User talk:UDScott/2011

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello,

You sent me a message telling me to stop adding nonsense to this site (such as the Sun Tzu article). I assure you, whomever did that has nothing to do with me. Someone else probably shares my IP address or something, but I have never even been to that page.

Regards,

71.255.170.249 17:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was surprised to see you create Category:Films by actor. Even though I certainly have a mental category of Paul Newman films, I am not so sure it is a good idea for Wikiquote. I don't think Wikipedia does this, and I fear some of our more fanatical contributors might be indiscriminate in indexing every bit-part performance. IMDB does this, and appropriately so, but theirs is a different mission. (Also, "<person name> films" is the same naming convention used for Category:Films by director, which would lead to ambiguity and overlap.) ~ Ningauble 15:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I was waiting for some comment. I'm certainly not averse to this being removed, but I had thought about it for a while and wanted to see what people thought. I do understand the potential for abuse, but I was also thinking that it might be another useful way to help people find films, especially for the more prolific actors. But as I said, I'm not against removing it - just wanted to provoke some discussion. ~ UDScott 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Update: I deleted this category. ~ UDScott 20:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please re-look at Penn & Teller: Fool Us which you recently deleted. There is nothing in stated policy which appears to imply that a show needs to have aired to have a quote page three days before it air. The article contains an introduction to the topic, and wouldn't fit under the closest policy of "no content". Justin Ormont 02:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Once the show airs, feel free to create the page again and add any notable quotes. But as the show has not yet aired, there cannot possibly be any quotes for it yet. Unreleased films have been treated the same way when people have tried to add them in the past - the pages were deleted until after the film was released. ~ UDScott 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please point to this policy. Unaired doesn't mean non-existant. Although inconsequential, it was filmed a few weeks ago with a live audience, who may have plenty of quotes. It's inconsequential as it's hard to cite unless they created a youtube video, it's part of a preview or a review. ~ Justin Ormont 03:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The point is that until a TV show is aired (or a film is released), any quotes placed on a page for that work are impossible to verify. If quotes cannot be verified, there is nothing to prevent users from inserting quotes that are not genuine. And if the page is created as a placeholder, it will be deleted for not having quotes. By the way, what is the hurry anyway? ~ UDScott 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note: This has been listed at Wikiquote:Deletion review. ~ Ningauble 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did you know there is a usertalk template {{subst:WQisnot1}} for situations like this? It happens a lot. ~ Ningauble 16:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that - no I haven't always kept up with all the available templates (and I've never found it that easy to find them either). ~ UDScott 16:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I found this one at Wikiquote:Template messages/User talk when I was getting oriented. (It had fallen into disuse before my time, but I tried to revitalize it.) I have occasionally thought about reorganizing the templates there and in Category:User warning templates, but there didn't seem to be a pressing need so I have only made a few tweaks. Do you think it would be worth the effort? ~ Ningauble 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why two weeks for a vandalism-only account? Look at the crosswiki edits: http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=In%20sOURCE%20eDITOR --Bsadowski1 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're right - an indefinite block is more appropriate. But as the vandalism was directed at me, I opted for a little leniency because I could not be objective and didn't want to act rashly. But in the end you're right. Thanks! ~ UDScott 02:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you please roll back the pretty advanced vandalism I just got clobbered with on my Talk Page-Wikiquote- Thank you..--Oracleofottawa 04:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC) He has hit again, could you please ban forever this idiot, he is all over the place....--Oracleofottawa 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I was not online earlier today, during the attacks. But I have now banned this user (and it appears that all has been reverted). ~ UDScott 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you mediate the dispute there? The page has had a modus operandi for years, it documents the existing conspiracy and has enjoyed a long consensus, it is not a page about conspiracy theories or freemasonry, it's clear Kalki is an evil saboteur and a vandal, reverting the logical order of the quotes and making a farce out of the page. Please let us have a special box with his "contributions" so that it's clear the conspiracy is real. In good faith, - —This unsigned comment is by 90.130.128.52 (talk • contribs) .

Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the existing conspiracy." The page is a theme page and as such is open to quotes from many different sources - and I do believe that quotes on conspiracy theories are appropriate. Additionally, the order of quotes for theme pages is well established as being alphabetical by author. I placed the edit lock to try to stop the back and forth edit war that was occurring. Sorry, but I side with Kalki on this one. ~ UDScott 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please add the quote:

• The truth is, the Jesuits of Rome have perfected Freemasonry to be their most magnificent and effective tool, accomplishing their purposes among Protestants.

• The Grand Design Exposed, John Daniel, (Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, 1999), p. 302.

That quote is already on both the Conspiracy page and the Freemasonry page. ~ UDScott 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dean Martin definitely said those quotes. I heard him saying myself. - —This unsigned comment is by 83.84.17.246 (talk • contribs) .

That may be, but without reliable sources in which the quotes are cited, there is no way for someone to verify their authenticity and they will likely be removed. ~ UDScott 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will show you the sources after march 7th, OK?

Hey; I hope I'm doing this right. I just started using Wikiquote, so could I ask you why you added a checkcopyright tag to the Hawaii Five-0 quotes I just put up? I get quotes from different sources, including just transcribing from the broadcast, and keep them in one big RTF file. I couldn't tell you for sure how many came from any individual source. But if you want me to just trim down the number of quotes for each episode, I could do that, no problem. Just trying to figure out what's the best way to go about this! Thanks in advance for your help. Talulatalula 20:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure no problem. I have no doubt the quotes are probably accurate - that's not the problem. It's the number of quotes. For a show like this, the maximum number of quotes per episode would be five (see WQ:LOQ for more information). If you're willing to trim them back down, feel free. But that's what the tag is for, to identify pages that need to be trimmed. Thanks. ~ UDScott 01:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for your help! I'll be happy to do that. Talulatalula 19:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would probably be good to link WQ:LOQ in the {{checkcopyright}} template. I am not sure of the best wording, as I remarked about a year ago on its talk page, but I do think it would be better to offer constructive guidance for fixing the article. By way of analogy, telling people that speeding is unlawful doesn't do much good if they don't know where local custom sets the prima facie speed limit. ~ Ningauble 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Can you revise the Patricia Conde's page? Yesterday I wrote its source -- User:Kandooww

Actually, the source you added is the person's personal blog, which is not really an acceptable source - plus someone would have to know Spanish and hunt for any of the listed quotes. Do you have any secondary sources? ~ UDScott 00:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you agree with the new sources? =D -- User:Kandooww

No, there are still problems - none are in English and these are just general sources, not specific links to where the listed quotes are. ~ UDScott 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but all sources will be in Spanish, because she is famous in Spain, in others countries she isn't famous -- User:Kandooww

So perhaps you should create a page for her on the Spanish Wikiquote, and not the English one. This implies that she also lacks notability for English Wikiquote. ~ UDScott 19:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello UDScott. Wonder if you could take a moment to comment on the recent Format changes I (& then you) made to the Seneca the Younger page. I did not feel that the format changes I made were necessarily ideal, but I wasn't happy with adding an extra line to every quote entry either - as I had already done in a few cases in a former revision. I have also been searching for a better term than "line" to refer to the divisions in the Latin text - seems a less than perfect fit for groups of multiple sentences, & I've made some efforts to get in touch with a Latin teacher who might be able to say if there is a standard term for these groups - so far, have not had a response. CononOfSamos (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you want me to comment about - the changes I made (adding a sub-bullet beneath each quote for the source) were to make the formatting consistent with all other pages here (and the well-established templates - see here for example). As for your other query, I am not sure there is a better term to refer to the part of the text other than "line" - I believe this is the best option. ~ UDScott 01:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link to Template: it clarifies matters. I was sort of imitating the way the entries looked before I started making changes -- which had quote text followed by (letter#,line#) all on one line; the entries I worked on most, I identified with Letter {Roman numeral}: letter title, line#. If I'd had enough time to spend on it, I might have updated all the entries in that fashion for consistency. Regarding the term "line," it works fine, I just wondered if there was a better term - when I hear "line," I think "line of poetry" and I expect 1 sentence, or part of a sentence, not a group of 4 to 6 sentences. Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. CononOfSamos (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This guy looks like a bot designed specifically to replace page content with blocktext "BLOCK ME." It's also creating new pages loaded with gibberish. I can't keep up, and I don't have permission to ban. I'd recommend shutting it down ASAP. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another account of a vandal-twerp seems to have been created with LOLDONGS (talk · contributions), ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was just getting to that. Thanks. ~ UDScott 16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have locked the unified accounts. It's a crosswiki vandal by the name of Meepsheep. They like to edit templates that are transcluded on many pages and put inappropriate images on them. --Bsadowski1 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help! ~ UDScott 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki

Normal time frame for RFAs is one week — and this one was already extended once almost a month ago. This RFA is over one month old. It began on 17 April 2011. Current count is: 3 Support / 7 Oppose / 2 Neutral. Respectfully request that this RFA be closed, and an assessment of the consensus given as to whether or not to promote the candidate. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Y Done ~ UDScott 12:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reading consensus on it and closing, I had heard about it and had tried to give a look but then downtime had hindered me. I fully agree with you that was the result based on community consensus. --Aphaia 05:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

A few months ago, you deleted Penn & Teller: Fool Us because it was put up before the programme had broadcast. Well now it has been broadcast so I would like to request that the page be restored. Thanks. The C of E 07:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I have restored the page - for now. It has no quotes, and if quoteworthy quotes are not added soon, it will be subject to speedy deletion all over again. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi UDScott,don’t you know something about why we cannot create infoboxes on Wikiquote? I would really appreciate info. Anyways,thanks,thanks milion times for formating on Günter Brus ,which is realy amazing work! --Pieceofpeper 10:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello UDScott, could you please take care of Wikiquote:Changing username/Usurpation#Non (SUL usurp) → Galadriel, thanks in advance. Axpde 12:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

This request has not yet fulfilled the required timeframe for requests - once it does (assuming there is no objection), this request can be looked at. Thanks. ~ UDScott 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, haven't noticed you have a three-weeks-period - usually it's only two weeks. Regards Axpde 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've done my first usurpation with User:L. Please check my work and let me know if I did everything correctly. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me - although truth be told, I'm still not entirely comfortable in my ability to do this either. :-) But it looks like you did it correctly. ~ UDScott 01:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It seems straightforward enough. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just removed an dubious quote from the Einstein page and left a note on the discussion page that the only listed source for the quote is a 2004 book, that doesn't seem to list the original source. The history says you reverted that change. Did I do something wrong in making the change? dakwegmo 170.140.156.25 15:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I commented about this situation at Talk:Albert Einstein#"Posthumous publications" section. For someone to whom so very many quotes are misattributed, it may be better to move unreliably sourced attributions to the talk page pending further research. We could keep them in the article with an indication that they are attributed without citation, but in Einstein's case there could be an inordinate quantity of them. ~ Ningauble 15:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are both correct - I shouldn't have reverted the removal - I was moving too quickly through Recent Changes and did not notice that you had moved the quote to the Talk page with an accompanying note. My apologies. ~ UDScott 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I too am prone to knee-jerk reaction when content removal appears at RC. ~ Ningauble 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/BD2412 (posting notice to all bureaucrats except for the candidate in question):

• Note: Per Wikimedia Checkuser Policy, the following must be met: "The community must approve local, non-steward, CheckUsers per consensus. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). The editor must be familiar with the privacy policy. After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, the user should list himself under Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision.".

1. Most Requests for Adminship run for one week.
2. Most Requests for Bureaucrat run for two weeks.
3. Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/BD2412 = has been open for over one month, diff.
4. The Request for Checkuser Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/BD2412 has failed to meet Wikimedia Checkuser Policy requirements. It does not have at least 25-30 support. It does not have 70%-80% consensus to promote.
5. Can the request be closed at this time as unsuccessful?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I agree, it should be closed at this point. It is clearly not going to succeed. However, I do feel that we need to find a new CU, whoever that may end up being. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The source of my quotes is James Geary, a writer of several books on aphorisms and of "All aphorisms, all the time". I did remove the quotes that i found on the "board of wisdom" as those are difficult to verify. Please save this article from deletion. - —This unsigned comment is by Zvezda1111 (talk • contribs) .

The problem still exists - the blog you reference is still not a good enough source. See Wikiquote:Sourcing for some more detail. The fact that these quotes are on this blog is not enough - the blog does not provide any sources for the quotes either. The point is that without valid sources, there is no way to verify that these quotes were actually said or written by this person. Unless valid sources are provided, this page is likely to be listed for deletion. ~ UDScott 03:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sir, I read the Wikiquote:Sourcing and my view is that there is no problem. I am quoting the article your referenced:

Specific preferences

Here are some examples of sources for quotations from written works, in order of decreasing preference:

  1. a published document (whether a book, magazine article, Web site, blog posting, or Usenet article) which can be reliably associated with the subject
  2. an anthology or other republication (for which the original text may have been edited)
  3. a published review, news article, or criticism of the original work from a reliable source
  4. a published document, as for #1, which is not primarily about the original work, but which directly quotes the work and includes an appropriate citation
  5. another collection of quotations.

So item number 1 is what is used as the source. Also James Geary himself as a renowned authority on aphorisms. You can look him up on Amazon. If you think there is still an issue, please refer to his printed book "Geary's Guide to the World's Grea Aphorists". I do not mean to be a pain, i just believe that these quotes deserve to be on wiki quote, and my source is very solid according to wiki quote own rules referenced above. You can also contact James Geary himself if you need additional information. James Geary published at least 4 books on aphorisms and quotes. If he is not a reliable source, who is ? It raises all kinds of questions on fairness. I reviewed other wiki quote articles and some actually do not have sources as solid as James Geary. Best regards. Zvezda.

One more point - Oleg Vishnepolsky's own linked in profile contains these lines. So we know Oleg Vishnepolsky said these lines, and James Geary endorses his lines originality. Is the case now closed ? —This unsigned comment is by Zvezda1111 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, no I do not consider the case to be closed. In the sentence you reference, you will notice there is a link attached to the word "reliably," which if you follow it takes you to Reliable sources that contains the following passage: The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Again, the point is not to disparage James Geary - the point is that in the blog, he does not cite the original source for these aphorisms. If you still refute my point of view, I'll likely nominate this page for deletion soon, and the rest of the community can comment on this as well. ~ UDScott 00:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oleg Vishnepolsky was speedily deleted on Wikipedia a week ago for lack of indicia of notability. For someone to have a page here they must have both notability and quotability (that is, they must have verifiably authored quotes notable enough to be quoted by independent third parties. Here, I doubt that is the case. There is no way of confirming either notability or the independence of the blog cited. BD2412 T 01:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I now fully understand what is required, and I can not provide the original sources. I appreciate the strictness of the rules and their enforcement, and thus myself recommend my own article for deletion.User:Zvezda1111

Please take this page called "Oleg Vishnepolsky" page down immediately. I am Oleg Vishnepolsky, and I dont want me being quoted here. Firstly, my quotes are not that good. Secondly i do not want to be quoted somewhere where my quotes can be modified by anybody. I suspect that this user Zvezda111 is someone I know but I cant tell for sure (Zvezda is a Russian word). Regardless, please take this page down immediately. I

Another source has been found by user Arthurvogel: "Funniest Thing You Never Said 2: The Ultimate Collection of Humorous Quotations by Rosemarie Jarski--Arthurvogel 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)" User:Zvezda1111

It is on page 512 in section titles Philosophy - it is Oleg Vishnepolsky's the tree in the forest quote. Zvezda1111 21:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thank you, UDScott. --Wiki Wisdom 16:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I did enclosed the source from her original website, would it be enough? Also, I will add more source from time to time. —Avriliza 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi; I'm not really that familiar with Wikiquote, in fact, this is the first time I've wandered over here from the English Wikipedia! Following a query made in the Cricket project there about recreating the page for Jonathan Agnew, I saw that you completed the deletion of that unsourced article. Is Wikiquote similar to Wikipedia in that content of the deleted pages is recoverable? If so, would it be possible to get a copy of what was on that page to help create a new, sourced page? Obviously, if the content was pretty meagre or useless then no worries, and similar if it isn't even possible. I figured it was worth asking though! Harrias 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've made some edits to the Merlin Mann page, which should address the needed page cleanup and intro. Is it polite to delete these markers, or should I wait for someone (or the person who added them - you) to delete them? Donschaffner 22:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

In general, the tags can be removed by anyone, once they are addressed. In this case, the nointro tag can certainly be removed now that an intro has been added. But I still believe cleanup is needed, so that tag should remain. The tag includes a link tot he proper template that can be compared to this page to see what needs to be done (in general, the formatting of the source for the quotes is incorrect). Thanks. ~ UDScott 00:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This user is an obvious sockpuppet of Deezy.D. and has been vandalising the deletion request of Khidd Palmer - see [1], [2], [3]. I'd suggest blocking and warning Deezy.D. to only use one account. --A Divine 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that this is most likely a sock puppet, for now I have warned this user to stop vandalizing pages - if it is not stopped, a block will be issued. ~ UDScott 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for dealing with this so promptly. --A Divine 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the wikipedia page for Hands Across the Table and it said the film was written by Norman Krasna and Vina Delmar - between them they look like they wrote quite a number of screenplays. Is it worth moving the quote to a wikiquote page titled 'Normn Krasna and Vina Delmar'. Is it possible to start such a page? 92.13.93.28 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually I think a better idea would be to create pages for the individual films, starting with this film. ~ UDScott 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added some , not very great, quotes to the Carole Lombard page , to save it being deleted hopefully, and moved the quote from the film , to a page for quotes from the film. Can the deletion notice go from the Carole Lombard page now? 92.13.55.239 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes - I did some cleanup to the page, but it can remain now. ~ UDScott 02:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sir, I am one of the active user in Tamil Wikiquote. There are no admins are there. What is the procedure to become an admin in Tamil Wikiquote. --Krishnaprasaths 14:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This guy keeps messin with my user page can you block him or something? Or Is there some way I can lock my user page where only I can edit it? Deezy D 15:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jean-Luc Picard

I have worked hard and put in a lot of effort and research to greatly improve the page Jean-Luc Picard. I would greatly appreciate it if you could reconsider your position at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jean-Luc Picard. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I looked for the Russian proverb wiki page and was very disappointed to see that you had taken it down. It was definitely not something that should have been removed. Fair use and very accurate. Wish you would reconsider. I can't even contact the person who created the page in the first place, now. ugh. - —This unsigned comment is by Hafrolocks (talk • contribs) .

That page (and other similar proverb pages) were deleted following the Wikiquote:Proposed deletion process for not having any sources. It's not a question of fair use, but rather of verifiability. Without the ability to verify something from a source, it is too easy for false or fabricated additions. Should you or anyone else be able to supply proverbs that are sourced, the page can certainly be recreated. ~ UDScott 13:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree - how can the page be described as "accurate" when we don't have a source indicating the correctness of any of the quotes? BD2412 T 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, who cares about citations? It's not direct quotations, it's a list of proverbs and sayings, exactly as the title implies. The fact that you deleted it without so much as a week of "proposed to be deleted" or anything on the talk page is pretty abusive and self-centered. 24.183.134.74 00:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, the point is that without citations, it is too easy for people to post fake entries. And these pages did go through a full week of being listed for proposed deletion. It was only after this period of time had expired that they were deleted. And again, if you or someone else can provide sourced proverbs (even if they are not direct sources, but provide an attribution for example), the page(s) can be recreated. I resent the implication that my actions were abusive and self-centered - I was just acting within the agreed framework for this project. If you disagree with the agreed process, feel free to discuss it further and if you have suggestions for improvement, feel free to provide that too. ~ UDScott 00:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see such a statement when I visited a week ago. Perhaps I missed it, mistakes happen. Now, it's pretty hard to cite sources when someone deletes the page wholesale along with all its history. Now, if there was a better place to put it, that's something, but to simply remove the data en masse seems a pretty poor solution. The faking of entries is actually pretty silly for proverbs, and the line seems pretty arbitrary. Now, funny enough, my position is summed up by something you deleted, Доверяи, но проверяи, (Trust, But Verify) which was a famous proverb used (non-exclusively) by Lenin (who was then quoted, translated, by Ronald Reagan). If you would restore at least the history, I would happily spend my free time tracking down attributions to make you happy, but idiomatic axioms don't have sources, they were woven into the language by centuries of societies and their interactions. You might have noticed when you deleted every proverb page you came across that trying to cite them is like trying to cite that water is wet. The best you can do is find someone who used it first. If this is the policy, I can work in it, but it needs to be changed, if only for axioms and proverbs. The removal of all this cultural information is simply unacceptable for anyone serious about bringing people together and providing information to the public. 24.183.134.74 01:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence, but if you will look at the front page, you will see the following statement:

Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works in every language, translations of non-English quotes, and links to Wikipedia for further information.

I've bolded the relevant portion. There are undoubtedly famous proverbs in every language - but if they are truly well known, they will undoubtedly have been cited in a reliable source at least once. A good example can be found on the English proverbs page:

• An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
  • Cf. Notes and Queries magazine, Feb. 24, 1866, p. 153: "Eat an apple on going to bed, // And you'll keep the doctor from earning his bread." [4]
  • Adapted to its current form in the 1900s as a marketing slogan used by American growers concerned that the temperance movement would cut into sales of apple cider. (Michael Pollan, The Botany of Desire, Random House, 2001, ISBN 0375501290, p. 22, cf. p. 9 & 50)

As for the statement that faking entries is silly - it has happened many times in the past on these and similar unsourced pages (e.g. tongue twisters). Finally, if you go to the Talk:Russian proverbs page (which I intentionally left in place) you can then click on the 'page' tab at the top in red. Then you can easily access the history of the page. ~ UDScott 01:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no history tab attached to the page, there is no history option on the talk page, and attached (in whatever formatting it decides to take) is the entirety of the revision history. (from http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_proverbs&action=history )

There is no edit history for this page.

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

01:43, 28 December 2011 UDScott (Talk | contribs) deleted "Russian proverbs" ‎ (Proposed deletion: No sourced quotes)

So there is no history available. Please check your actions when not logged into an administrator account. 24.183.134.74 01:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are correct - I apologize. I lost sight of the fact that when logged in as an admin, more is available to me. But that still does not change the fact that none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. In addition to the week-long PROD period, the issue of unsourced proverbs had been discussed multiple times on the Village pump and all of the pages had been tagged many months ago as being unsourced and not citing their references. The prior discussions can be found here and here ~ UDScott 02:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

First, allow me to also apologize for being overly confrontational. Second, I never knew the Village Pump existed, I doubt most of your users do, and saying it was posted there is similar to putting it "[...] on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'" Just some Douglas Adams for levity. I have purchased, at my expense, a book of Russian proverbs, and when it is delivered, I shall source what I can. My grasp of the Russian language is fragile at best, but I think we can agree a single source is a great step, and is far better than removing the article or leaving it completely unsourced. In the meantime, can I get a copy of the last revision in order to check those, as opposed to simply copying from the book (which would be, in my mind, far too close to plagiarism)? 24.183.134.74 02:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I do not wish to be confrontational in this at all either. But I will disagree once more with you - I believe the Village pump to be a common place that most users are quite aware of - it is the best place to have a general conversation and is highlighted in the navigation section on the left side of every page. In any case, I've recreated the deleted page as a subpage to my user page - you may access it here: User:UDScott/Russian proverbs. Please use this to recreate the project page - but only with sourced proverbs. Thanks. ~ UDScott 02:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia article on proverbs states:

"Grigorii Permjakov developed the concept of the core set of proverbs that full members of society know, what he called the "paremiological minimum" (1979). For example, an adult American is expected to be familiar with "Birds of a feather flock together", part of the American paremiological minimum. However, an average adult American is not expected to know "Fair in the cradle, foul in the saddle", an old English proverb that is not part of the current American paremiological minimum. Two noted examples of attempts to establish a paremiological minimum in America are by Haas (2008) and Hirsch, Kett, and Trefil (1988). Studies of the paremiological minimum have been done for a limited number of languages, including Hungarian, Czech, Somali, and Esperanto".

It seems abundantly clear, therefore, that it should be no trouble at all to authoritatively source these common proverbs, and even to provide some useful historical information about them (for example, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" are both of relatively recent vintage, created for ad campaigns). I note also that Wiktionary has a category for proverbs, a fair number of which are sourced to collections. Wiktionary also has an appendix containing English proverbs. It might be worth initiating a cross-wiki discussion to see where among the various Wikimedia projects we think proverbs should be listed. Finally, I note that there are certain sources from which a substantial number of modern English proverbs originate, particularly the Bible, and the works of Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope. We all know that a great deal of proverbial wisdom is wrongly credited to Ben Franklin and Mark Twain. Consequently, I do feel that there is some value in our setting the record straight on the authorship of those sayings that can be traced to particular popular works, or have been wrongly attributed to them. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is not surprising for someone to be taken aback by the disappearance of unsourced proverbs pages, and I expect to see more feedback from people who visit infrequently when they notice what has happened. I posted a new thread at the Village Pump to recap the situation, and to provide a more public venue than this for discussing it.

It is also not surprising that most readers and contributors do not follow doings at the Village Pump, so they can understandably be taken unawares by actions that have been discussed there. However, there are enough people who do monitor the VP that I think it is fair to say discussions there have been seen and considered by a reasonable spectrum of regular users even if few actually join the discussion. For all its limitations, the VP is the best place we have for advertising issues of general interest or broad impact. ~ Ningauble 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, if this was moved elsewhere, I'd have no issue with the decision. It wasn't. I find the "the free <project> that anyone can edit" hollow if it's "Anyone can edit, but we reserve the right to filter and change what we feel like." Now, once UDScott realized the information was not available, but simply deleted, the information was provided with the demand it only be restored if sourced. There is value in knowing the history, that's not up for debate. UDScott makes a valid point as to the policies, but I feel it was handled extremely poorly. A transfer to another site would have been a better answer, and one that cannot have been done with this method of deletion.

Since this appears to be a common misconception amongst people responding to me, the reason I say people don't know about the Village Pump and why that matters is this isn't a site for regulars. If you wanted such a site, there are plenty and it's cheap enough to start your own. The entire wiki project is for reference for people, not a page where you need to worry about information disappearing due to activity on a page which isn't even known about except by the regulars. It's extremely unfriendly to the casual users who expect information to be present one day to the next.

If this doesn't concern you, then perhaps I misjudged the entire project. 24.183.134.74 00:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just want to add my point to this discussion as well although my original objection was with regards to the Bulgarian Proverbs: Scott, you don't seem to understand that it is nearly impossible to source a proverb in the same way as it is impossible to source a folk song or an anecdote - the only reason why this kind of cultural wisdom and treasure keeps existing is because it is shared and remembered, something that you seem to completely disregard and think that you have the privilege to remove altogether with complete disregard to everyone who has invested time and effort in sharing this. Secondly, why don't you look at the ENGLISH PROVERBS WIKIQUOTE page - most of the proverbs AREN'T sourced, with some exceptions. If you really want to make your point valid, why don't you try to delete the English page too??? I bet you would have a hard time doing that considering how many people have invested their time in writing that! Jan 5, 2012, Sunchette

The assertion that it is nearly impossible to source proverbs is incorrect in my opinion - an example of such a sourced proverb is provided above (regarding an apple a day...). Second, as mentioned in the discussion below (entitled Deleting proverbs), both Ningauble and I acknowledge that the English proverbs page (as well as others) still need cleanup and removal of non-sourced quotes. The reason why that and a few other proverbs pages have not been deleted is that they at least have some sourced quotes. The unsourced ones still need to be sourced and will be moved to the Talk page pending such sourcing. ~ UDScott 21:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes I can see that there is some attempt to clean up English proverbs page EXCEPT you didn't completely remove them, they are still on the discussion page pending sourcing - while all other proverb pages were completely removed not just moved somewhere else and they are nowhere to be found. This isn't really fair now, is it? ~ Sunchette

There is one difference: on those other proverbs pages, if the quotes had been moved to the Talk page, nothing would have remained and the page would need to be deleted. If you would like to try to resurrect the Bulgarian proverbs page (with sources!) I will be happy to restore the deleted quotes to the talk page for you to work on. ~ UDScott 01:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply