UDScott

(Sorry for my english, i'm french) Hello. I think someone have to read Massinissa of the Rif. This page will be (perhaps) deleted on WP:fr : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Massinissa_du_Rif/Admissibilit%C3%A9 and has benne deleted on Wp:en : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Massinissa_of_the_Rif I think the subject is a joke with a spam on many wiki, as here. Cheers. Arroser (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing this out - I have reviewed and nominated the page for deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @UDScott,

Happy holidays! I admire your contributions to the English Wikiquote. I'm eager to delve into other sections, specifically films and literary works, and believe you're the ideal person to guide me. How can I initiate this process? Where should I begin gathering sources? Would it be possible for you to mentor me?

I eagerly await your response.

Warm regards. Ebubechukwu1 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I can offer some support and help. The first place I would send you is Help:Starting a new page - which is an easy way to create new pages that automatically places the correct template on the new page for you to begin working with. This should help reduce any necessary cleanup of your new pages as you create them. As for sources, the best is the film or literary work itself. Users often use sites like imdb, but be forewarned that such sites are not always 100% accurate - and they often do not have quotes in the exact order in which they appear in a film. ALso, be mindful of the number of quotes from a film that you include - not everything needs to be quoted (and see WQ:Limits on quotations for some guidance on how many to include). Once you get started, I can offer some more specific suggestions as appropriate, based on your additions. Good luck! ~ UDScott (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Incredibly unrelated but could you please tell this user (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bbb23) to unblock me, I've sent a unblock request. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2603:6000:B800:EB4:31C8:BE4:7D2A:305A# (Side note I sent this to another person so if he gets a similar message regarding this then please state beforehand that any spam attempt was not intended.) 2603:6000:B800:EB4:31C8:BE4:7D2A:305A 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I have nothing to do with any blocks on Wikipedia. I suggest you take it up there. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please return Draft:Jenny Bryan. I was half-way through working on it, and thought that, similarly to wikipedia draft space was the place to do so. Is that not the case? Newystats (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've undeleted it - sorry it did not have the appearance of a legitimate page, but yes you are correct, draft space is for working on not-yet-ready pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I need help linking my French Wikiquote page with those of other languages, would you please help me?

this is the page [1]--Lecorbursier2 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if I could use my Wikiquote contributions for the purposes of political campaign fundraising or whether that would somehow be considered paid editing despite none of the money going to me. Paid editing is something I would like to know the definition of and how it differs from receiving financial benefit. For example, if you make residuals from having worked on a film, would it be paid editing to make changes to the wikiquote page for that film? If you work for a corporation isn't it a conflict of interest if you added nothing but negative quotes to the page for that corporation's main competitor? What if you're the mayor of a city, can you make edits to the page for that city? What if a family member benefits financially from your edits, like a mayor that benefits from the work of their child editing about their city, it seems pretty extreme to forbid people from editing certain topics because of circumstances beyond their control. Does being imprisoned for your edits count as a form of payment, it does result in food and shelter you might not otherwise have?
From my present, largely uninformed, point of view a strict definition of paid editing would effectively prevent scientists from writing about their areas of expertise and it would prevent most government employees from writing about pretty much anything, because it seems like pretty much everything has become politicized at this point. Is Wikiquote supposed to be like how the Olympics used to be, where only amateur athletes but not professional athletes were allowed to compete?
Maybe this is a better question for the village pump, but I'd prefer an answer from someone who knows what they are talking about because they enforce this rule, so I figure I'd ask you or at least ask to speak to another administrator who does enforce this rule. I know this is a lot of questions to ask at once, but I don't want to get banned because I felt like doing charity and right now that's what I'm afraid of, amongst other things. Am I not supposed to have any friends as a Wikiquote editor, because it feels like I don't have any and I'm starting to wonder if I'm even allowed to have them if I'm forbidden from going to a restaurant with them because it looks too much like I'm taking a bribe. This website has left me feeling alienated and I would appreciate some clarification from an administrator that doesn't self-identify as an anarchist and ignores all the rules anyways, that way I can at least decide whether continuing to edit is worth the isolation, if indeed that is the cost of editing. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure that I can fully answer your questions (or that I have the knowledge or weight to properly do so), but regarding your first statements regarding using Wikiquote contributions in order to politically fundraise, I would say that is not a proper use of the site. As to your other points that everyone in some way, large or small, probably has some level of conflict of interest with respect to the pages they edit or how they edit them. This is also why it is good to have third=party, independent sources, especially for living people. If such a conflict (especially more direct ones) is made known, then it is likely that an editor would be questioned on this and their edits would be scrutinized with skepticism. I don't think a site such as Wikiquote can govern out all of these conflicts - that would just be too unwieldy - but to the extent that any strong conflict of interest is known, we can try to remain vigilant for obvious bias. That's all we can do. Sorry, not sure if my answers help or not - I would encourage you to open these questions to a larger audience, but perhaps in a more general sense (I wouldn't open with a desire to use Wikiquote to further political campaigns). ~ UDScott (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for answering my question, I will leave out the part about political fundraising, I'm glad I have an official excuse not to include Wikiquote in the process, as some might think that I, or they themselves, have some kind of obligation to do so.
I thought a political group might have been a good choice for organizing an editathon to improve Wikiquote, similar to the ones I've seen advertised on university campuses for addressing Wikipedia's gender disparities, but I don't think political campaigners have a lot of free time around the elections. University students don't normally have a lot of free time either which is why I found Wikipedia asking for outside assistance from new editors in increasing their coverage of famous women little more than a desperate plea for help and an admission of having a problem they can't take care of on their own by creating a safe environment that more women are interested in being part of. I imagine there's an ethnicity gap in both editors and coverage, as well as the gender gap, but that issue isn't talked about as much because it starts to sound racist when Wikipedia breaks down it's editors by their blood quantum.
Students don't have time to help Wikipedia or #SheSaid create greater gender parity for the coverage of every conceivable topic when their reproductive rights are at stake, if you want to address the lack of Wikipedia editors that identify as female than do a campaign about reproductive rights. I guarantee that is a topic students will find time for, because if they don't, they might end up finding lots of free time, in jail.
I would still appreciate an answer on whether jail counts as a form of payment for edits because if it does than wouldn't being a slave count as paid editing? Aren't shackles a form of payment? What about human trafficking transportation costs? If I think another editor is using forced labor to edit, should I even bother to report it if it's not even a violation of our rules? Wikipedia says nothing about using slave labor being against the rules either, even though it could happen on a Wiki just as easily as it happens on major dating websites as part of Pig Butchering Schemes.
I think it's messed up that I feel that I have to ask this community for clarification as to what kind of person I am allowed to date to avoid being banned for bribery or what jobs I am allowed to work and continue to edit the pages that interest me. I have seen no other editor ever ask these permissions. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, since you disallowed “unapproved” users from editing the page for Family Guy’s eighth season, I’m just here to ask you why you’re so adamant about the nonsensical “only two quotes per episode” rule for that specific page when LITERALLY ALL THE OTHER FAMILY GUY PAGES HAVE BROKEN THIS RULE!!! 2603:7000:1200:825A:C40:B47A:C353:6B90 17:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And I'm in the process of looking at all the other season pages - and either trimming them or posting a copyright notice to signify that they need to be trimmed. By the way, it is based on WQ:LOQ. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that rule is BS. As long as it’s not the entire script it should be fine. And what “copyright notice”? Is Fox really going to take this wiki to court over this? 2603:7000:1200:825A:C40:B47A:C353:6B90 17:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually the reason for the limit being established was because of concerns about using too much copyrighted material that could result in the site being shut down - it happened in the past for other wikiquotes sites. The copyright notice is on the talk page for each of the pages where there were too many quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m sorry I bothered you, and that I came off too brash. I didn’t realize the copyright law to be that serious. I’ll leave you alone own 2603:7000:1200:825A:C40:B47A:C353:6B90 17:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It’s been nine days, and I can’t help but notice noticed the other pages still haven’t been trimmed. Season 18’s “The Movement” still has all of the quotes I added from the Family Guy Wiki. 2603:7000:1200:825A:F0A3:B335:9F3F:2B11 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So far all I've had time to do is to tag them as needing to be trimmed, in the hopes that others might perform some of the trimming. There are many parts of the project that need work and I've been working in other areas. Feel free to take on the trimming if you'd like - it would be a big help. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, show me an example of a page being blocked because of too much “copyrighted material”. I assure it never happened before, and it never will happen, especially because the other Family Guy pages have broken this rule and absolutely nothing is being done with them. 2600:1017:B835:BE2:C889:D83F:2BB:361A 13:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You guys are really starting to piss me off. Why do you care so fucking much about just one Family Guy page when there’s literally dozens of other pages that have broken this “rule” and have faced absolutely no consequences whatsoever? 2603:7000:1200:825A:5DC2:D5A8:DB8D:58ED 15:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not that we don't care about other pages, it's that there's just not enough time on the day to get to them all in a timely manner. This one keeps showing up on the radar because you and others keep adding way to many quotes to it. I am trying to go through the other season's pages now to trim them as well. And there are a lot of other pages that need attention for this issue as well - we'll try to get to them as we are able. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with him in a sense. He may have been irrational in his words, but he does bring up some points. Two episodes per quote is too few in my opinion, and what if there’s a memorable quote someone wants to post but can’t because there’s already two quotes for the episode? You may say that it’s because there’s risk of the site being shut down if too much copyrighted material is posted, but that’s never happened as far as I can tell. Besides, you’re not the only one who treats the Family Guy Seasons 8 and 9 pages very seriously with this rule, but it seems everyone is basically outright ignoring the other pages, and even pages for other shows. Long ago, I anonymously added the entire story of how Debbie Grund was killed to the page on King of the Hill's fourth season, and last I checked, no one has deleted it. I get you’re a busy man, and maybe so are the other people on this site, but either we enforce this rule consistently, or we significantly relax, if not out right abolish it. Which one is it? Playland1998 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why take unnecessary chances? We have to minimize the amounts of quotes lest any copyright owner take legal action against Wikiquote, even if in the unlikely event it never happens. 100.8.243.246 03:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Basically the problem here is that the people in this website aren’t truly practicing what they preach. If it was just you and no one else taking it seriously, it’d be one thing. You are a busy man after all. But it’s only those two specific pages that have the most restrictions from other people, while everything else is just left alone. It’s just not fair and it’s so frustrating.Playland1998 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it’s EXTREMELY unlikely that copyright owners will EVER take legal action. All those other pages have too many quotes and nothing is ever done to them. And not once were they ever taken down! 2603:7000:1200:825A:486B:6BFD:CAF5:26E1 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there is even the slightest possibility of that happening, there is no point in taking unnecessary chances. And some of those "other pages" (of which there are millions) are clearly easy to overlook. 100.8.243.246 03:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, guess what happened to King of The Hill’s fourth season page when I added more quotes to it without deleting anything? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! No on changed anything back, and it hasn’t gotten any copyright claims whatsoever. Which is why I’ve requested in the Village Pump that we significantly relax this “rule”. Because since there is a 99.999999999999% chance that no one will copyright claim these pages, then let’s just stop worrying about the 0.0000000000001% chance that it does happen. Playland1998 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, now that all the Family Guy pages have been trimmed, I also tagged most of the King of the Hill pages - these need to be trimmed as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You obviously have not gotten the point I’m making. If no one is copyright claiming these pages—and why would they, anyway, this isn’t YouTube—than we should just stop worrying about them doing it and abolish that stupid “two quotes per episode” rule. Because taking quotes off of a QOUTE WEBSITE goes against everything a quote website is supposed to do in the first place. Playland1998 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi UDScott, I thought to pose some three of the most venerable users here an important question I just can't seem to figure out: why do you think, WQ has such an horrendous page rank on most search engines? Why wouldn't e.g. a very expansive WQ article on a relatively niche intellectual always top a short and potentially skewed WP article? Indeed, I think, especially for controversial leaders from historical scientific, religious and or politics, having a representative WQ entry is much more insightful than the overly curated alternative. What might be the exact reason for this very noticeable skew? Do you also believe that, maybe, the aforementioned inclusion of certain figures' exact quotes, from politically incorrect up to and including borderline defamatory, has - rightly or not - lead to the actual WMF, well, somehow hardcoding this inferior status into the platform regardless of quality? Any clarification would be extremely helpful! Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I have wondered this myself over the years - I know that Wikipedia usually shows up pretty high in any google search, but I always have to add to the search to get it to pull up wikiquote. Unfortunately, I do not know the answers to your queries. I don't think it is based on how expansive a given WQ page is , nor the quality of said page. So I do suspect it is something in the algorithms used (or even hard coded), but I don;t really have any factual insights to offer. I do think it's a good question to ask - perhaps at a higher level than just on here. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks for your swift reply! I suppose I could always ask this over at the Wikiquote Village Pump, but other than that I don't really know of any person - other than some WMF staffer and or, maybe, Steward (*both unlikely to actually answer me lol) - in particular. Do you perhaps? Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping we could discuss a way to save this article, in a smaller form, and I figure your talk page would be a better place than the VFD page.
I don't talk to other editors much because most of the time I'm working on my next contribution, but my recent contributions have become very technical, so right now I'd appreciate having a conversation with someone using regular language and not a bunch of biology terminology like cell lines and genes, which all sound like serial numbers. Ottawahitech seems to want to talk to me for some reason, but doesn't seem very interested in contributing time to the pages we have for reproductive health topics, outside of the occasional brief news story; I have yet to see them quoting from a Wikipedia reference or a science journal. I believe this article is no worse than Use of fetal tissue in vaccine development, which isn't saying much because that article needed help from someone else. I don't see cell lines other than HeLa having their own Wikiquote pages, however I think it's a different situation with individual genes which are written about to much greater extents. Given this is a disease that can spread to every part of the body, it's going to involve a lot of medical terminology, it might even be the most difficult to understand medical topic on Wikipedia. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I stated in the nomination for VFD, I do not believe that anything on the page is truly memorable or quotable (and I do not believe we should be a repository for material from textbooks or scientific journals). I just went through and reviewed the quotes on the page and I still feel this is the case. I could perhaps see an argument to be made about maybe up to 3 of them. For example:

From Knoepfler P (2021-01-14). "What is a teratoma? Research & treatment". The Niche.

• Because teratoma are germ cell tumors, they often arise in the locations where you’d find normal germ cells: the testes and ovaries. More rarely they can occur elsewhere in the body and it’s thought that these teratoma occur in part because of germ cells being in the wrong place, perhaps due to a glitch much earlier during embryonic development.
• Tumors and cancers often have names ending in “oma”. This suffix oma means tumor or cancer. The “terat” part of the teratoma name comes from the Greek word “teras” meaning monster. So “teratoma” literally means “monster tumor.” It is thought that the name was given because, frankly, teratoma look so disturbing and weird when cut open give the array of tissue types in them, sometimes including teeth.

And perhaps this, from CNN:

• A hunter tracking down a mountain lion has stumbled upon a biological mystery.
  Fish and Game officials say a male mountain lion involved in an attack on a dog near Preston, Idaho, was killed last week near the Utah border.
  What the hunter discovered after examining the corpse can only be described as bizarre, even monstrous.
  A photo released Thursday by Idaho Fish and Game shows the big cat had another set of fully-formed teeth and whiskers growing out of the top of its head. Wildlife officials say they have never seen a deformity like that – but have offered up several theories.
  They say it’s possible the teeth could be the remnants of a conjoined twin that died in the womb and was absorbed into the other fetus. They then grew on their own.
  Another explanation is a so-called “teratoma” tumor. This type of abnormality, whose Greek name translates to “monster tumor,” can grow teeth and hair. In humans, it can grow fingers and toes.
  • Artemis Moshtaghian (January 11, 2016). "Deformed Mountain Lion a mystery". CNN.

In general, I would suggest for this and other similar topics that a good rule of thumb is if the quote could be easily understood by laymen and even better, if it is from a non-technical source. And as you mentioned it here and on VP, I also believe there are many other pages that could use some trimming of highly technical quotes as well, including the pages you mentioned (plus a whole swath of pages on very specific chemistry topics taken from textbooks).

~ UDScott (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I asked myself, what did I add to teratoma that was actually memorable and not just a textbook definition of the disease or a generic warning about stem cells, and I struggled to come up with an answer. The particular genes being talked about might as well be a barcode for a product, I'm not going to argue with you about this page being largely indecipherable to most, myself included, and little more than a bio-sci shopping list. I'm fine with this page being 98% smaller, but we do need some version of it still and I think a few of the intros and the conclusions are worth including. I was expecting this to be fairly easy to understand, like cloning, but I got lost in the details. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking at these references again, there's a few things here that are worth repeating, like the Danzer reference on the differences between imaging technologies and the McDonald reference on disease modeling. The summarizing textbook sections that explain frequency and gender and age disparities are also helpful; Wikiquote has pages that consist of different but largely overlapping dictionary definitions, textbooks also tend to overlap. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, since you've been quite helpful so far... might I ask if you could, somehow, link my most recent new article as a translation to https://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_de_Jouvenel Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Did you want to post the quotes from that page here, on his page? Or did you simply wish to link to that page from here? ~ UDScott (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I mean... I guess I should have clicked translation on the original article and added my stuff instead of setting up an entire new article. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I got it. Sorry. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keeps getting vandalized or edited in an unconstructive manner Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would I be able to prepare some of the quotes of the day? I've tried editing Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Protect, but maybe I am missing something. Ficaia (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

? Ficaia (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suggest a conversation with Kalki, who has managed the process for years. There is also a process set up for recommendations and for voting on selections for QOTD. In the end, it is not owned by any single user, but Kalki has been the only one to regularly maintain it and keep it going. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did message him, but he hasn't responded yet. I created Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 3, 2024, so hopefully he sees that. Ficaia (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does there need to be a vote to page blank these and turn them into redirects to History of abortion? They have no corresponding Wikipedia pages, it should be an easy sell, assuming anyone shows up. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think a vote is needed - if the quotes have all been moved to these pages, feel free to make redirects. And actually it appears that this has already been done. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping we can eventually get rid of Abortion case law in the United States, but there's nowhere else to move the quotes to currently and that's a lot of new pages to have to create. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been reading about a lot of polls being cited in the news recently and was wondering if creating a page for Gallup, Inc. would be appropriate. We have quotes attributed to corporate spokespersons so quoting a group doesn't seem problematic, but the page will mostly consist of statistics that will vary over time.
Personally I find the questions they ask are often either vaguely worded and open to misinterpretation or there's a limited number of options being presented, so I'm not sure how useful they are. I'm also much less interested in figuring out the opinions of the American public and more interested in figuring out whether they actually understand how the topics they are being asked about even work. For example: if you think someone is too old to do a particular job well, then what's your actual level of education regarding gerontology? Does the average American believe someone can live to be 120, because I imagine the answer might vary depending on factors like religious affiliation with a religion that features figures stated to be that old, or the level of medical care and other quality of life metrics the person being asked this question receives. If it's hard for you to imagine living to be sixty because few people in your family have made it to that age, then imagining being eighty is probably pretty difficult for you. Unfortunately, I don't think most polls are actually interested in what you know, just how you feel, and most people aren't interested in taking a test unless it gets them a grade. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A page as you've described it, that contains results of surveys, is not one that seems appropriate for the site. If there were quotes about Gallup and the polls they have conducted or the process by which they conduct them, that might work (provided the quotes are memorable). This seems akin to a page that contained quotes from a source (like a newspaper, for example) and the page was named after the source. Quotes from polls might be OK, if they were placed on pages for the topics the quotes are about. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense. Most corporations don't sell words as their product so my comparing quoting Gallup to quoting corporate press releases or advertising slogans isn't very accurate. A page consisting of brief excerpts from every issue of a newspaper, magazine or journal would take a tremendous amount of effort, that format only works for comic books because there's not a lot of text, memorable or otherwise, so we can have hundreds of issues and the page still isn't going to be very long. There are plenty of people of have seen every episode of SpongeBob SquarePants or The Simpsons, but I'm not sure that anyone has ever read every single article in The New York Times, including the people who work there. Reading every Gallup poll would take much less time, but although I find them a useful source of information for revealing the mindsets of a sample of the U.S. populace which is reflective of the whole, I don't value their statistics enough to make reading them all my goal in life. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you've tagged a PROD on Synarchy but didn't give a warning to the creator, even the creator has not edited for a while, this is still a process need to be done. Please take care next time. Good luck -‎Lemonaka‎ 02:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Obvious vandal: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.237.72.147 Ficaia (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Also: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.172.70.66 Ficaia (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
• And: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:BFA1:AEB0:484B:A949:47B4:CB01

This user has vandalized the Femme Fatales (TV series) page. This is the vandalizer I’m talking about: Special:Contributions/70.26.38.47

And this is the proof of his vandalism:

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Femme_Fatales_%28TV_series%29&diff=3518832&oldid=3512106
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=3518832
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=3518835
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=3518962
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=3518966
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=3518971

Could you please block him indefinitely so that he doesn’t cause any more problems? AdamDeanHall (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't seem to be able to edit anything in Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Protect. Do you know if I need some extra permission to do this? Ficaia (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that page is protected such that only administrators may edit it. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, is there some way I can be granted permission to edit it? Because Kalki can edit it, and I don't think he's an admin. Ficaia (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

First, my understanding is that full protection (i.e., only having admins edit it) is necessary to enable cascading protection to the QOTD pages. Second, Kalki is an admin. Perhaps you could start a discussion on the page's Talk page, explaining the rationale you have for needing to edit the page? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just want to create the Quote of the Day. I can already do this for dates more than 2 weeks in the future. And I don't feel any desire to discuss this with Kalki; he has a real ownership issue with this process. I also don't think it's healthy that a single editor thinks he runs Quote of the Day. Ficaia (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, I only want permission to create individual pages, not edit Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Protect directly. For example, I can create Wikiquote:Quote of the day/June 25, 2024, but not Wikiquote:Quote of the day/June 5, 2024. With the system Kalki has constructed, and the fact that he always casts his final vote at the last second, only he or another admin can create the upcoming Quote of the Day pages. Which in practice means that he has the sole editorial say in what images are displayed with the Quote of the Day. I don't think that is in keeping with the spirit of Wikiquote, which is supposed to be an open project. Also, I don't understand your explanation for the protection. I don't know what "cascading protection" means or why it's important. Ficaia (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

First, the cascading protections just mean that multiple days are automatically protected based on this page - not really important, but if the protection of this page is less than admin, this protection of multiple pages won't function properly. The underlyign topic is really how the QOTD process should work and who should manage it.

Here's my take on the situation: It appears that you have a desire to become an active participant in the selection of the QOTD - this is very welcome and I would encourage that. I also know that, in the absence of any other person willing to manage the process, Kalki has handled it well for many years, and the process has been pretty smooth for quite a while. The best way to have your voice heard is to participate in the established process, whereby you may suggest candidates for QOTD and enter votes oin already suggested candidates. If you have ideas about the accompanying images, I would suggest raising those on the talk pages for specific days.

As for the protections for this page - it does appear that the buffer of protected days has been increased a couple of times over the years (including this month, probably in response to this ongoing dispute between you and Kalki). If we can come to some agreement, I would push those back to their former levels, where only the current day's page is protected. But I would ask in return that this not set off any edit wars. The reality is that with so few regular editors here (and even fewer admins that regularly pay attention to such matters), having a sole person responsible for keeping the QOTD going - and keeping its selections within the established guidelines of having relevance with respect to the date, has been a blessing for the project and I commend Kalki for the devotion to the process. That being said, I do feel that your belief that it is better to have multiple inputs for selecting the QOTD has merit. But I feel that the best way to implement that is through the suggesting and voting process. If you continue to encounter issues or disagreements there, then bring them to the Admin's Noticeboard and further discussion can happen. But trying to just take over an established process is probably not the way to go. (And of course, if you are not happy with my response, feel free to bring this to a larger audience for others to chime in as well) ~ UDScott (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reducing the protected days to the current day would resolve my issue, so if you can do that that would be great. Obviously I won't edit war. I disagree that convenience is a good enough reason to cede one third of the front page to a single editor. And Kalki's choice of images has been criticised by other editors on several occasions, so again it seems to me having a second pair of eyes on this process can only be a good thing. Ficaia (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, I'm not trying to "take over" this process. I'm trying to get Kalki to share. Ficaia (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's fine - and to be clear, I am not citing convenience as the reason to have someone manage the process, but rather that this daily event is one that is not best served by leaving it open for anyone to handle. The process, if it has enough participation form the community, does ensure that others' voices are heard. And if there are issues (like the criticism by other editors in the past that you mention), they are handled through discussion and consensus just like everything else here. And I am also basing it on years of successful managing of the process by Kalki - again if there are disagreements, they can be handled as any such issues are here, through discussion. The main reason it has ended up with Kalki's being the main voice in the selection process is that few in the community actually participate in the process (we have seen similar erosion in participation in the VFD process as well). Traditionally, this site has had hundreds of tasks awaiting owners and few people willing to take them up. IMHO, it has been a good thing that someone was willing to own this particular vital process. If we need to tweak that process to make it better, so be it. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've given you my assurance I won't edit war. Will you reduce the protection to the current day? Ficaia (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I might be inclined to do so, I would rather allow Kalki to contribute to the discussion before making any moves - and have reached out on their talk page. I welcome their feedback as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I guess I'll make Quote of the day pages further into the future in the meantime. Ficaia (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ficaia:, I must point out that your recent creation of Wikiquote:Quote of the day/September 18, 2024, instead of proposing this as a QOTD candidate for this date on June 18, appears to be the exact same behavior that you are questioning from Kalki. You have chosen a quote and images without any input from others and without allowing anyone else to comment or agree/disagree with the selection. There is a process that is established that allows for suggestions to be posted and voted on by users and it would be better if you were to follow that process - I believe this is what Kalki has been referring to and this is what I meant above when I said it appears that you are trying to take over the process. I'm not in any way saying that the selection is right or wrong, but that the process is not being followed. I would caution against continuing this until we can discuss and resolve this topic. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, I'm not sure you answered my original question, or perhaps I didn't ask it clearly enough: Is there some way I can be granted this specific editing privilege without being granted the other privileges of being an admin (which, for the record, I don't want)? This would avoid the problem of opening up the Quote of the Day process to every new account, no? I don't know anything about IT, so I realise this might be impossible. But I thought I might as well ask. Ficaia (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's actually a good question - and one that I believe has been asked, in one form or another, before. But I do not know the answer to that (here is where my technical limitations come into play). I will try to find where there was a similar discussion in the past - perhaps that will provide some infor on the subject. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only one trying to control this process is Kalki, whose tone is completely unbecoming of an admin. He has used this process to broadcast his own political views on multiple occasions and almost always casts his final vote, strategically, at the last instant in order to maintain effective control of the process. Whether or not the process is theoretically open to input, in practice it is dominated by Kalki. I've made these points above, and you've either ignored or minimised them. The idea that a single editor should own (in your own words) such an important process is completely anathema to the open mission of Wikiquote. Ficaia (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I am trying to point out is that by creating a page for a future QOTD without utilizing the process, you are actually making a unilateral selection, as you have accused Kalki of doing. Kalki's behavior with respect to the selection of the QOTD has evolved over time into often a one-person show as well (usually due to lack of participation). I am willing to discuss this and see if there is a better way to have multiple inputs for the selection. As far as an owner, yes I do feel that having one person manage the process is optimal for a page that requires planning and maintenance and is a daily task. If we leave it open to having anyone perform the work to prepare the page, it is likely that there will be issues or days when the needed updates are not made. It appears to me that the best way to allow other voices is within the selection process, while still having a single person in the role of implementing the selection. Yes, there are improvements that can be made - and we should figure them out. I am simply trying to diplomatically facilitate a discussion on the process between two users at odds with one another. I have more than enough to do and can very easily step aside and let someone else try to help if my assistance is not welcome. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, I'm not saying that anyone should be able to edit it. I'm saying that I should be able to edit it. I've created dozens of articles here; I'm an established editor; I'm not some rando IP.

Another idea: Perhaps a limit based on edit count could work? Only editors with 1000+ edits can edit QOTD? Again, I have no idea if this is technically feasible. Philosophically I strongly disagree with your argument, which does to me in all honesty sound an awful lot like an argument from convenience, however you might characterise it. I will also say though that overall I massively respect the work you do here, and I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. Ficaia (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would also add that my creation of Wikiquote:Quote of the day/September 18, 2024 reflects the current vote count at September 18, and the quote was proposed by an editor other than myself. So I'm not shoehorning in my own quote as you falsely insinuate; I'm editing according to the process. Am I unaware of a policy which states that only Kalki can create QOD pages?

OK, I'm done. Now I'm just exasperated. Please take this conversation to the Village pump or the Admin's Noticeboard. I no longer wish to go back and forth with you here. Thank you. I did want to point out that this is not unprecedented - you'll find that Wikipedia also protects its main page and does not let non-administrators edit it (including its featured article of the day). See here for context. ~ 17:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC) UDScott (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is a completely different beast. Decisions on front page processes there are shaped by dozens if not hundreds of editors, with admins only weighing in to resolve disputes. I know because I've made several DYK hooks. Ficaia (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, the political 'captain's picks' from Kalki have returned: please see Wikiquote:Quote of the day/August 23, 2024 Ficaia (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No opinion? Ficaia (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue was brought up on the VP, so yes I saw it. It does appear that there were a few days in a row with some selections made that seemed to reflect a POV - but it also coincided with the occurrence of the Democratic National Convention, so the quotes were certainly timely and newsworthy. It appears that it was a temporary issue, as the selection seems to be back to normal again. In total, I do still feel that the selection of quotes is fairly balanced. Could the process be made better? Of course. And yes, it would be good if more people were involved. I am all for others participating - through the established process. We've had issues over the years getting that participation, and so Kalki has for the most part shouldered the daily burden. If you feel the issues are so severe, as I suggested earlier, take it to VP or AN and engage with a larger audience (rather than just one person). UDScott (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue has been raised by 2 other editors at Wikiquote:Village pump#Very bad quotes selected as QOTD for purely political propaganda. But I suppose if it's only temporary it's fine then (sarcasm). It's not like this hasn't been going on for years... It's my view that you have consistently been making the same argument from convenience: it's convenient to have Kalki run QOTD, so he can do as he pleases. His behaviour would be unacceptable in an admin on Wikipedia. Ficaia (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

So vote him out (see here). I'm not really sure what you are asking of me. In general, I believe the QOTD process is functioning pretty well (and I do not see it being able to function if someone does not act as its owner, as Kalki does), but I do not disagree that there are, on occasion, some issues with the selection of quotes. There are plenty of other areas more "broken" if you will, that should be addressed. If you wish to develop a new process or to change the existing one, feel free put it to a vote within the community. I'm not in a position where I can just go "fix it" and make this a better process. If you or others have better ideas, put them together into a proposal and open it up to the community for discussion and adoption.

I quote from WQ:Administrators: ""Sysop" and "administrator" are really misnomers, as they are just Wikiquote users who have had performance and security-based restrictions on a couple of features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks and asked nicely. Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." I spend as much time as I can here and I try to enforce agreed rules and guidelines, revert vandalism and generally try to add content where it is needed. But for such a fundamental issue as this, talk to the community, not an individual, admin or not. I wouldn't want any individual user to have the power to take over a process or to strip someone of admin status unilaterally. The point of having a community is to build consensus as a group - and if such a process were begun, I would participate as anyone else would. Admins do not have any special power to mandate how things should work - we just try to enforce what the community agrees about. And there are way too few of us that remain (or remain engaged) these days as it is.

In the meantime, I will reach out to Kalki and try to open up some discussion on the process and ways it might be improved. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whatever you want to call them, Wikiquote admins/psyops do have some extra power. They are the only ones who can edit the next day's QOTD, which was my original point to you months ago.

Kalki frequently 'proposes' quotes at a minute to midnight to exploit this power. Consider the following diff: [2] There were at least 3 other, older suggestions with just as much support, but Kalki chose to ignore them and use his own last-minute choice of a long, dull prose extract from an American politician 2 days after concerns had been raised at VP. If Kalki is going to continue to exploit this admin privilege, why is it an admin privilege? Ficaia (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you think I'm out for blood. To be clear, I don't want Kalki banned. I want him compelled to share. Ficaia (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this user looks like a link spambot if you would like to take a look: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.245.200.35. Thanks. Ternera (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up - yes it does appear to be something we do not want here on the site. I reached out to that user to ask them to refrain from continuing to add the links. If it keeps occurring, further action can be taken (including blocking as necessary). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An IP Hopper has been removing content on Beast Wars: Transformers, Joseph: King of Dreams, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Frozen II and Loonatics Unleashed falsely claiming they are not sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and/or related to the source material without solid evidence on his behalf. He has been doing the same thing on Wikipedia and they blocked one of his IP ranges. Here are some IP addresses. Special:Contributions/2600:1700:5AED:1000:95C4:B671:367D:F40 Special:Contributions/2600:1700:5AED:1000:55DC:9450:84E6:F32F - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

An user has started mass deleting quotes he appears not to like on dozens of pages without giving valid, specific reasons for each deleted quote but hand-wavingly claiming that they all have the same problem (wrong formatting, or typos, or bias, or academic prose) which is not true, as the quotes are all different and usually are adequately sourced etc, and in any case, a discussion and the cleanup template should be used instead before deleting. Mass deleting without giving a specific rationale for each deleted quote is not helpful at all. Just as an example, here he removed dozens of quotes from Voltaire and others. Since you have interacted with the user before I am notifying you. --ᘙ (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have also noticed this behavior on the pages for abortion and human. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ficaia has removed quotes with the claim "Not properly formatted" or "full of typos" (example [3]). Sometimes he also says "Much of this is quotable, but needs reformatting. Quotes should not be given in the form "X says" " [4]
Assuming that the quotes are formatted such that they are verifiable and include author name and name of the book (and usually also more parameters), and that the typos are few in number, is it not better to add a cleanup template to the article and possibly a note on talk, if he has such a concern? It appears as if Ficaia in his mass-removals has not taken the time to look at the quotes and is hand wavingly claiming that all of the many removed quotes have the same problem which does not seem to be the case. Is a mass removal justified when only some of the removed quotes have the problem that he claims, because as he explains he "can't go through everything with a fine-tooth comb"? --ᘙ (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have made some very good points - and I agree with much of what you have written. I actually suggest posting this on the WQ:Administrator's noticeboard so that others may weigh in as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was surprised to learn that HouseofChange only has 1592 edits and is somehow an administrator, I think that sets a pretty low bar, one which I passed a while ago. What exactly do they have to offer that I or plenty of other editors don't? I would appreciate any advice you have on becoming an admin, or even just jokes about earning mop duty. Like I have said before, I don't really want the position, I've been an administrator on a Wiki before and it's a lot of work, but I'll take it if you think I'd do a better job at it. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

First, let me say that while some experience editing is needed, I am not aware of any specific number of edits that are needed to become a good candidate to become an admin. Second, unfortunately, I would not be inclined to support you if you wished to pursue becoming one yourself. There have been numerous discussions over the years regarding your tendency to add unquotable material or overly long, dry quotes, or quotes that are not directly related to the subjects of theme pages. And some discussions in which you have introduced questions that appear to be only loosely connected to this site at best. I personally do not feel that you have demonstrated the necessary qualities that I look for in a prospective admin, particularly the ability (or demonstrated desire) to always act in a way that will benefit the project. By continuing to post like this even after others have expressed that you should not, does not seem like the behavior of an admin who will act in an impartial manner to ensure that the agreed framework within which this site operates is maintained. (By the way, that does not mean I would discourage change - but I would rather see change effected in a controlled manner, gaining consensus before it occurs - and abiding by that consensus, even if one does not agree). In the end, unfortunately I do not believe I could support your candidacy. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree with any of the points you raise however I would like to discuss them with you as to improve as an editor and receive additional feedback that may improve the quality of this communal project.
First: I agree with you that a specific number of edits needed to be an administrator is not a current practice and I believe that making it one would be a bad idea, edit counts are a somewhat useful metric for determining an editor's overall level of activity, however the quality and length of those edits varies greatly. I am still not convinced that HoC is the best candidate for being an administrator however based off the answers they provided about what constitutes paid editing, which conflicted with the opinions of two other administrators. Hopefully you don't consider asking for clarification about one of the site rules to constitute being loosely connected to this site.
Second: consistently violating LoQ is not a good look for an administrator, however if you have a problem with the page for Roe v. Wade, which you have edited before, then it has taken you quite a while to communicate that problem to anyone or to address it yourself, to the point it seems you approve of the way that page currently looks. Your addition to that page was not particularly helpful either, as it varied greatly from the Wikipedia intro and focused on a recent niche aspect of the subject pertaining to a different legal case. You yourself have stated that there's nothing inherently wrong with the quality of the references used on the page for teratoma, rather the problem is with the selections, I have consistently asked other editors to assist me in editing the various pages connected to reproductive rights but received little in the way of help, with the exception of the page for Use of fetal tissue in vaccine development. I don't know what you mean by change effected in a more controlled manner, but I would have preferred this having been more of a team effort as well as right now it looks like hardly anyone here actually cares about reproductive issues one way or the other.
As far as asking bad discussion questions, I believe that behavior to be more recent and I don't deny that the questions I pose are tangential at best and off topic at worst. Do you have any specific examples that don't come from this year, which I've admitted has been stressful? I've asked several times now that the #SheSaid campaign clarify what their intended goals are and whether a gender gap in Wikiquote editors is one of them, I have yet to get a response. I've also asked you the process by which editathon's are organized and which venues would be an appropriate place for one, I have stated that I don't think a political campaign event is a good place to find people with a lot of free time to spare, however perhaps you disagree. Hopefully you don't see membership drives as having nothing to do with improving this website. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the time at the moment for a longer response (I will try to do so later), but I did want to refute one aspect of your comment: I believe it is an incorrect assumption to make when an editor (especially an admin) does not directly address what may be a problem that they implicitly are OK with the page as it is. There are so many issues on pages in the site and so many daily tasks that require attention that I find it quite difficult to return to pages where I have identified a problem. This does not mean I believe the problem was resolved. When you wrote, "if you have a problem with the page for Roe v. Wade, which you have edited before, then it has taken you quite a while to communicate that problem to anyone or to address it yourself, to the point it seems you approve of the way that page currently looks." - I disagree with the latter part of that statement. I also will not fight wars on my own. If the community fails to support my view of an issue, it's not likely that I will continue to press on it, as there are so many other issues on which I could work. Just wanted to make that point - most of us are quite busy and just because we don't have the same level of focus as another on a specific issue does not mean concurrence with their views.

I also still consider the Teratoma page (and other similar pages, with walls of dense quotes on them) to be one bereft of quotable material, despite the lack of consensus on its deletion prospects.

One other point, I do consider a discussion asking about users' possible visits to dating websites to be outside the usual line of discussion here. When you later try to connect that to a topic like a gender gap in editors (which may be a valid concern), the connection is a bit strained in my opinion. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's fair. There's lots of typos and broken links on Wikiquote, that doesn't mean that Wikiquote endorses those either, it's just difficult to keep track of everything, which is one reason why I think an official membership drive is needed for the entire website, not just for #SheSaid. My trying to do research on the dating habits of Wiki editors is also uncalled for, although it is something that would be of interest to someone researching the effects of social media on human psychology, but that is not connected to improving the site. However, what is connected to improving the site is that a dating website would be a good way for an individual to socially network with prospective editors, presumably of various genders. I'm not going to lie about spending hundreds of hours on this website and act like I'm ashamed of that, I was mostly curious whether it's safe to talk about this place online, I should have just said it like that instead but didn't want to make this place sound like it's inherently dangerous. I'm also not sure how you would reliably gather any information on editors, surveys aren't the only method used when conducting a reliable census and those studies demonstrating a gender gap are all internally handled and have yet to be replicated through any outside form of peer review. For all I know the gender gap on Wikipedia or Wikiquote does not actually exist, I mean the methodology of relying solely on Wikipedia's own information seems a bit flawed, doesn't it? CensoredScribe (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UDScott/2021&diff=prev&oldid=2982389/ 154.118.211.244 17:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And your point is...? Actually, I did explain my actions at the provided link. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @UDScott, I trust you've been well. I'm carrying out a project titled AfroLiterature: Quotes From African Literatures, I will need your help in understanding what should really be done when there is a merge notice on a new created page and how best to carry out this project.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards. Ebubechukwu1 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In general, unless a literary work has a large number of quotes, it is best to have the quotes placed on a page for the author - so the page should be a person page (with an appropriate intro for the author, and the quotes for the literary work in a subsection of the Quotes section). The pages for the individual literary work can then be changed into redirects to the author's page. I went ahead and did this for a couple of the newly created pages - and if I have the time, I will do so for others. BUt in general, this is what I meant by adding the merge tags. If there is already a page for the author that exists, it is even simpler - just add a subsection for the literary work (if one is not already there) and move the quotes there. Let me know if you need further help. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bangla Wikiquotes Bangla Wikiquotes can be translated into English with Bangla sources. Like Humaira Himu Wikiquote. মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, according to w:WP:IPBLENGTH, IPs should not be blocked indefinitely. Can the block term be shorter? MathXplore (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I changed it to 6 months. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Race (disambiguation) redirects to Race, which is a disambiguation page in keeping with how Wikipedia does it. I think this is a good candidate for speedy deletion, correct?
Also, I was wondering if it's ok to mass delete person articles in need of cleanup and slowly re add quotes to them, such as say for example Kamala Harris or Martin Luther King Jr.? If not, then why is it ok to do this for theme articles? It seems like a great way to get a higher edit count very quickly, reposting quotes that other people added, one by one. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

For your first question, which page are you proposing to delete? Yes, I agree that we probably do not need both - I am inclined to leave the one called Race (but mark it as a disambig page).

For your second question, I'm not sure that I would just delete pages needing cleanup and then work to rebuild them, but I would rather either 1) just do the cleanup directly or 2) create a sandbox page where you rebuild the page properly and only move it over into mainspace (replacing the problematic page) when it is ready. My reasoning would be that I wouldn't want to just delete a page and have no page (especially for people so obviously notable as Kamala Harris or Martin Luther King Jr.) during the time it takes to rebuild the page (and I would suspect someone would try to recreate them quickly anyway, resulting in edit conflicts). That's my 2 cents. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've never used a sandbox page on Wikiquote before but it seems like a good way to collaborate on revising a particularly contentious page or one that it's been agreed is in need of cleanup. I feel like it's easier to question the validity of the quotes on theme pages than for the person pages, Ficaia has been doing this recently for abortion, rape and race. If the page for Kamala Harris went down to only having ten quotes for some reason, I think that most people would consider it to be vandalism. Personally I think the page for Donald Trump could be a lot smaller and there doesn't need to be separate pages for his views on race or his quotes from social media; I'm not going to bring it down to a top ten list than slowly rebuild it one quote at a time though while providing no explanation as to why. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Obviously we shouldn't outright delete an article about a very prominent person. I don't see anything glaringly wrong with Kamala Harris, whereas abortion, race and rape were all riddled with errors before I came along. Rape even included the following bit of vandalism which had been allowed to stand in the article for years: "For it is not light that is needed my friend, but fire to the anus; it is not the gentle in the shower with me, but thunder butts aren't grand. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened like; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced." Ficaia (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a simple enough question, so what's the answer? Please tell me it's not "It's complicated" or "That depends"; even if you didn't mess around with anything just briefly having access to Checkuser or Administrator abilities is a violation of the community guidelines for who has those privileges. I don't think changing user contributions is something anyone is supposed to be able to do except for blanking them and their descriptions. Correct? So would that be something that only a hacker could do that no one here or part of the Wikimedia Foundation is actually capable of doing to Wikiquote? I'm having some serious doubts about our cyber security and given the American election is coming up soon and there's reports from major news organizations of election interference by foreign governments, so it might be a good time to address why anyone of us should believe that Wikiquote is somehow less vulnerable to hacking than one of the two major party candidate's campaign's e-mails. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This other IP address was also responsible for some of the vandalism on Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). I previously reported this user to the vandalism in progress section of the site, but it didn't get blocked because of the admins didn't see its edits as vandalism. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi UDScott:

I have just checked Category:All articles proposed for deletion and I see it currently contains 50 articles. Many of these articles are about women from Arab countries.

I also checked Category:Women by country and see that we have no items belonging to Category:Arab women (Wikipedia has 21 items in the same category).(BTW we do have Category:Women from Iran but according to Wikipedia Iranian women are not Arab women)

I have no knowledge of whether any of the women you have proposed for deletion should have/not have articles on wikiquote, but this is beside the point. I also realize that you already do more than your fair share of work around here, but unfortunately I have not found anyone else who seems to care and spend as much time and effort on keeping this wiki worthwhile for its current and future audience.

Having said this, I believe that if wikiquote wants to cultivate new productive wiki-editors, we cannot and should not greet all newcomers with impersonal Prods on their very first contribution. Especially so when the subject of their articles belongs to a demographic that is sought by the Wikimedia movement in order to create a more inclusive atmosphere. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I appreciate that we should be trying to cutivate new contributors, I do not feel that translates into a lowering of the standards established for the site. All of the pages I have tagged for proposed deletion are for people that do not appear to be notable enough for inclusion here. Due to the SheSaid campaign (which I heartily support), we often get a flood of new pages for women. Unfortunately, they often have issues, such as notability and a need for cleanup (if you go far enough back, you'll see similar activity has happened before, especially for women from African countries, which were dealt with in a similar fashion). In dealing with such a flood, I just don't have the time to coach each individual who adds new pages and educate them on the goals of this site to have pages for notable individuals (and further, as this is English Wikiquote, that notability should extend beyond just their local community). It's not that I do not wish to see pages for people from all areas of the world, but they should be known outside of their region. I would note that there are many potential pages already identified in a couple of lists: Wikiquote:SheSaid 2024 Event: African Women Academics and Wikiquote:SheSaid/RedLists. Both have plenty of suggestions for new pages for people that do appear to be notable. Perhaps some thought should be given to a better way to address the problem of the flood of inappropriate pages, but I'm not sure what it is - I just don't want to leave all those pages as they are. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Believe me, you can never have too many quotes. 156.57.93.53 21:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it's kind of odd to be proud of scientific illiteracy, don't you think, or to say that our standards are higher than Wikipedia's when it comes to a topic, to the point of being completely excluding of all of their references for a topic. I'd gladly help trim them down, I've been looking for someone to collaborate with and I thought we'd talked about making a shorter page. There is definitely something worth keeping in the hundreds of references I added for these two topics. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you give me a little context? Or provide some links? I'm really not sure to what page(s) you are referring. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You undid my most recent addition to the page for miscarriage as noted by the revision history, and unlike Ficaia, you did not transfer any of the quotes to the talk page. As you know, I cannot provide links to the page revisions for Teratoma as the page has been deleted following a discussion at VDF, which hopefully you remember having commented in. I'm assuming this was you and that you don't subcontract your work as an administrator out to others, which is something I would consider doing if I were an admin given the very large workload and how rarely the rules seem to get enforced around here. I struggle to come up with another explanation for your sudden memory loss however, perhaps you've been severely emotionally traumatized by having to interact with me and have repressed the bad memories. I believe as an administrator you have access to the history for deleted pages, correct, is that a link you can share? CensoredScribe (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That same liar came back spreading his lies again at The Father (2020 film) and News of the World. It's stressing me out. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this was handled by another admin - both pages are now protected. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I initially made this category, but the addition of Category:Anti-Semites has been queried at d:User talk:MathXplore/2024. Do you think this categorization should be removed? MathXplore (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think having a category for Richard Nixon is fine. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we should have Category:Richard Nixon, but should we add Category:Anti-Semites (Category:Antisemitism) to this category? This is the point that has been pointed out in d:User talk:MathXplore/2024. I look forward to hearing from you. MathXplore (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry - I misunderstood the question. While I know that Nixon had made some comments that appeared anti-semitic, I'm not sure that designating him an anti-semite is appropriate (and he always denied that he was). I would reserve this category for others that demonstrated anti-semitic views both in repeated actions and words. Labeling Nixo as such might be going a bit far (as far as having demonstrable actions revealing this view in him). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

you added {vfd-nee} with no reason... please, delete It! 83.34.69.109 15:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The reason is spelled out on the VFD page that is linked on the Andrés Blanco Ferro page (the link is here as well: Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Andrés Blanco Ferro). This person does not appear to have the necessary notability to have a page here. Once a page has been tagged for VFD review, the process must complete - allowing for community members to comment and enter their opinions. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ficaia seems unwilling to accept constructive criticism, like not dividing quotes by geography, even though they changed their mind on grographically segregated quotes for History of abortion.
I also want to say that I think Ficaia telling me and Kalki to speak English is little different than calling one of us a WAP; the difference is you let it slide. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I'm not following - can you provide some context (or links) about what you are asking? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, a page that you previously deleted has been recreated. Please see if there are any improvements here. MathXplore (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, I think Me & Mickey should have a Wikiquote page. So, please don’t delete that page, I have worked really hard on it. 170.199.151.33 15:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, Inomyabcs created Me & Mickey page. It’s right here: Me & Mickey 170.199.151.33 15:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what your point is - if you wish to argue the proposed deletion of this page, feel free to do so at Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion#Me_&_Mickey. But do not remove the VFD tag from the page. Once the VFD discussion is completed, the tag will either be removed, if the page is kept, or the page will be deleted. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply