User talk:WeNotMeC020

This editor has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikiquote. See block log. The administrator who applied this added the following note: The edit activity of this user indicates the account was created entirely for vandalism or trolling in the pattern of known vandals and has been permanently blocked.

Hello, WeNotMeC020, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!

• For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
  • See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
• To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
• Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
• Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
• When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
• Be bold.

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please avoid using "see also" sections to duplicate what already exists through the category system or through links in the quotations themselves. 73.71.251.64 02:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ 73.71.251.64: Why not duplicate what already exists through the category system? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• hi @ 73.71.251.64: Thank you for expressing your view on the 'see also' links and for your cooperation with and concern for wikiquotes. It seems that many relevant topics/links are not easily found thru the category system. Relying solely upon the category system would be one way to slow the process of learning for many people. Why make it harder than it has to be? Why not make it kind and thoughtful with relevant links at the viewers fingertip, like items on a menu? If visitors understand the category system - and prefer that, it is a click away. Seems that the ~prime objective of making the existing vast pool of information available to as many as possible for the good of our world, seems to be helped by adding relevant links in "see also". Editors who have a deeper than average understanding of a topic, can help enrich WQ & serve the public by adding links to pages relevant to the subject (many of which are definitely not to be found found quickly by digging in the category system). "See also" can help some readers get a broader view of the topic much faster than they might otherwise. We want to help people learn by making the process as thorough and easy as possible right? Seems that we editors should do everything reasonable in our power to accommodate the massive range of visitors/readers from those who read very little to those who can't get enough to read, from those who are just learning English to those who speak it fluently. What do you think?
  All that said, if there is a Wiki policy in place or consensus recorded and accepted by WQ management that regulates, forbids, or discourages using "see also" sections, please share it here. Thanks again for your participation & cooperation in this great endeavor!. WeNotMeC020 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  
  
• We should be: kind, thoughtful, passionate about getting it right, open,
  tolerant of different viewpoints, open to criticism,
  bold... and also cautious about changing our policies.
  The real struggle is not between the right and the left — that's where most people assume —
  but it's between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks...
  The primary issue is how seriously we take our chosen obligations to people in the developing world...
  Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them.
  It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her,
  but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so...
  • Jimmy Wales

Hi WeNotMeC020. I think it was you who added Chris_Hedges#Russia,_Ukraine_and_the_Chronicle_of_a_War_Foretold,_Feb_25,_2022. This section does not cite any reference. It seems that you might have forgotten to add it. Can you please have a look? Thanks. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much... just took car of it WeNotMeC020 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply