User talk:Kalki/2006

• Sorry for my edit. I hadn't noticed there was an interwiki link already! Xosé 17:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to come off as pushy or over-eager or anything, but I was wondering whether you'd made a decision on my RFA, as in, whether to extend it or what. Nobody's voted since the 10th, and so I was just kinda wondering what the process was with RfA's here. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I honestly was expecting that it would probably be extended or closed without consensus because of the (perfectly valid) issues Jeff raised. I'm happy to see that it wasn't though! Now, off to get to work! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kalki, can you help me with something? This IP keeps vandalizing Star Fox: Assault and undoing my reverts, claiming he/she is "Reverting vandalism". When I post warnings to the IP's talk page, they blank them and repost them to my talk page, stating that I am the one vandalizing. Would you mind blocking them for 24 hours or so? -- Jaxl 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kalki, I've taken care of this with a 1-week block for repeated vandalism, blanking talk-page warnings, and posting false accusations, after verifying Jaxl's complaint. I'll post a notice to this effect as well on the IP talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kalki I turn to you because when I contributed to Wikiquote you were very active and you're still listed as administrator. I quit Wikiquote as a contributor because I find it much too frustrating how easy it is to delete somebody else's work. Now I'm about to stop using Wikiquote as a user, too, because the list of themes keeps gettin cut. I don't know if that's on purpose or not, but at the moment there is 2 themes under K and 2 under L. When I go back to an older version there were 14 themes under L. => Is there no possibility to generate the list of themes from the pages about themes that actually exist? Best wishes :-) sunny

List of themes was a manually maintained list page, and these have become of decreasing importance here, with category options available for each page. Category:Themes is now probably a more useful place to look for theme pages. ~ Kalki 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :-) ~ sunny

Kalki, I just noticed an anomaly in the block log. It claims Danny blocked User:Nnimrodd indefinitely for "self serving nonsense by known troll", which is not backed up by Nnimrodd's 3 rather inocuous edits. What I find really puzzling is that I've never heard of "Danny" before, and he certainly didn't go through WQ:RFA since I've been here, nor is he listed there. I see that you'd had a conversation with this Danny 2 years ago. As our only bureaucrat, could you shed some light on this situation? (I've also posted a note to User talk:Danny about this.) Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Danny is one of the trusted stewards for all the Wikimedia projects, and I assume his block was precautionary based on the user's behavior elsewhere. The software itself has been developed to make many forms of vandalism harder, which saves us a great deal of trouble, but there were a few times early on where I encountered project hopping vandals, and decisions to block by the stewards and developers can definitely make many of our own problems simpler, even when they might seem over-zealous from our limited perspectives. ~ Kalki 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can speak a bit to this: In addition to being a steward, Danny is an employee of the Foundation; he takes his orders directly from Jimbo, and handles the vast majority of the inquiries that come in to the Foundation office. There are many occasions where he has to implement a cross-project decision on behalf of the Foundation. w:WP:OFFICE will shed a lot more light on what role Danny plays.

I was around when the blocks were made (Nnimrodd was blocked on every project where he was found); Danny was making an all call for project admins to enforce the ban, and was blocking wherever he could find the person. Had he not already made the block, I would have. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suppose Danny did so on behalf of the Foundation, and convince he is trustworthy but it is currently just my assumption. It would be an idea to ask Danny or other folks to leave a remark clearlyif they act on behalf of the Foundation.

Another thought: for transparency, we can add a remark to our WQ:BP on those who may act on behalf of the Foundation / be allowed to make such an action by their own discretion. As for ban enforcement, I'm not sure if it is an unproblematic idea but aware some insist such enforcement is useful or sometimes necessary. At any rate, if there is possibility such enforcement is accepted, we are better to mention such possibility on our policy clearly. --Aphaia 10:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kalki and Essjay, please advise and/or take action on the following problem.

I noticed that the 29 March quote of the day is not displaying on Main Page. Clicking on its red link, I found that Essjay had deleted Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 29, 2006 without explanation. I couldn't see anything obviously wrong with this Kalki-composed page, so I restored it. However, this didn't restore the quote to the main page, even after I did six forced-reloads. Could you folks try to get this very visible aspect of the main page working, and settle whatever the problem may have been that inspired the deletion? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

From User talk:Jeffq:

Oops, that was my mistake; I've been working on cleaning out the old QOTD archives for some time, and seeing the QOTD page pop up on my watchlist today reminded me I hadn't finished. Basically, I've been doing wholesale deletes of the individual-day pages, as they are archived in a monthly archive (we discussed doing so, I believe it was on the QOTD page, but may be mistaken). Anyhow, when I was going through March (2004, 2005, 2006) I accidentally deleted todays; to be truthful, I wasn't even thinking that there would be one transcluded onto QOTD. I'll get it taken care of. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've finished deleting all the old ones, and did subst: on the archive for March (except today, of course). In future, I'll wait for the end of the month, go through and subst: the archive page, then delete the individual day pages. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kalki, thank you for supporting my RfA! I look forward to working with you and the rest of the sysops here. -- Robert 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

An anonymous user apparently read the discussion at Wikiquote talk:Misquotes for comic effect and took exception to your statement that Alexander Pope said "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise". (In fact, they created a Quotation Chalkboard article, based on an suggested [and redlinked] article title from the discussion, where they raised the question of its origin.) LrdChaos VFD'd the new article and moved the question to the reference desk. I did some research on this, only to find Thomas Gray saying this in his "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College", while Pope said something similar ("The bliss of man … Is not to act or think beyond mankind") in his Eassy on Man. If you know about an earlier or more specific Pope use of this expression, please let us know at WQ:RD. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

This might be entirely an error on my part. I had long thought that Pope had said this, but apparently was wrong. I will look for more material, but do not have any immedieately on hand supporting or explaining my previous belief. ~ Kalki 13:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just finished watching Good Night, and Good Luck., and felt that Edward R. Murrow's quote about the "speed of communication" was an especially appropriate one for Wikiquote (and Wikipedia), so I decided to nominate/support it for the quote of the day for 25 April, his birthday. It's been a while since I participated in QotD, so I pretended complete ignorance and tried to figure out how to do this. I ran into two problems:

1. The current Main Page link goes to Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December. Based on the (necessarily brief) text, I assumed it would go to Wikiquote:Quote of the day/April.
2. Once I got to April, I found no information on how to format a nomination or vote. Nor were there any nominations active for April from which I could deduce the format. As far as a newbie could tell, it looks like just an archive. I added the Murrow quote to the 25 April section in what I hope is a reasonable form.

Has everyone else abandoned this project? I hate to see that you are the only one still committed to it, especially given the flack you've taken over the past year (some of which was inspired or at least abetted by my own brief participation). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did fix the Main page problem — thanks for noting it. I don't feel I've taken a great deal of flack, but I did tend to refrain from making suggestions for a while and tried to more often simply select among the choices others had made, but activity from the few others regularly involved gradually diminished and I was back to making selections entirely on my own again, at least for a while. I plan to change the structure on all the pages so that the previously chosen quotes come before the suggestions for a date, but will probably do that gradually in coming months. I don't have much time for a fuller response today, but I do think the Murrow quote is a very good one. ~ Kalki 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you just updated the New Pages section of the Main Page after only 3 days of the last updated set. (I missed this convenient opportunity to review and possibly edit the listed articles, as I've occasionally done in the past.) Are you planning a faster regular cycle than the usual 2-3 weeks? I want to know mainly so I can pace my work. (You set your own pace; I'll just follow.) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

There never really has been any schedule for these changes, and I only have done them when I've happened to think of it, but it would be a good idea to update them at least once a week, now that things are moving faster here. I will try to do that henceforth, though any of the admins are welcome to make changes as well. ~ Kalki 01:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to say that I'm perfectly willing to let you shoulder this burden. I'm finding that, after VfD maintenance, reference desk research and other source work, welcome patrol, article reformatting and categorizing, answering questions in VP, policy pages, and 700+ article talk pages, and my pathetic attempts at policy revision, I have little time left for actually creating and verifying quote articles. (To say nothing of my increasing work on Wikipedia.) I'm unemployed and still can't seem to find enough time to do everything I want to here. I don't know how other people manage it! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kalki, do you know if there's anything special we have to do to make some MediaWiki changes active? I'm having a problem with MediaWiki:Cite references link many format backlink labels, which I set nearly a month ago.

Back story: in my crusade for better sourcing, I've been adding references with the recommended <ref> and <references> tags, according to the latest MediaWiki changes and meta/WP policy. However, the instructions at meta:Cite/Cite.php and in w:Wikipedia:Footnotes differ in that Meta has ugly "number.number" backlinks in the footnotes for multiple citations in the text, while WP uses the more elegant "letter". (Compare our Laurence J. Peter's references with WP's Pale Blue Dot references.) The single letter is simpler and avoids both confusion between the footnumbering and the unnecessary repetition of the footnumber itself.

Readers of neither instruction page above provided any help whatsoever in directing me how to configure a project to accomplish this, nor could I find any documentation for the various settings. However, I eventually figured out how to use the info in meta:Cite/Cite.php#Customization to locate wikipedia:MediaWiki:Cite references link many format backlink labels, which has a set of letters that are apparently used in place of automated decimal numbering of the default configuation. That's where I got the (shorter) Wikiquote version from.

The changes didn't immediately take effect. I suspected it might require a server reboot, but after at least two major incidents of Wikiquote availability problems in the past few weeks (which I thought might have required reboots), nothing has changed here. I was hoping you might have some insight into this. If not, I guess I can ask Brion, but I'm timid about bothering developers. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Butting in, as I am oft to do, let me look around a bit and see if there are some other minor changes that have to be made to activate this. It's not uncommon for a change on one page to require a change in the call function on another page. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I think I've worked it out. Take a look at Laurence_J._Peter as well as User:Essjay/Sandbox and see if this was what you wanted. What I did was to change MediaWiki:Cite references link many format from $2 to $3, per the syle on Wikipedia. I believe it's fixed the problem. Also, your tag should be <ref name="multiple">, instead of <ref name="pq"/>. If this wasn't what you wanted, just revert and tell me to go bother someone else. ;-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Essjay's responses above might provide what you sought. I confess that I really am not very familiar with many of the technical issues of the software, and I find working with even basic html code rather tedious, let alone the php and other auxiliary options available.
I recognize the need for the footnote format in Wikipedia, where the narrative flow of articles requires it, but in Wikiquote I strongly prefer that the citation of sources, ISBNs and sometimes urls and other links to be directly beneath the individual quotations, or beneath the individual headings of works that have been given their own sections. I feel this is much more convenient, and provides far less chance of confusion than adding references for quotes to the bottom of a page.

Also, as discussed very early in the formation of Wikiquote, while citing chapter numbers are usually helpful, there are often various editions of works and page numbers have limited usefulness, and are probably most appropriate for magazine articles; where I have provided them or retained them on pages, I have often enclosed them in "<!-- -->" bracketts to hide them and keep the appearance of the page less cluttered, but still providing a way for quick access to the additional information for anyone who looks at the editing level of the page.

There are some interesting formatting ideas being presented on a few of the newer pages, but thus far, I feel much more comfortable with the existing formats. In the Laurence J. Peter article I would much prefer the creation of a section heading for Peter's Quotations (1993) with perhaps the full title, ISBN and other relevant links directly below that:
Peter's Quotations: Ideas for Our Time (1977) ISBN 0688032176 - Paperback: ISBN 0688119093
rather than separate footnote citations of the work for each quote. I won't do such editing at this point, as the page is currently being used as an example of other alternatives. ~ Kalki 21:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

My two main concerns about references are making accuracy checking easier, yet avoiding too much clutter. One serious problem we have with heading-based sources is that people throw stuff under the heading without providing any useful means to verify the information short of reading the entire work. This effectively prevents any reasonable accuracy checks — who's going to read a book just to confirm a single quote, or even ten quotes? (I've done it a few times, and I don't plan to make it a regular practice.) Page numbers are typically the minimum useful specification, but they require editions, preferably with page counts (so that someone with a different edition can estimate where to look in theirs). It's horribly messy to put this information in a heading. Alternatives are to (A) add it to the source line (which in current practice often gets repeated for each and every quote, which is absurd); (B) place a full source line under the heading (used in some places, but not especially satisfying); or (C) use wiki footnotes in a references section.

I chose the last for Peter's quotes when I found myself searching for his quotes in the cited work. (It's actually a collection of quotes from many people — all totally unsourced, of course. At least his self-quotations can be given this provisional source.) My goal was to split all this article's quotes into sourced and attributed, based on the only source I had available. I was anticipating future sources for others. I probably should have placed all of them into a subheading as suggested. Even if I had, though, I would still want to include the page numbers to make verifying quotes easier.

This problem is hardly unique to people quotes. We don't even have a means to identify sourced vs. attributed quotes for TV shows and films at the moment, as I've mentioned elsewhere. Wiki footnotes/references can help, but the main issue is just to get the sources, however they're formatted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the support of my RfA. I appreciate the vote of confidence, and am looking forward to helping out as a sysop. —LrdChaos 21:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I received today your note on my talk page. I thank you and accept the nomination for sysop. Best wishes. InvisibleSun 23:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see you got there before I could put a warning on the talk page ;). Are there any warning templates for vandals like those on Wikipedia? Tamino 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Currently the only functional template warnings here (that I am aware of), are those on Category:User warning templates. I usually only use {{test}} and {{test2}} , though I often append additional comments when I use these; there was also a vandal template someone started in February based on a Wikipedia format, but never made entirely functional. ~ Kalki 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was just going through the new users list when I noticed a new user with a name very similar to yours (the difference being an "n" on the end of their username). They haven't yet made any contributions, but it might be worth keeping a close eye on them for a little while. —LrdChaos 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. ~ Kalki 20:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've read your note that I am now a sysop and am grateful for your support on my behalf. InvisibleSun 05:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

With the current QotD from Robert Owen about an imminent time of enlightenment, I found myself curious about when he wrote this. As it appears to be from A New View of Society (1813-1816), its current citation seems rather ironic if not downright cynical. It also made me consider whether we should include the source and date of these quotes-of-the-day. Unintentional irony would probably not be a frequent issue, but a better reason would be to emphasize our desire to source quotes. Just a thought. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed your excellent idea of redirecting dates to the appropriate QotD month page. Of course, the Mediawiki software doesn't yet allow redirects to target an internal anchor, like a heading for the day of the month. This gave me a further idea: might we create individual QotD pages for each dates and transclude them on the month page? This would accomplish three things:

1. Allow us to present a meaningful date page for Wikiquote — daily quotes former and future — as you intended (although not the whole month).
2. Provide a reasonably-sized article for QotD review and suggestion editing, especially given that we have several years' track record now. (Both 1 & 2 strike me as more in keeping with the principle of least astonishment for wiki links.)
3. Still provide a means to review and edit the whole month (using links provided via the Main Page, as we currently do), via transclusions (just like the current WQ:VFDA, although without the massive load delay with only a maximum of 31 entries).

The minor disadvantage of not jumping from a link like March 4 to the full-month QotD could be offset by providing previous- and next-day links, or even a calendar, like WP does.

What do you think about this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had thought that in the years ahead, as the suggestions grow, there would eventually be advantages to creating separate pages for each date, but I don't see that there is a need as yet. I do think the redirect idea is good at present (and it was prompted by the red links you had added to the Patsy Kensit page) but even that will take a bit of work, and I doubt if I will have the time to work extensively on it for at least a few weeks. I also have a few ideas of making "Year pages" for the year parts of the dates, where significant quotes from that year, or about that year could be gathered, perhaps redirected to "century pages" for the older dates, but this too will take a bit of work, and is a secondary level of priority for me, until the redirects for the days are created. I have a few other ideas I've been meaning to get around to developing, and hope to find the time to present in the weeks ahead. ~ Kalki 04:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about time-consuming work; I'd be happy to execute whatever is decided. I'm very good at doing brainless repetitive things. (It's the hard analysis and decision-making — like reviewing, revising, and advertising the speedy-deletion policy update — I'm having problems with these days. Boring stuff I can do while I'm watching programs or listening to my audiobooks for quotes. That's how I converted all the VFDA stuff.) I can easily create the other 365 month-date links. I just don't want to edit these pages twice in a short time.

I'd also be happy to convert the month pages into tranclusions of day pages, but if we go this route, it should be done before the date redirects are created so their targets are in place. Since editing a page through a transcluded entry looks just like editing a page section (except for the lack of "(section)" next to the title), converting a month at a time won't present any noticeable difference for readers or editors during the transition.

Let me know which boring tasks you'd like me to attack. The sooner, the better, too, as I'm right in the middle of watching 110 episodes of Babylon 5, so I have weeks of repetitive-task time available. (Not that B5 isn't engaging; I just can't keep my mind on only 1 thing at a time lately. In fact, I'm watching Beyond Tomorrow, grabbing my email, and checking my auction sales while I write this.) ~ Jeff Q (talk), puTting tHe cAFFeINe down now, 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you want to take on the task, it would probably be goood to start with June: I just updated the June proposals page to the current format, but if the specific date pages are created as suggestion pages, rather than redirects, I believe that the month-pages should simply become a record of the past selections, with a link below them to the proposal pages (labeled something like "Proposals", "Suggestions" or "Suggest more quotes for this day") linking to specific "date" pages. These too could have a record at the top of selections for that date in past years, followed by suggestions for the current or future years. Otherwise there would be 2 places to make the suggestions for each date, and probably some confusion and duplications of effort. ~ Kalki 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. This have given me a lot to think about. I've created User:Jeffq/Experiments/QotD: June to demonstrate my basic approach. I think I'll create a User:Jeffq/Experiments/QotD: July to explore your idea. I have some thoughts on how we can use either to try to prevent confusion and ensure folks edit only the proper suggestion sections. I'll get back to you soon on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've now completed first drafts of three experimental versions of a new QotD month page:

• May: former QotDs in date articles; users edit month page to add suggestions
• June: former QotDs & suggestions in date subpages (requires redirected date articles)
• NoRemember: former QotDs & suggestions in date articles, but structured to encourage editing only of the suggestion sections (full-article editing is easy, but takes 2 clicks)

Since it took a bit of work to structure this last one initially, I made up a month of only 3 days, using one of Piers Anthony's whimsical month names. Also, I used May instead of July because I only now noticed that it hasn't been converted to the newer format yet. Note that wherever I used a page ending in "Month Date" (as opposed to just "Date"), it is a placeholder for a date article (i.e., in the main namespace). In other words, what you see when you look at User:Jeffq/Experiments/May 20 or User:Jeffq/Experiments/NoRemember 1 will be the actual date article, like March 4, in the live version.

I invite you to play around with the look and feel of these three systems and tell me what you think. (By the way, you might be amused to know that I was listening to my newly purchased Aerial by Kate Bush while I completed the May version, based on your recommendations. For the format, that is, not for the album, although I'm sure you'd recommend the album, too. I sure do!) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another note: one reason I favor the latter two methods is that the month pages, if edited directly, provide no place for a user to squeeze in a suggestion in the wrong place. The transcluded date entries are all on consecutive lines, so practically no one will miss the point that the quotes are not in the month article and that they should follow THE INSTRUCTIONS IN CAPITAL LETTERS RIGHT NEXT TO EACH DAY'S ENTRY. Of course, nothing is foolproof, but I think the system is fairly clear. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've scanned your work a bit, but I've not yet had the time today to fully review all the differences in the options you've presented, nor to develop any suggestions about them, and probably won't until perhaps sometime tomorrow; I'll only be able to occasionally check in here a few minutes at a time until then. ~ Kalki 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

After examining things, and thinking upon them for a while, I believe that the third option you have developed is probably best, though I don't care much for the bright yellow, and feel a muted blue color scheme to match the logo would be better, if one is used.

On the subject of Kate Bush: I'm glad you like Aerial. I have it playing on iTunes as I type, and bought several copies on CD for myself and a few other people as soon as it was released. Its good to hear new compositions by her after all these years. ~ Kalki 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Kalki. I must have missed when you posted the above comment; otherwise I would have responded right away. I have no idea why I picked the yellow — I think I was in a hurry. I've added three different pastel blues to the dates; let me know if any of these (or some other one) suits you. Meanwhile, I will read up on QotD to make sure I understand all the formatting issues. Once I'm sure I know what I'm doing, I can start creating date pages from the month pages. Once that's done, I can revise the month pages to use the new system, starting with next month and working forward to finish with this month, so there'll be plenty of time to review and fix any problems that come up. If you have a different approach, or any other suggestions, let me know. I won't start the page creation until I've checked with you again. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

While studying the existing formats (old and new), I've been making some notes to myself, and decided to create another set of experiment pages, with User:Jeffq/Experiments/QotD: March at the top, to see how various tweaks might look. (One important one was to use the wiki DL format for existing quotes as a possible trade-off for reducing the mass bolding and still presenting a variety of quote styles elegantly. All the old quotes are legitimate; the suggestions are a mix of real nominations and faked-up data. I haven't yet added notes to describe some of the subtle differences each page, though.) Feel free to take a look, comment on its talk page, and even add days with your own variations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The newest options seem the best thus far; the main reason that I began using bolding on these month pages was simply to make the choices that had been used more noticably distinct from the suggestions, especially where there are many of them, which I think should remain without bolding until chosen. ~ Kalki 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here are the differences between the dates:

• March 1-3
  • Past quotes: not bolded (relying on layout for emphasis; avoiding "bolding headache for long quotes" (not that I'm trying to sell it, eh?)
  • Suggestions: horizontal rules between quotes, which are bolded

• March 4-6
  • Past quotes: bolding from original; apparently usually bold, but exceptions for long passages (bolding helps offset from votes and comments that are left in place)
  • Suggestions: no lines between quotes, which are bolded

• March 7
  • Past quotes: same as March 4-6
  • Suggestions: unbolded but bulleted quotes, with votes double-bulleted

• March 1, 4, 7: sources, justification follow the tilde (~)
• March 2 & 5: sources, justification are indented under the quote
• March 3 & 6: sources, justification are bulleted under the quote, just like a vote

Please let me know which specific date formatting (or which specific elements of any of them) you prefer. I have a few questions to ask, as well:

• Do you have a preference for how you'd like the justification for past quotes formatted? There are some variations (see June 1 (indented), June 30 (after the tilde, even if lengthy), June 19 (bulleted and/or indented)). If we can settle on one form, I can convert them as I create the pages. Or not.

• Do you want to retain old votes and/or commentary for past quotes? Since these date pages are going to be in article positions, it seems weird (at least to this wikian) to have user names & dated stuff in article-like sections. On the other hand, the suggestions just underneath them, also on the date pages, must have dated votes. Perhaps I'm just being "anal".

• While I'm at it, I thought I might change statements like "date of birth" to "born June 1, 1837". With the current number of quotes, this shouldn't add even a minute to each date page to my conversion effort, and is more accurate and informative (though obviously not essential). I'd be happy to do it, but as you're currently the only person selecting and "installing" QotDs, I wouldn't want to commit you to this "feature" for future quotes without your approval. What do you think about it?

As soon as we can settle these questions, I can start the page creation. I think the dates will take me 1-2 weeks, depending on how much time I can devote to it. The months are easy after that, so I'll do one first to see and test the results, then finish them in a quick session after any issues are worked out. I await your thoughts, answers, and decisions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think old votes and commentary should be retained, and the old votes bulleted, but such records could perhaps become "hidden" with "<!-- -->" marks, and some commentary might simply be indented. The more elaborate "born June 1, 1837" might be good for chosen quotes, if you want to begin doing that, but that degree of specificity shouldn't be required for the suggestions. I also think lines should be retained between the suggestions, as one of the simplest ways of separating them, and that they should not be in bold. With lines separating the suggestions I also generally prefer they be unbulleted, and votes be single bulleted, but I know this goes somewhat against habit here, and don't insist on this where bullets and double bullets have been used. ~ Kalki 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I concur with the following:

• Retain past-quote votes.
• Indent past-quote commentary.
• Add specific dates to past-quote inclusion explanations where appropriate, but not to suggestions (but see below).
• Add lines between suggested quotes.
• Don't bullet or bold suggested quotes.
• Bullet votes. (I'll probably regularize them to singles so that discussions can be sub-bulleted.)

I'm not arguing for any policy on these issues, but just hope that participants will pick all this formatting up by osmosis. I have one final list of observations and questions:

• Pardon my nitpick, but "born" should not be capitalized, as it's not the start of a sentence. I'll probably re-case stuff like this when copying.
• I'm not sure what to do about the date formatting. One of the reasons to create month-date articles was to enable the use of date formatting for quote sources, a long unaddressed problem. But March 4 will look like March 4 on its own page, which would be a little weird. (I've updated User:Jeffq/Experiments/QotD: March/8 to simulate this.) The way I see it, we could:
  1. Live with the odd bolding.
  2. Ordain a date format for month-date pages. (It's not a very Wikimedia-friendly thing to do, but it would apply only to these pages, not articles in general.)
  3. Rephrase it to "born this day in 1941".
  4. Just stay with the current "date of birth".

  Let me know which you prefer. Again, since you're maintaining this project, I'll bow to your decision.

• I really don't like all that bolding in the past quotes. You seem to be uncomfortable with it for long tracts, too, as shown in User:Jeffq/Experiments/QotD: March/7. Can we leave it unadorned, as it is when featured on Main Page? After all, the DL offset format gives each quote plenty of visual separation, most quotees will be visually distinct from their quotes because of the their wiki links, quoted works will also usually have links and also be italicized, contextual info (like birthdates) will be in parentheses, commentary would be indented, and old votes either bulleted, commented out, or archived. (See below.) On the other hand, if we're going to have a lot of commentary and/or visible votes, perhaps the bolding is necessary. Right now, that doesn't seem to be the case, but I could see it happening. I've raised my objections, but I'll go with your decision.
• I'm rather bothered by having old votes forever included on month-date articles. On the other hand, if we find them valuable or even necessary, it seems wrong to comment them out. Maybe we could archive old votes either in an /archive or perhaps the Talk: page? (Both seem to be appropriate, as we archive old data that is no longer essential except for historical record, and we use talk pages for discussions that lead to content, which these votes certainly are.) I'll let you decide: bullet it, comment it out, /archive it, or Talk: it.

Once you've weighed in on these final questions, unless you ask more of your own, I'll start copying the material to month-date pages without further discussion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can agree that the bolding that occurs with the years is sufficient in the new format, and that the record of votes need not be retained in presenting the past quotes. I still might be inclined to credit the proposer with a comment, either open or hidden, but you need not bother about that at this time, and can leave things entirely blank. That seems to about wrap it up on the formatting issues for now, thanks for all the proposals, and the technical layout you've done. When completed it will be good to have the date links to proposals available, (and date formats customizable by each user as they are on Wikipedia; I myself have long been inclined to use the year-month-date format when possible, and the date-month-year format when a more generally familiar format seems appropriate, as in posting things for others.) ~ Kalki 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll lose the votes and bullet the proposer (where available). Without the votes, I think it'll be better to bullet, not indent, the commentary, just as we would a source line for quotes elsewhere. (I think this will look more elegant than a mix of bullet and indenting.) If I read you right, you're not specifically choosing what to do with linked dates that show up as bold in their own articles, so I'll go with using the links to provide the user preferences and live with the bolding; we can always change it later if it's not satisfactory. I had a last-minute realization that I hadn't provided a suitable example of unbolded past-quote with commentary, so I created User:Jeffq/Experiments/QotD: March/9 (out of the real May 1). But I'll go ahead and start on the dates in a few hours. By the way, I agree with you on dates, preferring ISO "YYYY-MM-DD" for source date links, and "D M YYYY" for reader-friendly text. (It conflicts with my U.S. education, but I've never forgiven my country for failing to adopt the metric system or to toss out the confusing 12-hour time system, either. Being a military brat, I find HH:MM and D-M-YYYY quite comfortable.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

After doing a little Googling on the quote, it all seems to point to one source: Horace Traubel's With Walt Whitman in Camden (1906), vol. IV, p.508, for an entry dated April 7, 1889. The quote, however, is different:

"I said: 'Baseball is the hurrah game of the republic!' He was hilarious: 'That's beautiful: the hurrah game! well--it's our game: that's the chief fact in connection with it: America's game: has the snap, go fling, of the American atmosphere--belongs as much to our institutions, fits into them as significantly, as our constitutions, laws: is just as important in the sum total of our historic life.'"

Here are some links for the same:

1) The Linguist

2) Classical Poetry Forum

3) Fifty Years, Fifty States

4) Whitman Archive

Some of these sources mention the particular quote you're looking for on the Whitman page. Other sources give the above quote. It's possible, I suppose, that finding the actual book might supply both quotes from the same entry. InvisibleSun 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info; it did add to the material that I already had found, and some of the information available has now been posted to the Walt Whitman page. I had initially forgotten to do so a few days ago, having become caught up in editing the Leaves of Grass page. ~ Kalki 07:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You left a message on my IP address regarding the bolding of certain quotes over others. I do apologize as I didn't realize I was not signed in at the time. My thoughts on it are very simple. Who decides what is bolded and what is not? For instance if you say one thing is an especially important quote and I disagree...an edit war ensues with one or both of us being blocked. And for instance if each editor is to determine what should and should not be bolded...how do we stop the entire quote list from being bolded as time goes by? I think its an inherently POV practice. I will however refrain from removing them based on my own thoughts as wikiquote/wikipedia is about more than my own thoughts. Batman2005 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is not Wikipedia, where for very good reasons an encyclopedic Neutral Point of View is adamantly promoted in the creation of articles, and where most statements originate with the editors and should be carefully framed within NPOV guidelines. Here we are all selecting and posting statements of various points of view that we for some reason find notable. While we share the ideal that the project as a whole should not embrace any definite POV on most issues, as I have emphasized on a few occasions previously, unlike the ideal composing of encyclopedia articles the act of quoting itself is inherently a POV process, and we are all engaged in varying degrees in determining what is included here on the pages, and what is not, and all are to some extent exercising our points of view, and unlike the creation of encyclopedia articles we are not as absolutely compelled to restrain them in the quotes we choose to add, or those we choose to emphasize in some way.

There are very many quotes here, that I don't find all that notable, but if someone does, and no one else objects, they remain. The same is true of the works and authors that we include: if they do not pass consensus criteria for notability they are deleted. Somewhat surprisingly with many editors coming here from Wikipedia, bolding practices here have thus far only rarely been an issue of contention.The few occasions it has been an issue it has usually been raised by people who feel nothing should be bolded at all, but that so far has not been a dominant consensus here, and I have occasionally emphasized that, especially on the larger pages, I find the total lack of bolding to be very aesthetically unappealing and bland. I have never attempted to ignore, deny, or equivocate about the fact that to any human being, there are many quotations and statements that are inherently more notable than others, and that this is a place where we are gathering and sifting them in various ways, according to our various interests and inclinations, and I have always asserted that bolding is and should remain an option available for people who are interested in developing the presentations we are engaged in creating here on the various pages. ~ Kalki 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kalki Please, I hope you don't think I was challenging you or anything of the sort with my comment. I was simply providing my reasoning for initially deleting the bolding. I accept it as common practice and actually thank you for bringing it to my attention respectfully rather than in a way less cordially. I too agree that all the quotes being or "normal text" is very bland! Again, I hope you don't think I was challenging you or anything of the sort, just merely stating the reasons for my previous actions! Batman2005 04:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No offense was taken; I merely sought to make as clear as possible some of the points that I had made a few times before, about why I feel bolding is a very good and useful option here, especially on longer pages. I hope you like the project, and appreciate that formatting ideas are still being experimented with by at least a few people here; but the idea of leaving pages devoid of emphasis options is one that I personally dislike rather strongly. ~ Kalki 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, I frequently would look at this page as I find quotations to be quite addictive and enjoy reading what more eloquent people have said. It's only now that I got around to creating a log in. Batman2005 03:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

As I was posting welcomes to new users, I noticed one called Mattbarnesisgay (talk · contributions), whose only editing was to vandalize, and whose name was clearly intended to attack someone name Matt Barnes. LrdChaos blocked this user per WP:BP, but the name remains an implicit attack on this person. I see that w:Wikipedia:Username has a process to change inappropriate usernames for active editors, but doesn't seem to consider the case whether the username was manifestly created by an inveterate vandal who has subsequently been blocked indefinitely per policy. (I can't believe this hasn't happened hundreds of times before on WP.) As a bureaucrat with the authority to do a name change, do you know how we can deal with this? We apparently can't delete it, but we can change it to something innocuous. But what would that be, considering we're unlikely even to get any meaningful input from a vandal? (WP policy says to discuss the name change on the user's talk page, so they should be able to participate if they wish to, even though blocked.) Should we take a month to review this, per WP policy about infrequently editors, or only a day or two, per WP policy about uncontroversial name changes? I have no idea how to proceed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What a great coincidence! I have just made a proposal on Wikipedia to warehouse offensive usernames - see [1]. There I have suggested changing offensive usernames to a series of numbered accounts prefaced by a "￥" (which comes near the end of all characters in the Wiki alphabetization scheme).

By the way, I came here because I am a Wikipedia admin, and I've recently changed my username there to counter the trend of vandals digging for personal info on admins in order to disrupt their non-wiki lives. I'd like to make the same change here - can you change me to User:BD2412? Cheers! BD2412 T 22:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thus far there seems to be no definite policy or measures on eliminating these and keeping them blocked from re-creation at Wikipedia, and it seems we will just have to accept them as a bit of dross in the project for now. ~ Kalki 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That turned out to be the general sentiment of the debate on Wikipedia as well. Thank for the change! BD2412 T 20:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've begun creating month-date articles. Because of the particulars of how I'm mass-editing, I'm creating them one date instead of one month at a time; i.e., Jan 1, Feb 1, Mar 1, …, then onto the 2s, etc. I put an {{inuse}} message in place so people don't start using these articles before we're ready for them (one hopes). Within an hour I'd already gained a non-fan — see Mr. Satan666 (talk · contributions). Oh, well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Once again I am in a bit of a rush and won't be able to respond fully to any of the above concerns until tommorow. Just making this brief jot to make plain I'm not ignoring anyone, I just have to be off rather quickly now. I will respond to the above tomorrow. ~ Kalki 22:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No hurry on my stuff; it can all wait. On the QotD updates, at of this posting, I'm just over 10% done (days 1-3 for each month). You can observe my progress by the blue links in the table at User:Jeffq/Sandbox.

I ran into an interesting thing you did that doesn't fit well into the new scheme but seems like it ought to have some representation somewhere. January 2 included the following item:

Other previous "Quotes of the Day" by Asimov (date of birth):

2004 February 22 : The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. ~ Isaac Asimov

Many other QotDs by a person will already be shown in the standard past-quotes section by virtue of their birth, death, or other significant date. But since quotes might appear on any date, and more than one day could be significant for a person (or work or other entity), it might be a good idea to have something noting these combined QotD selections. It might be another QotD page (or pages), or perhaps a note in the article of the quotee. But for now, I'll leave out items like this that don't relate specifically to the article's date. (We can review this before the actual conversion, since the originals are still in place in the QotD month pages.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the progress you made with the date pages, I was pleased, but to simplify things a little, before you proceed much further, I think that I should update all the months pages to the newer format where past QOTDs are above the suggestions, and I will attempt to get this finished within the next day. ~ Kalki 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That would help, but don't feel obligated to do so. I've gotten a pretty good system going now, where it only takes me about half an hour for 12 month-dates, including the transposing. (I'll take it in whatever form I get it.) One thing that I haven't done yet that will require a second pass is to grab the older past-QotDs that aren't currently in the month pages. However, it seems like this could easily wait until after the conversion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

¡Gracias! No sabía que había un Web site español. Soy seguro que tendré un rato más fácil que navega ese sitio. Mi nombre es Heraldo 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, at this point, I'm about 63% done with month-date page creation. I should have no trouble finishing up in the next 2-6 days, depending on my meatspace acitivity. I've noticed a problem, however. My watchlist has gone from about 800 pages to 1100+, and will end up near 1300 when I'm done. I would like to watch these 378 pages (including the month pages), but I think I'd rather do them in a separate account solely for watching QotD activity. I could create a well-documented sockpuppet for myself for this purpose. But I'm thinking that you might also want to have a special QotD monitoring account, and that we might not even need multiple ones, just a role account. Apparently these are "not sanctioned" for general use in the Wikimedia world, but have been established for special cicrumstances. I just started looking into this, and don't really know of any existing practices in similar situations (which there must be), so I'm just throwing this out for consideration. If nothing comes of this, I'll probably just create my own sockpuppet and let everyone else do as they wish. (After all, accounts are cheap, eh?) Let me know what you think about this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw your comments just before taking a four hour nap, which is about double the time I had actually slept in the previous two days. I usually need only 4 hours or less of sleep a day, but if I get much less for too long, I do get weary. I typed a response and then napped before finally editing it, to insure that it was sufficiently lucid and comprehensible. This is a final form, such as it is...

Using multiple accounts for dividing up one's workload is an entirely legitimate reason for having them, and in such matters my view is "do as you will." Multiple accounts are only objectionable to the extent they are used improperly, ie: to skew voting results, or by nuisance makers aiming to be more of a nuisance to others.

On other issues: usually for three or four days of the week, sometimes more, sometimes less, I have to make the selections for QOTD by about 22:45 UTC rather than being able to wait to about 00:00 UTC, and yesterday was one of those days, so I had already slotted the QOTD when you made your rankings and comments around 23:30 UTC. In response to some of your points I would say that I too, like Heinlein, reject such casual and simplistic assertions as "violence never settles anything." I, too, recognize that it can sometimes settle a great deal, and that responding to brutal will or the infliction of violence with fierce resistance and retaliation is sometimes entirely appropriate and necessary; but I can also recognize that to initiate the violence and warfare, and to seek to use overwhelming force or the threat of it as one's principle method of persuading others to comply with one's will or defer to one's aims, is not usually an exhibition of the highest level of either prudence or wisdom, and the resentments and results of engaging in such methods can often have immediate and long-range consequences that can far outweigh any immediate benefits or advantages obtained. Thus ElBaradei's assertions that "war rarely resolves our differences" and "Force does not heal old wounds; it opens new ones" are such as I also entirely can agree with, and find no inherent contradictions in accepting many of his observations and perspectives as well as many of Heinlein's.

Issues of human conflict, both rational and irrational are always complex, and though there are many ways I could expand on my own views on this complex subject and related ones, I will for now limit myself. Despite being acutely aware of many dark and tragic tendencies in human beings, in general I do tend to side with many paths of hopefulness and optimism. Though I can acknowledge many, or even most, forms of it are based on a great deal of ignorance and naïveté, contrary to the ideas and presumptions of many, I hold that most paths of general cynicism, pessimism, and despair are even more so. Humanity advances and declines in many ways, but in the last few centuries of human history, there are very strong patterns of advance, in both awareness and capacities for human concord and happiness, despite the accompanying advance of some forms of danger, discord, and devastation, largely caused by those deeply entrenched in certain patterns of prejudice, arrogance and hostility.

Thanks for all the technical work on the date pages by the way! I have noted it, and am appreciative. I had begun to update the formats of the remaining month pages several times, but never got a chance to entirely finish even one. ~ Kalki 18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry too much about my own pessimism, which comes, like the old adage about a conservative being a mugged liberal, from crushing disappointment after decades of supposedly incurable optimism. I still believe in having a bias toward featuring positive and optimistic quotes.

As far as the formats go, really, you don't have to worry about it. I've handled some of the updated entries, and it literally takes me no more time to copy an updated one than an older one, in any of the several forms they come in. That's a great advantage of having to do so much in a short period of time — you get really quick at adapting to whichever format applies after you do it a few dozen times. That's why I like to volunteer for such odious tasks. I see the need, realize how unlikely it is to be done by intelligent people who have more interesting things to do, and commit myself to relatively brainless work to give myself a feeling of being useful. It harkens back to my days as a full-time programmer, when I would get so burnt out by round-the-clock programming that I would take a day off and help a co-worker re-route communications cables just for the variety. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Before you make a bold statement such as this:

NOTE: the edit history of this user indicates the account was created entirely for vandalism and trolling, that this user was inadvertently revealed to probably also be using IP 216.164.203.90 at the time, and despite an apparently feigned naivete also exhibited immediate familiarity of blocking procedures and an indication of immediate awareness of "Riley on rails Tape Recorder" as a "WoW" incarnation. I am thus blocking this account permanently as merely another incarnation of a known troll-vandal. ~ Kalki 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) See also IP 216.164.203.90 at Wikipedia for some characteristic edits of this vandal. ~ Kalki 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please have evidence to support you bold and somewhat rude claims. Putting such a statement at the top of my Talk and User pages is undoubtedly to designed to scare people away from communicating with me on Wikiquote and in effect make me want to leave. So instead of being a coward and creating a new user account, I took it down and left this message with you. If you have a reply, if any, just ask. Again, happy editing! Wazzawazzawaz 19:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will not presume that I could not be mistaken in some regards, but If anyone has any interest in wasting their own time as much as this vandal seems to like wasting the time of others, some of the evidence of this account being the "sock puppet" of a truly pathetic attention-seeking vandal is contained in the history of edits by this account, in indications of specific familiarity with details of policies and user histories despite a feigned "newbie" level of awareness (which are also characteristic of many of the posts of IP 216.164.203.90 at Wikipedia), and a less than 2-minute response time in erasing the name Wazzawazzawaz from the Wikiquotians page after it being posted by User:216.164.203.90, which I did assume to be a strong indication that this was simply the vandal hoping to erase an inadvertent and obvious trace of the IP, and of some of his activities here. ~ Kalki 20:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I acknowledge that I might conceivably have mistaken one vandal for another, but do not believe I am at all mistaken in detecting an intent to vandalize, and to waste other people's time. ~ Kalki 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have investigated this situation and deem Kalki's original block and warning message to be justified. I have notified Wazzawazzawaz of this decision on his talk page. I believe this user is an experienced wiki editor who is pretending to be a newbie and using wiki practices in a broad-based attempt to disrupt Wikiquote. I hope that the analysis I posted will provide other editors with one example of to how to spot similar cross-user, multiple-strategy disruptions. (By the flow of events, that is — not the documentation. I don't expect that we should do this kind of documented analysis except in the most extraordinary circumstances.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I concur with you two, and support Kalki on his blocking. We could discuss how long blocking were preferable, and in my preferences it could be shorten, but even with a potential slight disagreement, I state it was not so fiercely long for preventing disruption on Wikiquote from an account. --Aphaia 05:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may have noticed that I finished the month-date articles, except for the last few days in June, which are probably the most actively edited at the moment. I would appreciate it if you could look over the results, let me know if everything looks good for a switchover to the new system, and pick a date and time that would be good for starting the switch. (I would suggest immediately after you finish your QotD work for a particular day, so I will not interfere with this process.) At that point, I would do one of the following:

• Update a likely currently inactive month (e.g., May), based on the format of the experimental March, so we can discuss the results before proceeding with the rest. (I will assume May and run backwards for the rest unless you have a different preference.)

• Finish the last few June dates, then update June and July to get us rolling on live versions, but pause for some discussion.

• Convert all the months at once, starting with June and moving forward. (If I do this, I can certainly respond to feedback while editing after you've had a chance to look over June and July.)

What I will do for each page is:

1. Lock the month pages with a 1-hour {{inuse}} template.
2. Synchronize all its new date articles with its current state.
3. Convert the month page to all-templates and test all date links.
4. Unlock the month page and remove the {{inuse}} templates from it and all its date articles.

I would then proceed onto the next month page. This way I will avoid any de-synchronization while updating, and each month page will only be "offline" for an hour, possibly less.

The full conversion should be doable within a single day, between QotD changes, if you opt for immediate full conversion. A two-stage conversion should take no more total time, but can be spread out over two or more days if desired. Since I typically edit at any time of the day I need or wish to, I can accomodate whatever schedule you wish. (The only potential exception to this is that I may need to take a 1-2 hour break sometime between 18:00 and 23:00 UTC Monday through Saturday, but Tuesday 27 June is the only day I know I'll need to do this for the next week.)

I would also like to know if you'd like to post a very short note to Main Page and/or an announcement on Wikiquote:Village pump (and/or any other maintenance page) about this update to warn the community. If so, if you don't have time to or wish to write this, I can do this as well.

Let me know how you'd like to proceed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am about to post the QOTD for today, and you can proceed from that point at whatever pace you wish. The work you have done and are doing will provide additional options and conveniences for users, and I will post a brief note now on the village pump about it.

Today and tomorrow are both days where I will likely be out of contact with the internet for much of the day, but for the rest of the week I should be available most of the day to discuss any further tweaking that might need to be done in the revisions or any additions to them. ~ Kalki 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay! Everything is up and running now. June, which took exactly one hour, was more complicated than all the other months combined. The rest took only 5-15 minutes each, even when I checked all the links and examined the page histories to ensure I didn't miss any changes since my June 9 start.

There remain some interesting issues with the data in all these pages (e.g., errors in significant dates, almost all due to conflicts between Wikipedia month-date articles and the subject articles), but we can take these up after a break, I think. I see you'll be semi-unavailable for a bit, and I need to get back to my real-world problems for at least a few days. However, I will certainly respond to any questions or problems that anybody has concerning the new system. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've been working on the Frida Kahlo page, sourcing as many unsourced quotes as I can, and have reached what seems like a standstill for now; nor have I found an actual date for the quote of her final diary entry. I was also trying to add one of her self-portraits from Wikimedia Commons, but for some reason it won't open. Here it is on the right:

[[Image:Frida Kahlo (self portrait).jpg|thumb|100px|right|'''Frida Kahlo''', ''Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird'' - 1940]]

Since I don't know Spanish, I haven't been able to research in two languages as I would in French; and in any case, the only verifiable Spanish original so far is the diary illustration about feet and flying. Three other quotes have a number of Google variants for the Spanish, none of them leading to sources.

As you might guess, I've been working on the page for a possible quote for July 6- not that I'm assuming, of course, that she will be chosen for that day. Of the quotes so far, I like most the one about painting her reality and not her dreams. But I own the biography by Hayden Herrera and am going to be rereading it tomorrow to see if I can come up with additional quotes that might be of interest. - Best wishes. InvisibleSun 22:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The image you mention is not in the Commons, probably because it is still covered by Copyright regulations, though that might not necessarily be the case. It is uploaded so far only at Wikipedia, where it can be used under Fair-use provisions. ~ Kalki 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

1) As the blocking log for vandal 216.164.203.90 shows, I placed a three-month block on him two days ago. Somehow he was able to post again before you placed a new block. Is there any way for us to know how the previous block was evaded? This same problem happened with the Wazzawazzawz vandal, who was able to post again five days after you had permanently blocked him.

2) I was pursuing this Paul August business and have discovered that someone is impersonating you on Wikipedia under the name of KaIki, posting on Paul August's talk page under the heading "Hay." Since I am not an administrator at Wikipedia, I was unable to block this impersonator. - InvisibleSun 04:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. I too am curious as to how the blocks were bypassed, but we will just have to remain vigilant against this person's truly pathetic behavior. ~ Kalki 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

A question. 216.164.203.90 (talk · contributions) says s/he is identical with a certain account already blocked by me. I haven't noticed this IP as is and hence not unblocked it. There are two possibilities at least - whether both account and IP address evade blocking or the user found a chance to connect through other IP address. Personally I don't think we need checkuser now to find which IP address(es) were used, but perhaps it would be good to check if this IP address is an open proxy we reject per policy or not. --Aphaia 06:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that 216.164.203.90, who is already tied to a similar 2-user disruption effort involving username Wazzawazzawaz (talk · contributions), is behind all of these new usernames. It looks to me like the IP address is evading the blocks we're putting on it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The patterns of behavior are the same, and that this previously blocked IP was somehow active is indicated by the records. I am not familiar with all the technical details of why or how this might have occurred. I was also briefly impersonated on Wikipedia during this previous session, and here I blocked the WP user Paul August impersonations and re-blocked the IP. Since it became clear we are dealing with at least one rather infantile individual, I deleted the most recent trolling edits from my talk page. There seems to be clear intention of creating confusion and conflict between legitimate users and the pattern of behavior here and at Wikipedia suggests that this pathetic addiction to being disruptive is not likely to abate, and that we must remain alert to future occurrences of such vandalism. ~ Kalki 22:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I tracked this person back to a WP user, and Essjay uncovered widespread misbehavior by him. I've summarized the situation at WQ:VIP, under "Coldcat". Our conversation on the subject is at w:User talk:Essjay#Problems with 216.164.203.90/Nookdog. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed in the latest Quote of the Day the phrase "the long ninth wave." Is this a variant made by Graves for what I've always seen as "the crested wave"? I know that he revised his work a good deal.

And speaking of Quotes of the Day, would it be of any convenience to you to have a page devoted to suggestions for people whose date of birth and date of death are unknown? In that way if you find on a given day, for example, that you're pressed for time or that you don't particularly care for the quotes of the people whose day it is, you could always draw upon these quotes for people not associated with a particular date. It may be that you would find such an archive superfluous; but if it promised to be useful, I would be willing to add whatever suitable quotes I come across along the way. - InvisibleSun 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The The Ninth Wave has symbolic and mystical meaning in Celtic folklore and mythology, evoking both a more powerful wave, and a barrier between what is known and unknown, typically the "other world" of Faerie. Coincidentally, I just saw the "otherworldly" Lady in the Water today and loved it. It has gotten a surprising number of bad reviews, but most of the people in the theatre I went to seemed to like it rather well. Part of the number of drubbings it has taken from critics might be explainable to the fact that the movie itself takes a rather humourous blast at film critics, with one of them portrayed in the film as a presumptuous, overrated jerk — not the greatest way to gain fans among them.

On the idea of a page for quotes suggestions with no clear relation to the date, I too have thought of having some sort of options available, but have not suggested any of the ideas that had come to me, because of potential difficulties in implementing any of them, and potential protests from people who make suggestions that get entirely passed over on particular days. One of the earliest ideas I had was to simply designate one day a week, say Thursdays, as a day where the selector or selectors would give no disadvantage, or even priority to some of the better or more fitting suggestions on such a page, over those of the date page. But the potential for irritating some people remains obvious. I actually had planned to suggest something else by Graves over your top selection today, because I thought its context a bit obscure, but in the end I didn't have the time to sort through the options and make another suggestion, and simply added a line that I felt provided a little more context to the one that you had given top ranking. ~ Kalki 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

If we had more people participating more regularly and some kind of "voting" system for undated quotes like we have for dated ones, I might suggest selecting highly ranked undated quotes any time the dated ones fail to achieve a certain level of support. (This would give an objective reason to forestall any complaints about not using dated quotes on any particular date.) But I suspect this might be hard to do in practice until the QotD stuff gains significantly more involvement. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the "Tell the rabble my name is Cabell" attribution! I'm not a huge fan of his (I find his writing difficult to read), but my last name is Cabell, so I'm glad to see it there :) -- SatyrTN 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Doh! Thanks for fixing my link :) And I'll see if I can work my way through something of JBC's :) -- SatyrTN

I closed the new Willy on Wheels VfD early on the basis of spam-vandalism meant to advertise or self-promote. However, I can't delete the page because it is not being rendered as a standard wiki page. Regardless of how I try to access the page, I get an HTML page that is either a real copy of a standard "technical difficulties" error page because of some database problem (no other pages seem to be affected), or a fake copy that has somehow been inserted into the database at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Willy_on_Wheels that doesn't render the standard wiki framework, including the "delete" link. I will continue to look into this, but I thought you might have more pull with the Powers That Be to get some assistance on this. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand, I was able to delete the page with no problem, using the "Delete" link in the normal spot, with no evidence of any problems. —LrdChaos 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. It may have been an intermittent error, and I'm just too suspicious. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

A doppelganger is on the loose! 65.78.87.120 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just have a question about something you posted on my talk page, what do you mean "your extensions to the page for George Orwell's great work 1984 without comment". Do I need to comment somewhere? (could you please reply on my talk page) - Cbrown1023 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is recommended that one post short comments on what one is adding, moving or removing in the "Summary" box below the edit box, but I was not refering to that; I was simply stating that I had noticed your additions were getting a bit large for me to feel entirely comfortable with for a work that was still under copyright regulations in the US, but that they were not yet large enough that I felt compelled to comment on them, and then I noticed the new pages, and felt that these definitely crossed a line beyond what was appropriate for the Wikiquote project. Your interest in contributing to the project is welcome, but I would recommend being more narrowly selective, especially when doing so from modern works of literature. With things before 1923 we can be a bit less fussy, but we are still looking for quotations that concisely express some ideas or feelngs rather than large tracts and passages, such as the Goldstein work within 1984. ~ Kalki 04:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I forgot my password to RadioKirk. Reset Please. 00:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that neither an administrator nor a bueareaucrat can "reset" passwords. If you have declared an email contact address in your preferences file, an email with the password for a username could be sent to that address by clicking on the "E-mail password" button on the log-in screen. If you did not declare an email address for that account the simplest option available is simply to use another account. ~ Kalki 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you verify on your Wikipedia page? Ii says your on a "Wiki Break." Old TI-89 00:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was suspicious at the request, and would not have immediately granted it even if I had the ability. I had noted that RadioKirk had been impersonated in the past on other wikis. The edit activity concurrent with this user's requests indicates that it is very likely an account created by a pathetic nuisance who often attempts impersonations, and sometimes seems proud to declare him or herself to be "Wazzawazzawazza". ~ Kalki 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it. ~ Edith Sitwell

It turns out that User:Old TI-89, newly registered on Wikiquote, has been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia (see w:User:Old TI-89). This user has been determined on Wikipedia to be the same as w:User:65.78.87.120, an IP which you have just recently blocked for vandalism. User:Old TI-89's Wikiquote userpage has a Wikipedia link to an older edit, making it look as if this user is still in good standing at Wikipedia. I am therefore going to block this user on Wikiquote as well. - InvisibleSun 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Someone signed your name to a post on my Wiktionary talk page - claimed "massive vandalism" was going on at Wikiquote. Not you, I take it... BD2412 T 01:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it was not me. It seems the above vandal has resumed some tediously infantile activity on a few of the wikis again... ~ Kalki 01:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

IP 65.78.87.120 at the RCN Corporation 196 Van Buren St. Herndon VA 20170 is one IP that has been loosely associated with the activities of this vandal. ~ Kalki 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

RCN is a broadband provider for "Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Chicago and San Francisco", according to its website, so the location info isn't especially useful, unless we want to write a letter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've just added my rankings to September 11 2006 and notice that I'm about a year late compared to some other folks! Oh well, "better late than... " which prompts my question. What is the cutoff date for rankings to be considered (or when is it too late for any given date)? hydnjo talk 13:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are no cutoff dates, and priority does not matter. There are as yet very few participants in the rankings, and I tend toward gauging a rough "average" of those indicated, but there are no absolute policies regarding what is chosen, and at this stage they are probably not yet needed. I was just about to post a further option for September 11 that I came across in recent weeks, and am going to do so now. ~ Kalki 14:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As I've just demonstrated with a change of my ranking for September 10, rankings can be changed up to the time when the final selections are made (usually between 2200 - 2359 UTC but sometimes earlier). I also tend to focus on selecting those that receive more than one 3 or a 4 and don't receive too many rankings of 2 or 1 which I take indicates no real enthusiasm. 4 is a rank I tend to use sparingly, and often only late in the polling when I have a strong opinion that a quote is definitely better than the others that have been presented, even if it is not necessarily the best that might conceivably be found. If I rank something 4 early on it will usually be for quote I truly believe is extremely exceptional and which would be very difficult surpass for a particular date. ~ Kalki 14:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your prompt reply replies. --hydnjo talk 17:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

After reading your post on Talk:François de La Rochefoucauld, I did some more sourcing of Unsourced quotes; I didn't, however, revise the translations. In the next day or so I will be going back and adding the Project Gutenberg translations to the quotes I had previously sourced, keeping the variants as secondary translations. I will also be adding variants to the latest group of quotes I had sourced. I've discovered sources for another eight of the Unsourced quotations and will be adding them as well with both the Gutenberg translations and the variants. This will leave about half a dozen Unsourced quotes for me to find sources for, if possible (at least one of them sounds rather dubious). All of this will done by September 15 just in case one of the Maxims should be chosen for QOTD.

I was thinking of posting the Gutenberg page as an external link to the article. Unfortunately, however, it has an embarrassing defect: it can't print any letter with an accent mark, replacing it with a question mark — so that "élévation", for example, becomes "?l?vation." There is a French Wikisource text for the Maxims, however, which I will supply as an external link. - InvisibleSun 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The more depth that you demonstrate with QOTD the more that I'm enriched. Thank you. --hydnjo talk 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re the main page update, "Lord Robert Cecil of Chelwood" is a technically incorrect use of title - he should either be "Lord Robert Cecil" or "Viscount Cecil of Chelwood". David | Talk 11:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually I was quiet sure that it is Hitler's own quote. Since i didnt had the source, so i added it in the missatributed section. I think it will be safe to move it to attributed section atleast. I will surely try to find the source, so that his quote could be moved to sourced section. By the way, sorry for replying so late, as i didnt logged on to wikiquote for some time. Thanks.Nidhishsinghal 11:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I really enjoy your contributions to Wikiquote, I am a quote lover too. I have a question are you an Administrator on Wikipedia? And what does it take to become an administrator here and what do administrators do on Wikiquote, Oh yeah is your name a referance to the 10th incarnation of Vishnu. p.s an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. My favorite quotes of Gandhi---Seadog.M.S 00:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Many things are keeping me busy at the current time, but unlike yesterday I at least have the time to make a few brief responses to your questions...

• I have never sought to be an administrator at Wikipedia, because my level of activity there does not really warrant it, and Wikiquote will probably always remain the Wikimedia project that I am most actively involved in. Though there are some periods where I can be actively engaged in editing only a short time each day, I do hope to continue to help building this compendium of quotations until it is one of the best that is available on the internet.

• To become an administrator at any of the Wikimedia projects it is usually a good idea to build up a solid body of work contributing to that project, usually for at least a few months, and then to either be nominated or to put in a request for administrator status at the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship page.

• On the name "Kalki", I have for many years been very aware of much of the lore associated with the name in Hindu, Buddhist and a few other traditions, but the syllables of the name were very significant to me for various reasons long before that, involving certain dreams and meaningful coincidences beginning in early childhood, and I had resolved to use them as a private name for myself without any conscious awareness that the name already had any significance to others. At this time, I really am not inclined to reveal much more than that about why it was so significant to me, but it was a name I have used to some extent for many years. I was pleased to gradually learn of some of the myths and associations that had developed through the ages around the name, but displeased at some as well, and only time will tell what ultimate significance it might eventually come to have, for me or for others. ~ Kalki 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kalki. I noticed that you are an admin, so I found it proper to inform you before making a massive editing.

I want to tidy up the category User languages. What I want to do specific:

• Fix the categorization so that each language appears under the first letter of its ISO code (e.g for User en, to appear under "e")
• Move the different category-levels for each language (xx-1, xx-2, etc.) under the generic category "User xx"
• Create the categories for existing language templates.

I wanted to ask you for permission to do this. I know it will flood the RC, but I think there aren't many people around here now, and I will mark all changes as "small". --Dead3y3 10:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nothing you propose seems to be a problem for anyone, and I have no objections to the changes if no one else does. ~ Kalki 14:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I will start right away. --Dead3y3 16:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I notice you are the only bureaucrat on Wikiquote. Could I have my username changed, please? I would like to take the new name User:Fys. I have a pending renaming request at Wikipedia and think the two should tie up together. There's no hurry to do this. Thanks for your help. David | Talk 11:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your are now Fys on Wikiquote; I recreated your previous username and blocked it to prevent impersonations using your former name. You might wish to clean up your previous signatures on some pages. ~ Kalki 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was working a little while ago on some of the Galbraith quotes in which words or phrases had been replaced by ellipsis. I was able to find the missing wording for some of them, including one which I have since discovered was a suggestion of yours for QotD. I thought I should let you know, since the quote is now different on the Galbraith page and reads like this:

"People are the common denominator of progress. So, paucis verbis, no improvement is possible with unimproved people, and advance is certain when people are liberated and educated. It would be wrong to dismiss the importance of roads, railroads, power plants, mills, and the other familiar furniture of economic development. At some stages of development — the stage that India and Pakistan have reached, for example — they are central to the strategy of development. But we are coming to realize, I think, that there is a certain sterility in economic monuments that stand alone in a sea of illiteracy. Conquest of illiteracy comes first."

InvisibleSun 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kalki,
Would you mind changing my username to Hesperian, as I have just made that change on the English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Snottygobble 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You now have the username Hesperian here, as well as at the Wikipedia. I recreated the username Snottygobble and blocked it to prevent impersonations. ~ Kalki 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Hesperian 01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I saw you are the only bureaucrat here.

I would like you to change my username from "B-101" to "JustPhil". Thank you.

Cheerio. - B-101 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!- JustPhil 12:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hay, mind if I ask you a joke? Rezilartuen 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kalki, I know you're preoccupied with real-world matters, but when you get to closing the RFA on Fys, could you also close the ones on Paranoid1 and Cute 1 4 u? They've just been hanging out there for quite a while. Thanks for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that the Quote of the Day for John Adams had a typo (ogliarchical instead of oligarchical). I was able to make the change on the John Adams page, on the October 30 page and on Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October 30, 2006; but I couldn't figure out how to change it on the Main Page. - InvisibleSun 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Allow me to jump in. Main Page uses date variables to pull in the current date's version of "WQ:QotD/Month Day, Year". Fixing Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October 30, 2006 solved the problem, as I verified by checking the main page. If you're still seeing the old text, add "?action=purge" to the end of your URL for the main page, which should force the servers to reload the transcluded pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the corrections. ~ Kalki 07:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Um, my oringal account was blocked, because they thought I was this one guy named Nyarlathotep or whatever, I was just wondering, I didn't do anything, and I was just trying to defend JeffQ. Nad people think I'm a vandal. I swear, I didn't do a ingle thing, Since you seem to be the head Administrator, can you talk to InvisibleSun or whatever that name is and plead my case for me? It's just I have a filtered computer, and it dosen't let me view that page for some reason, and can you please, please be merciful to me if I bother you? I'm not a troll or whatever, I didn't do anything and I would love for someone to hear my story and unblock me. Thanks. WWE 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm came here from Wiki The PPN. Do you want to help me make a page on Utada Hikaru here on Wikiquote. Also, are song lyrics fine as quotes since they express feelings? ~ Wapiko 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

FYI, Kalki — this might be related to User talk:Jeffq/2006b#Japan. Or maybe it's just a coincidence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Following the cross-wiki vandalism where my username, brianmc, has been registered on Wikiquote and blocked, I'd like to get that sorted. Obviously if you just move the account and I don't quickly register the problem will occur again. I'm based in Europe, and mainly active on Wikinews. Can you let me know an IRC channel and timeslot I can find you in to coordinate a rename and registration of the account to me? --217.136.64.189 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (Brian McNeil)Reply

• I usually don't use IRC, but will try to set something up tomorrow. I currently have to go elsewhere, so I probably won't be able to respond more fully until tomorrow. ~ Kalki 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I should also request a rename of Nyarlathotep as it was registered by an impostor. I also don't usually use irc, as the particular net never seems to work from my office, but I can try to contact you however you like. Nyarlathotep (wikinews admin) 134.214.157.6 13:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The vandal's Nyarlathotep account has been renamed, the user page history moved, the username recreated, and I will get the password to you soon. You don't seem to have an email address set for your account at Wikinews, so we could perhaps communicate using IRC some time in the next few days if you don't wish to set one up; or you could just temporarily enable the email options in the preferences. ~ Kalki 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I had my email off at wikinews, not sure how that happened, always used to work, maybe a software change. 86.202.95.25 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a feeling that 205.188.116.132 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) vandalising Jay Severin, 205.188.116.131 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) vandalising Ken Jennings, 205.188.116.138 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) vandalising Rush Limbaugh and 205.188.116.6 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) vandalising George W. Bush may be the same. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had surmised this was likely as well, but there is little to do with such an IP-shifiing vandal but block the IPs to the extent they repeat their vandalism from that particular IP, and hope that they soon grow weary of wasting other people's time. ~ Kalki 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi there... i use to write some articles on wikipedia.org, and i was thinking... we have dhivehi language in wikipedia.. dv.eikipedia.org. and i wanna make the dhivehi version of wikiquotes... can u help me make the page please?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohamed Ishan (talk • contribs) 2006-11-21T23:29:37 (UTC)

I had been traveling when you originally posted this message, and did not have time to respond when I originally noticed it. In the course of events I forgot about it until recently noticing it again. I've not personally been involved in the raw creation of Wikimedia projects, and you could probably find the most help in trying to start a Dhivehi Wikiquote with those already actively involved with the Dhivehi Wikipedia ~ Kalki 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello and good evening (at least where I'm from, haha). I was wondering whether you or any other administrator could answer a burning question I have... I had the time to surf Wikiquote for my favorite articles today and found that the article for professional wrestler Adam Copeland (a.k.a. Edge) has been deleted. I was pretty surprised when I found this out; I saw no good reason why this article should be deleted and I would really appreciate it whether you or any other administrator could help me understand why. Thanks. - User:Inviktos

Some editors had raised issues on the quality of the article, especially regarding the unsourced status of all of the quotations that were used on that page and on many of the other pages for wrestlers. Votes for its deletion are recorded at Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2006_November#Adam_Copeland.

I personally very rarely get involved with the deletion arguments that arise on articles, and there are several editors who more regularly contend on the issues involved with deletions. Though I generally agree with the deletion of pages for extremely obscure and generally unknown people, I personally tend to prefer there be a poor or deficient article on widely noted people or works, which can then be improved and worked on by those interested in them, than that there be none at all, but I am aware that there have been many articles that get created by someone and never significantly improved upon.

I also must confess that there are many pages I have had little interest in actively defending or preserving, because I have had very little interest in working on them or improving myself, and the wrestling articles are among these. Those who are interested in creating or improving such pages should seek out quotes from dated matches or performances, or in published interviews, because the lack of them has been one of the primary problems. On any page most quotations on a page should preferably be sourced to specific works or dates so as to provide verifiability, and if the context or significance of a quotation is not plain within the statement itself, some comment should be added beneath the quotation which provides these. The lack of citation and context are two deficiences that are very common on most other quotation sites, and are among the top concerns that the regular editors at Wikiquote seek to address in the collections that are available here. ~ Kalki 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to request a name change to User:BrotherFlounder, please. It was changed at Wikipedia, and I'd like to bring my usernames in line. Thanks! --DiegoTehMexican 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This name was changed, as requested. ~ Kalki

Thanks a lot for reverting vandalism on my user page on december 1. God bless. --Sir James Paul 22:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing what I bungled when I inserted the Vice-Presidential quotes into the Presidential quotes. Sorry about that.

Your switch of the Watergate.info link to Wikisource raises a question that's bothered me for a while. Even though Wikisource is supposed to have accurate texts, just as Wikipedia accurate information and Wikiquote accurate quotes, we know this is often not the case. That's why WP doesn't allow wikis (Wikimedia or otherwise) as reliable sources, and why I've rabble-roused so much about getting them for Wikiquote, too. But I've noticed that sources of any kind are surprisingly rare at Wikisource, which means between us, we now have no reliable source for the Presidential quotes.

Do you know much about the sourcing situation at Wikisource? At the moment, I'm afraid to bring this up at WS, because I know how thinly spread non-pedias can be, and I'm worried about treading on a sensitive subject there unless and until I can commit some time to invest in the matter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't really been very involved with Wikisource since the very early days, where I was proud to have created the pages for the US Declaration of Independence, Civil Disobedience, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for all the works of Shakespeare, and a few other odds and ends. I inadvertently lost my admin status there when they split up the original multilingual project into single language wikis, and as I hadn't actually been active there in a while I saw no strong reason to request it again.

I am eager to promote the sourcing of as many quotes as possible, but I am not as insistent on having so thorough a set of citations as those you seem to prefer. A source text, publication date (or delivery date for speeches and such), and an author are satisfactory for me, and though more particular details can be helpful I don't see them as necessary, especially where more and more material is available in electronic form and can be "phrase searched" for a small key passage of a quote.

Apart from avoiding heavily commercialized sites, I personally don't have any strong feelings about where the links to sources go, but believe that if Wikisource does have the original texts that quotes are taken from, it should probably be one of our preferred links. Apart from the few direct links to original sources, I tend to consider these more of a convenience allowing the user to examine copies of the complete documents involved, rather than as official citations. I was thus a little reluctant to use Wikisource rather than the link I originally placed, which despite having a few commercial links had an audio file of Ford's words as well. ~ Kalki 10:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply