brief time. In my own experience, when I did try to participate on a regular basis it became rather tedious after a while, particularly since there were often a large number of candidates to review and since, as DanielTom notes, a lot of then were not very good. There is a tendency for mediocre and poor suggestions to accumulate and remain after the better ones have been used and removed from the list. I approve of Kalki's idea for posting layouts farther in advance so they can be reviewed and discussed. A day ir two is not really enough time unless one makes a habit of reviewing them every single day. One week might be more convenient. This small step would make the process open to to broader participation for those occasions when people do want to participate. A more structured system might be considered if and when actual participation reaches a level that could benefit from organization. Making it an open process is the most important step. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kalki keeps Wikiquote fresh and updated with the daily quotes provided by him. Everyone can find faults, but is there anyone willing to put into as huge effort as he does? --Spannerjam (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyrighted franchise quotes
Hello, I'm brand new here, so please forgive me for asking this if I'm missing something really obvious, but how do we handle copyrighted franchise quotes (i.e. Pokedex entries or trading card flavor text)? I'm not seeing any here, so I'd like to add them, but since they're copyrighted, I'm not sure. Supernerd11 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are they actually quoted by anyone? Are they attested in a source other than the card itself, or the manufacturer's website? This sounds pretty close to advertising slogans, for which we have imposed a requirement of third-party quoting, to avoid promotional exploitation here. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 03:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So if I can find a third-party source besides quote collections, then they're okay? Is there a way to add said sources? I'm not seeing any on the pages I've seen so far. Supernerd11 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could go by the format in advertising slogans, or see English proverbs (alphabetically by proverb), since we have a similar reporting requirement for proverbs. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 12:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! Supernerd11 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton title discussion
A proposal has been made at Wikipeda, at w:Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, to change the title of the article, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton". I presume that if that move succeeds, we would likewise move our Hillary Rodham Clinton page to Hillary Clinton. Cheers! <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 18:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

For more information:
 * Summary of changes and FAQ
 * Discussion page for feedback or questions
 * Post on blog.wikimedia.org

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


 * The more open font in the body text will take a little getting used to, but it could be worse. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:09, April Fools 2014 (UTC)
 * +1. (My initial thought was: "Let's hope this is an April Fool's joke!", but it's not that bad.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually find the text in "diff" pages much more legible. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting to see the pretty minimal and mostly positive reaction to it here, compared to the bloody mosh pit on Wikipedia that seems to have finally quieted down. <font style="text-shadow:0em 0em 0.75em #B87333;">Supernerd11 <font color="9F000F">:D Firemind <font color="9F000F">^_^ Pokedex  21:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikibreak.
I am feeling a bit burned out. I'll be back in a week or so. Cheers! <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 03:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For fast acting relief, try slowing down. (Enjoy your break.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

vandalism
As a relatively new user looking at Special:ListGroupRights I've just noticed that only administrators and bots automatically have their edits patrolled, which means that there is no way to filter out edits by experienced users from RC. Why don't you give <tt>autopatrolled</tt>/<tt>patroller</tt> rights to non-admin users (by creating a user group)?    FDMS   4    09:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, RC does not have a filter for autopatrolled users. NP does, but the number of new pages per day in this wiki is quite small compared to Wikipedia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It has in Wikidata and Commons … do you have patroller rights?     FDMS   4    17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As an admin you probably do. The URL on Wikiquote should be https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hidepatrolled=1, if you are autoconfirmed on Wikidata you can find it here.    FDMS   4    18:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Ningauble: I may agree to <tt>rollback</tt> implemented here to easily revert the high level of vandalism we get. I see no problem in this. --<font face="Utah MT-SJ-NI"> Golden burg 111 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that also (some) non-admin users should be able to rollback. As Wikiquote is a rather small wiki I'd recommend choosing the de.WP variant (<tt>editor</tt> group includes rollback, reviewing, ...) instead of the en.WP or COM variant (<tt>rollbacker</tt>, <tt>reviewer</tt>/<tt>patroller</tt> and many other groups only giving one additional right each) and creating a user group called <tt>trusted user</tt> or similarly (although I'm personally probably not "trusted" yet).    FDMS   4    00:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd favour the Wikibooks model, where if someone is a good user for long enough they get various rights including rollback automatically.--Abramsky (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links via Wikidata are here!
(Sorry for writing in English. I hope someone can translate this for me where needed.)

Hi everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

Using Templates
Can someone tell me if it is possible to use a Template that resides on another project, specifically Wikipedia? So far, I have not been able to figure out how one would do this. I believe I could accomplish the desired result by cloning the Wikipedia Template page and adding it to Wikiquote; however, I thought this sort of duplication of effort/multiple copies of the same information was what functions like Template pages were created to avoid? CononOfSamos (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. Everything is local here, which means that templates from Wikipedia that call many levels of other templates there may not work here at all. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 20:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you BD2412 for your prompt reply to this question. The Template that I was interested in does indeed seem to call other Templates in a way that I haven't fully figured out just yet ; thus, simply cloning one page would appear not to be a way to accomplish what I wanted to do. I'm going to put this idea on hold for now. CononOfSamos (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to move unsourced sections to the talk page?
If our internal search is to be trusted, there are over 1,000 mainspace pages with "Unsourced" sections. It would be easiest to have a bot move all of these to their respective talk pages, provided that the bot knows to leave tags and other non-quote material at the end. Cheers! <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As a start I moved about 200 of the (I guess) 800 sections, and I noticed there are a significant number of exceptions... especially in the last 100 to 200 articles. -- Mdd (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exceptions meaning stuff in the section that should not be moved? Or quotes that are actually sourced? <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 23:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * At the moment there still seems to be about 800 articles (see here) with a section Unsourced (so your initial assessment was right). What I mean for example is that from these articles the last 50 to maybe 100 are articles with just an unsourced section. Removing that section, will leave the article empty. -- Mdd (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's pretty awful, actually. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After working through the last 250 to 300 articles, I can confirm that over 100 articles exist with just unsourced quotes. I guess sooner or later they will all become Prod. -- Mdd (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can tag them with unsourced for the time being. It's probably best not to prod too many at once, so people can have a chance to review and fix them if they are salvageable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken it one step at a time, here. As to your suggestion, I noticed most of those articles (over 200) are already tagged as unsourced. -- 14:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty awful, but it is actually much improved. We have been chipping away at them, sometimes industriously and sometimes gradually, since unsourced sections were deprecated about five years ago. On a brighter note, almost all of the sections labeled "Attributed" that didn't actually cite any attributions have already been resolved – there were several hundred of them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ After the last batch tonight almost all unproblematic unsourced sections have been moved to the talk page. This were about 750 of the 1000 articles. -- Mdd (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Remarkable work! <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 23:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, unfortunately this problem is reduced, yet far from solved. It is just another (hidden) cleanup problem. -- Mdd (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Page with citations of a not notable person
~ Ningauble (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The related page of this person (a photographer) on Wikipedia was recently deleted for spam. Details of the massive promotion of this photographer on Wikipedia and all related projects can be found starting from here and the spam is under removal in the projects.

Here in wikiquote the deletion proposal has been rejected within 3 hours motivated as "part of a goddamned ridiculous campaign of petty-minded idiots, IMO.", after that, every action to put really on discussion the pages for deletion, has been reject by saying   "The template states: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced"" and tons of words by 2 users quite active in several projects defending this photographer' spam, and reacting very quick to any comment for deletion; if somebody would be would committed to look after his spam and kept it would not be so able to perform that better and promptly. But no one has been able to provide independent third party source to demonstrate the notability of the photographer.

Actually the notability of this man just rely on sources that are self-referenced. This is the situation and it is ridiculous (as ridiculous is wisdom inside the citations, but this is another stuff).

Is there an administrator at least to permit the deletion request to stay in the page and to be removed or with the page deletion or when there will be a clear improvement of the article, or otherwise there will be provided an independent third party source demonstrating the notability of the photographer.

Sorry to occupy the village pump for this question, but I don't know any other way or procedure on wikiquote to have this question correctly discussed, without arbitrary removal. Regards --Bramfab (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The proper next step if you believe this page should be deleted is not to keep replacing a removed prod tag, but to instead nominate it for deletion at Votes for deletion. Once nominated, a proper discussion on the merits of the page can be held. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As quite petty and defamatory accusations are now being directed at me in defending this person's presence here, and at the Commons, where those involved agreed the proposals to delete images there were without merit, I will state: There have as yet only been a few who have noticed the problems, but more than two editors have resolved to speak out against the extremey petty hostility that has arisen among a few people towards this person's presences on the projects, and I certainly will stand by my initial words on my honest opinions of the pettiness and presumptuousness of the actions which have been taken by those most zealous to eradicate this notable photographer from the wikis. I will again state that MANY of the assertions being made against the retention of these articles are flat-out FALSE, and the highly prejudicial and presumptive labeling of all things relating to him as merely "Spam" nearly ￼ at least as detestable as actual Spam itself. I did not get involved in the debate at the Italian Wikipedia as my Italian is rather meager at this point, and as I have had no significant involvement there (as is pretty much the case with those in the current cross-wiki campaign for the deletions of the articles here and elsewhere). Such accusations were made vigorously on the Italian wiki, and contested well by a few who pointed out the presumptive and excessive nature of the accusations, but after the initial period for removal passed these objections were ignored and eventually overridden by a surge of a few more people who seemed to have taken the most vehement accusations AS IF they were indisputable facts. The nomination at the English Wikipedia proceeded with very little attention paid to it, and only 2 people becoming involved, and I did not even learn about it until after it was over. I will repeat that this person certainly does seem to have a record of notability and acclaim that is sufficient to warrant an article, and has worked with notable Italian and international celebrities. Those who in the last few weeks have become zealous in their campaign to minimize or eliminate this person's presence, have failed in their efforts to have 50 or so of his images deleted from the Wikimedia Commons, and I believe succeeded at the Italian Wikipedia, only because people I believe more rationally moderate were treated as if they were total fools, and very few noticed or even become involved at all, in the two hostile votes for removal that prompted the deletion of the English Wikipedia article which had existed for years. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC) + tweaks


 * UDScott's comment is procedurally right-on. Kalki is a bit hot about this. Having studied the Augusto De Luca affair, probably in more depth than any WMF user, I do have some opinions, developed out of study. There have been, indeed, many false statements made about what happened, and many more assumptions of bad faith rooted in ignorance. On the creation of a user page on 555 wikis, it's said that there is no possible reason for this other than promotion. (There are possibilities.) And it is assumed that "promotion" is BAD. The thinking is primitive. Spam is harmful, we all agree on that. Spam is promotion. Therefore promotion is BAD. However, small-scale, limited promotion may be okay (see w:Wikipedia:User pages, but, in fact, promotional editing is simply a form of POV-pushing, and only the ignorant have no point of view. If we banned people for *civil* POV-pushing, we'd have to ban everyone, eventually.


 * Is the photographer notable? That's not a question to be decided on this page. However, what I have to say about it, so far, is that it has not been shown that he is, through independent reliable sources, in the articles I've seen. Given the span of time he has been active, it is likely that he has been covered in sources adequate to establish notability, but these could be print sources, in Italian.


 * The creation of articles by fans of a subject (fans promote their favorite subjects) is common on the wikipedias. These fans are frequently not familiar with notability and reliable source guidelines. They create articles like the ones on Augusto De Luca. This has been happening since the beginning of Wikipedia. And these articles are often nominated for deletion, when they are found. Any day, I can find several articles, where the guidelines are not satisfied.


 * Often nobody notices the deletion tags, even without the global locks that were applied in this case (which make it impossible to log in to one's account). Normally, with a page deletion as significant as this, if he knew there were cross-wiki implications, an administrator would extend the nomination, to gather more comment. But there is something going on that's not easily visible. There is extensive off-wiki communication in this case, and that is routine among the antispammers.


 * This is a substantial pile of users, globally, and they are large enough to dominate any discussion that touches their interests.


 * Once they decide something is spam, they go after it, and they are not the kind of people who waste time with discussion. They go cross-wiki and coordinate activities, and where they can, they directly delete, and where they cannot, they initiate speedy process. And then, instead of leaving it at that, some of them argue tendentiously, repeating rumor as fact, and asserting speculation is if it were proven.


 * There are two aspects to this case: the user pages, created over three days by Augusto, creating a CentralAuth that looks like the work of a spambot, but isn't. (See evidence.) These user pages violated no policy. The deletion discussion on en.wikiversity, was the first to be started over the user pages, ended with deletion, with a probationary custodian, definitely tired of this thing being in his hair, closed. He was faced with a situation that is difficult for highly experienced administrators: policy in one direction, piles of votes in another. Administrators often throw policy under the bus, faced with a majority and especially a strong majority, but the problem with that is that policy represents accumulated community consensus. And, of course, in the other direction, policy cannot consider all possible contingencies.


 * The admin knew that the user page did not violate local policy, he said so. However, he closed with delete, consensus is that this is solicitation. This was a delete decision (he was also the nominator) that was obviously searching for a policy justification. "Solicitation" is used to delete pages that are essentially advertising some off-wiki activity. There are pages on Wikiversity where a user used Wikiversity to advertise his courses held elsewhere, on a commercial site. These pages have not been deleted, but some warnings have been added. There was no "consensus that this is solicitation," that was his synthesis, that resolved the issue for him, giving him a policy reason.


 * He had a real problem, and it obviously worried him. How do you spell relief? D-E-L-E-T-E.


 * In fact, the user pages did not violate either local or global policy (there is very little global policy, but what there is, the pages did not violate, unless one interprets pages that are not spam anywhere, locally, as being spam because they are widespread. And that takes us to the second big issue, that raised this discussion.


 * ("Paid editing" has been claimed, but the only reason to think that is if one is an anti-spammer and sees an SEO under every "promotional" edit)


 * The fans of Augusto De Luca, when the it.wikipedia article had been stable since 2010, and the en.wikipedia article since 2011, went cross-wiki in about 2012-2013, translating the article (poorly, it's said) into other wikipedia languages. There was no disruption involved. The pace was slow. The users created user pages on the other wikis, often with a single image. At least two of these appear to be professional photographers who know De Luca. I personally find these user pages to be beautiful. I've spent a month, now, with De Luca photographs, and he has a stunning style, and his fans have their own style which is related. I may study this on en.wikiversity.


 * As "fancruft," as fan articles were often called on en.wiki, these articles were not reliably sourced, it was simply not what would occur to them to do. I've assisted many such editors, and it's often a matter of discovering what is in print archives. They are the people who would know where to find these sources, and especially Augusto himself, who may have newspaper clippings. But once these people are identified as "spammers," minds close, and one of the arguments in the it.wikipedia deletion discussion was "I don't want to improve an article so that someone can get rich."


 * We have a large number of Wikipedians who have a very primitive idea of life; they are often quite young, often very bright, but narrow. The en.wiki article did not come to the attention of the w:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. However, what would be needed would very likely be users located in Italy, able to research print archives in Italian, and sufficiently motivated to do this. Those would be the fans. Who have all been globally locked, except one, and I hesitate to mention his name!


 * As mentioned, these were not "Wikipedians." They were not generally involved in editing the projects, and they did not know the importance and utility of having email enabled. I found one editor who did have email enabled, but this could have been a very old address. I have been unable to reach any of these people, including Augusto De Luca himself. For someone allegedly motivated by "profit," he is strangely unreachable. No, he is of age (about 60, I think), and has had an apparently quite successful career. I'm 70, and when I get involved with one thing, others fall away, such as sorting through the piles of spam for messages from someone who never contacted me before.


 * There are fundamental wiki issues raised by this case. They don't have easy answers, and the community has been avoiding these issues for a decade, hoping they will somehow go away. They will not, they are fundamental to wiki structure, and probably some sort of reform is necessary. For years, every reform effort has been killed, terminated with extreme prejudice. I was amazed to find the vehemence of it in 2007. Traditionally, wikipedia project proposals are kept, tagged "deprecated" or "rejected." One where I was involved was the subject of an MfD that drew piles of delete votes. w:WP:PRX. It was closed contrary to the obvious wish of the majority, by a long-term Wikipedian, who had been a very popular administrator, but had resigned. They screamed "non-administrative close" and it went to DR. It was re-opened and closed with the same result, which was clearly based on long-term community consensus. But there are thousands and thousands of closes that are, in fact, based on the votes.


 * There is a problem here on Wikiquote. The issues with User:Augusto De Luca and Augusto De Luca are distinct and separate. I've already opined, too much, on the user page. It violates no policy and creates no harm, in itself. To me, being a user page, that means, that out of courtesy to a possible user, we keep it. However, for articles, Wikiquote has notability standards.
 * I do have a suggestion, and it could be implemented without RFD. Right now, there are still many wikipedia articles on Augusto De Luca, for better or worse. Wikiquote probably best avoids making that decision. If there is a standing Wikipedia article somewhere, there can be, I suggest, a corresponding Wikiquote page, Wikiquote need not get involved in what can be arcane discussions of notability. Otherwise it's deja vu all over again.


 * If there is a problem with notability of an author, but it is reasonably possible that notability will appear in the future, there is no need to delete the page, it can be userfied. I don't think that is necessary now, because of the existence of wikipedia articles.


 * I have not reviewed Wikiquote policy. However, I do suggest the simple standard.


 * There is then the issue of the content. Is the self-published content of a notable author adequate to establish that a quotation or translation of a quotation can be included? What is the community policy or consensus on that? How are translations handled? I have seen many wikiquote pages with self-published content. Self-published content can sometimes be used in Wikipedia articles (with limitations).


 * My general position on wiki policy is that it must be simple and easy to enforce, or it will be disregarded and neglected, creating future train wrecks.


 * On en.wikiversity, we have found that userfying pages often avoids contention, for anything marginal. It avoids dumping or concealing the work of editors. If reasons appear to move the page back into mainspace, it's easy to do. Whether a redirect is left in place is discretionary (I don't have a simple answer for that issue. I often speedy-deleted the redirect. When someone tries to read or recreate a page, they get a deletion notice, and the warning properly shows the target page of the move, so they will find the userfied page. The deletion of the redirect means that any user can move the page back to mainspace. (Otherwise it takes an administrator.) --Abd (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Need to be able to delete a login account
Hello:

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

Thanks, Dan Styer


 * Hi Dan, you can read more about deleting a login account at Right to vanish/en. If you want the communities feedback on Talk:Aldo Leopold, just say so. I already expressed there, that "I think you are doing a great job improving the content of the article. It is just lay out, we don't agree on..." I had started altering the layout of that article, and other pages you significantly improved, for example the John Muir article. If you have a problem with that, just say so. If you (still) think you have been treated unfair, you can file a complain at Administrators' noticeboard, and this will be further handled by other administrators. -- Mdd (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)/10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: Note that the text on Right to vanish/en says you can't delete accounts, but they can be renamed to some meaningless name, and user page can be deleted, etc. (so the user sort of "vanishes"). -- Mdd (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Dan, I hope that you will reconsider your wish to disassociate, because despite some contentions against some of the formatting conventions here, you have added significant material to the science articles, and there is definitely a need for more quotes within those and within pages for many other of the ranges of human interests.


 * Most of your contributions of quotes have been very welcome ones, by me, and I believe by Mdd and others. Though I can perceive you seem frustrated by some lack of flexibility in your favor, I truly do not perceive that any of Mdd's admonitions or acts of which I am aware actually constitute any form of deliberate harassment. I myself am not one for needlessly rigorous impositions of any norms, but agree with Mdd that the norms he was attempting to restore are indeed well established ones here, and sometimes ones which were developed after long consideration of many alternatives.


 * Though you seem to disagree on author's pages having the generally sourced quotes with only a few from some particular work arranged above those of sections for works with more extensive quotes, this usually permits a broader variety of good and famous quotes near the top of the page, even though some of the most famous quotes or works might often appear far lower on the pages. Having some of the more significant or famous quotes bolded and in captions with images usually helps to alleviate that problem, and helps the interested to find them.


 * I truly do hope you decide to stick around, and perhaps add much more material in the months and years to come, but whatever you decide, I wish you well, and close this note with thanks and Blessings. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)