text:
Wikiquote:Assume good faith

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikiquote. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikiquote would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating. Good faith is obviously not bad faith.

Be patient with newcomers. Newcomers unaware of Wikiquote's unique culture and the mechanics of Wikiquote editing often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives are not malicious.

Also, be patient with transfers from Wikipedia, as they are likely to edit Wikiquote based on the style most common to them, the Wikipedia style, and due to the similarity of both projects, they can hardly imagine differences of policies and custom between the two.

Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but do not scold. There will be people on Wikiquote with whom you disagree. Even if they are wrong, that does not mean they are trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That does not mean they are trying to wreck the project either. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

Wikipedia essays

 * w:Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith
 * w:Wikipedia:Honesty
 * w:Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button
 * w:Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
 * w:Wikipedia:On assuming good faith
 * w:Wikipedia:Assume bad faith
 * w:Wikipedia:Wiki spirit
 * Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta)
 * AssumeGoodFaith (from MeatballWiki)

Further reading: Wikipedia articles

 * Suspension of judgment
 * Presumption of innocence
 * Hanlon's razor
 * Reciprocal altruism

fi: Wikisitaatit:Oleta muilta hyvää tahtoa

title: Wikiquote:Assume good faith


text:
Wikiquote:Neutral point of view

Wikiquote has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts, among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist. (Of course, there are limits to which points of view are worth mentioning, and this can be an area of conflict.) This policy exists on all Wikimedia projects.

"Neutral point of view" should not be confused with "point of view espoused by an international body such as the United Nations"; writing in NPOV style requires recognising that even widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing.

While NPOV is an ultimate goal in writing a Wikiquote article, it's difficult to achieve immediately as a single writer, and is thus sometimes regarded as an iterative process (as is writing in general), by which opposing viewpoints compromise on language and presentation to produce a neutral description acceptable to all.

This might be viewed as an adversarial system, but hopefully a polite one. One is expected to approximate NPOV to the best of one's ability and welcome improvements brought by others in good faith; a failure of the system can become an, in which two or more parties dig in and refuse to compromise, instead reverting each other's changes outright.

The original formulation of NPOV
A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make:

 * 1) An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.
 * 2) An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.
 * Jimbo Wales, Wikimedia founder

NPOV on Wikiquote
Since Wikiquote is a collection of quotations, NPOV writing is less frequently required. This does not mean that NPOV is any less an official policy, or that it does not apply on Wikiquote. Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual; however, all non-quote text on Wikiquote (excluding userpages and with limitations in the Wikiquote namespace) should conform to NPOV. This includes intro text on quote pages, templates intended for the main namespace (they should not express preference for or against any view, etc.), and where relevant, the contents of the Wikiquote namespace.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikiquote:Neutral point of view


text: Template:Policylist

title: Template:Policylist


text:
Wikiquote:No personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikiquote. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikiquote community and deter users from helping achieve our common goals.

Don't do it
'''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.'''

Consequences
Remember that disputes on talk pages are accessible to everyone on the Internet. The way in which you conduct yourself on Wikiquote reflects on Wikiquote and on you.

Most Wikiquotians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't official policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been blocked for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.

Being reasonable
Different contributors may not agree on an article. Members of opposing communities reasonably wish to express their views. Synthesizing these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone. Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community as we are all Wikiquotians.

Examples
Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:
 * Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
 * Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
 * Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.
 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
 * Profanity directed against another contributor.
 * Threats of legal action
 * Death threats
 * Threats or actions which expose other Wikiquote editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Administrators applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the other administrators of what they have done and why.
 * Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons.

Alternatives
Instead, try:
 * Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just.
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
 * Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.

Remedies
If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. If he or she continues, consider contacting an administrator. You might also consider removing particularly clear-cut personal attacks; however, you should be very careful not to define "personally attack" too broadly, or to do this too frequently. If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, ask other users first.

In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked; it is entirely within the discretion of the blocking administrator to interpret personal attacks as disruption.

A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down"
Note: There are at times Wikiquote users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. No personal attacks applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.

Community spirit
It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikiquote. Personal attacks against any user—regardless of their past or present behavior—are contrary to this spirit. Being the subject of a personal attack does not grant immunity from NPA; personal attacks in response to personal attacks can and should be dealt with as any other attack would be.

simple:Wikiquote:No personal attacks fi: Wikisitaatit:Ei henkilökohtaisia hyökkäyksiä sv:Wikiquote:Inga personangrepp

title: Wikiquote:No personal attacks


text:
Wikiquote:Civility

Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikimedia projects. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states that people must act with civility toward one another.

Our Wikiquote community has developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles must be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. Even if "civility" is just an informal rule, it's the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility.

The problem
Wikiquote as a whole is not especially respectful of contributions, since anyone can edit. This makes praise and criticism of edits all the more pronounced when it does occur. Many people forget that criticizing an edit is easily conflated with insulting the person who made it — and so they are unnecessarily harsh on the giving end and unnecessarily sensitive on the receiving end. What starts with one uncivil remark becomes an exchange of them, until people are no longer interested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy". This is not what Wikiquote is about.

Examples
Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

 * Rudeness
 * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")
 * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
 * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
 * Starting a comment with "Not to make this personal, but..."
 * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel (even if true, it tends to aggravate rather than resolve disputes)

More serious examples include:
 * Taunting
 * Personal attacks
 * Racial, ethnic, and religious slurs
 * Profanity directed at another contributor
 * Lies
 * Defacing user pages
 * Giving users derogatory names via pagemove trolling
 * Calling for bans and blocks

Incivility happens, for example, when you are quietly creating a new page, and another user tells you, "If you're going to write a pointless page, could you spell-check it?" Escalation occurs when you reply, "Mind your own business."

This style of interaction between Wikiquotians drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community.

When and why does it happen?

 * During an edit war, when people have different opinions, or when there is a conflict over sharing power.
 * When the community grows larger. Each editor does not know all the others and may not perceive the importance of each individual to the project — so they don't worry about maintaining relationships that don't exist. Reputation does not count as much as in a smaller community.
 * Sometimes, a particularly impolite user joins the project. This can also incite other editors into being impolite themselves.

Most of the time, insults are used in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. They are essentially a way to end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or refactor) the offending words.

In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.

Occasionally, some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without committing such a breach themselves.

Why is it bad?

 * Because it makes people unhappy, resulting in discouragement and departure.
 * Because it makes people angry, resulting in non-constructive or even uncivil behavior themselves, further escalating the level of incivility.
 * Because people lose good faith, resulting in even less ability to resolve the current conflict — or the next one.

Preventing incivility within Wikiquote

 * Prevent edit wars and conflict between individuals. (Constraints on editing are set by the project — essentially a community answer.)

 * Force delays between answers to give time to editors to calm down and recover and to avoid further escalation of a conflict (protecting pages, or temporary blocks of editors in case of conflict).

 * Use positive feedback (praising those who do not respond to incivility with incivility).

 * Apply peer pressure (voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens).

 * Solve the root of the conflict between the offender and the other editor(s) or the community — or finding a compromise.

 * Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave a conflict or even temporarily avoid all controversial areas in Wikiquote). It may be worthwhile making such suggestions to both sides of the conflict.

 * Block certain users from editing specific pages that often trigger incivility.

 * Create and enforce a new rule — based on use of certain words — that allows temporary blocking or banning an editor using them more than a certain number of times.

 * Filter emails by the offender, or filter mail based on certain keywords and reject emails to the Wikiquote mailing list with those words.

 * Accepting that incivility and rudeness can't be entirely avoided in such a project, and not responding in kind.

Reducing the impact

 * Balance each uncivil comment by providing a soothing or constructive comment.

 * Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (This is an individual approach.)

 * Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community.

 * Revert edits with a veil of invisibility (&bot=1) to reduce the impact of the offensive words used in edit summaries (the comment box). (This requires technical help from a sysop.)

 * Walk away. Wikiquote is a relatively small place, but there are thousands of pages. Just go and edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.

Removing uncivil comments

 * Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages. (This is often seen as controversial, as is refactoring other people's words.)

 * Remove offensive comments on talk pages. (Since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on.)

 * Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes. (This can be done for IP contributions, but requires technical help from sysop.)

 * Delete (entirely and permanently) a revision made by the offender. (This requires technical help from a sysop.)

 * Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists. (This requires technical help from a developer.)

 * Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment. (This requires technical help from a developer.)

Management of incivility during the mediation process
Parties sometimes attempt to negotiate an agreement while one party is not ready to negotiate. For example, if the source of the conflict is a specific point in an article, you may invite the community to review the discussion on Village pump to impair the impact, if the discussion is still clouded by an uncivil exchange between both parties. It is best to clear up that issue as soon as possible, so disputants can regain their balance and clarity when editing.

While the English Wikiquote has no official meditation process, you may always ask a third neutral party to comment your dispute on Village pump.

Explain incivility
Some editors are badly shaken by uncivil words directed towards them, and can't focus on the source of the conflict itself. It may help to point out to them why unpleasant words were used, and acknowledge that while incivility is wrong, the ideas behind the comment may be valid.

The offended person may realize that the words were not always meant literally, and could decide to forgive and forget them.

It can be helpful to point out breaches of civility even when done on purpose to hurt, as it might help the disputant to refocus on the issue (controversial).

Rephrasing disputants' comments
While not in an official capacity, a neutral third party may play a mediator role, being in contact with both disputants and ensuring communication between them. For convenience, we may call him or her "the mediator" below. The role of the mediator is to promote reasonable discussion between the two disputants. Therefore, it is helpful to remove incivility voiced by User A, in rephrasing comments to User B.

For example, if User A and User B are flaming each other by e-mail through a mediator, it might be best if the intermediary turns "I refuse to allow Neo-Nazi apologetics to infest Wikiquote" to "User A is concerned that you may be giving too much prominence to a certain view."

Rephrasing flames publicly exchanged before or during the mediation process
At the end of the mediation process, the mediator may suggest that the disputants agree to remove uncivil comments that have remained on user and article talk pages. The editors might agree to delete pages created specifically to abuse or flame one another, and/or to remove all flaming content not relevant to the article discussion, and/or to refactor a discussion. This may allow disputants to forgive and forget offenses more quickly.

Similarly, the disputants might agree to apologize to each other.

Suggest apologizing
Mediation regularly involves disputes in which one party feels injured by the other. The apology is an act that is neither about problem-solving and negotiation, nor is it about arbitration. Rather, it is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation. In transformative mediation, the apology represents an opportunity for acknowledgement that may transform relations.

For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. For this reason, a sincere apology is often the key to the resolution of a conflict: an apology is a symbol of forgiveness. An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.

title: Wikiquote:Civility


text:
Wikiquote:Please do not bite the newcomers

Wikiquote improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

Please do not bite the newcomers

 * Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions, and ideals on Wikiquote, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource.

 * Remember, our motto — and our invitation to the newcomer — is be bold. We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation at face value.  It is entirely possible for a newcomer to this site to bring a wealth of experience from other venues, together with ideas and creative energy which, current rules and standards notwithstanding, may further improve our community and end product.  It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; some of what the newcomer seems to be doing "wrong" at first may prove to actually improve Wikiquote.  Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as "wrong" or "substandard".
 * If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake, such as forgetting to put titles in boldface, or failing to make useful links, try to correct the mistake yourself. Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not to criticize or supervise others.

 * If you really feel that you must say anything at all to a newcomer about a mistake, do it in a spirit of being helpful. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on their talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as the contributor's peer, perhaps also pointing out things they've done that you like.  If you can't do that, then it is better to say nothing.

 * Other newcomers may be hesitant to make changes, especially major ones, such as NPOV-ing and moving, due to fear of damaging Wikiquote (or of offending other Wikiquotians, or being flamed). Teach them to be bold, and do not be annoyed by their "timidity".

 * When giving advice to newcomers, tone down the rhetoric even a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikiquote. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized strictures and structures, which take time to learn, and which may benefit from periodic re-examination and revision.

 * Sometimes users forget to use four tildes after talk page posts. You can make the reminder process a little easier and less annoying by using the following two templates. This is more effective than swearing under your breath.
 * sign1 —
 * sign2 —

 * Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!

 * Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikiquotians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is uplifted, and you further our project.

 * Remember that you were once a newcomer also. Treat others as (if possible, better than) you would want to be treated if you had just arrived at Wikiquote.

Please do not bite the new admins
Requests for adminship is becoming ever-busier. Newbie administrators who make mistakes sometimes feel "bitten" when this is pointed out to them in quick succession by many people. Excessively stern messages to new admins are much the same as excessively stern messages to newcomers. So please remember to not bite the newbie administrators. Remember, every administrator starts as a newbie admin and every admin has made at least one admin-related mistake! Help them out with their new powers as you would help a newcomer with the rest of Wikiquote.

Admins should remember, however, that "I'm a newbie" is not a catch-all excuse; they are still expected to do their best in good-faith to adhere to the Wiki way.

In more general terms, one can also avoid being accused of being a "biter" by:
 * 1) Avoiding intensifiers in commentary;
 * 2) Modulating one's approach and wording on Wikiquote;
 * 3) Striving to respond in a measured manner;
 * 4) Accepting graciously one's actions or inactions in a given situation or context;
 * 5) Acknowledging differing principles and willingness to reach consensus;
 * 6) Opening one towards taking responsibility for resolution of conflicts;
 * 7) Reciprocating where necessary; and
 * 8) Listening actively.

Consciously choose the steadfast ground. Strive to be a responsible Wikiquotian. By fostering goodwill, one will not provoke or be provoked easily, and will allow the Wikiquotian to devote their time and resources towards building an quotation compendium—part of what Wikiquote and this whole online project and community is all about!

If you have been "bitten", or feel that you have been "bitten", there are a number of things to keep in mind, and alternatives to choose from:

 * 1) Choose to actively learn from the incident.
 * Consider alternatives that could have been used by the "biter" to achieve a more desirable response for yourself, and if you encounter a similar situation in the future, consider acting in the latter manner if the situation warrants.
 * 1) Graciously point out that one is encouraged that someone took the time to acknowledge your actions.
 * 2) Consider that negative "biting" incidents are transitory — one should not feel the need to pacify one's actions as a result of non-constructive commentary. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled, and choose to take that away as valuable experience.
 * 3) Choose to point out in a reasoned manner any offense taken, and learn to recognize when the message cannot be received. The recipient may be unable or unwilling to accept fault or otherwise, and it may be better to move on to other things than to dwell on the "bite".


text:
Wikiquote:Citing sources

This page is a style guide, describing how to write citations in articles. Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. See those pages and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more information.

Citing sources serves several purposes:

 * To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
 * To enhance the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
 * To show that your edit isn't original research.
 * To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
 * To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
 * To provide more information or further reading.

When to cite sources
'''Wikiquote articles should not use articles from other Wikimedia projects as sources. Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources.'''

When you add content
If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source. If you don't know how to format the citation, others will fix it for you. Simply provide any information you can on the source.

In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors.

The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion. Remember that Wikiquote is not a place for expressing your opinions or for original research.

Because this is the English Wikiquote, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

When you verify content
You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding sources to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikiquote.

When there is a factual dispute
Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place fact after the relevant passage. This should be used sparingly; Wikiquote has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many of instances of fact is unlikely to be beneficial.

When there is no factual dispute
Think ahead: Try to imagine whether people might doubt what you wrote or need more information. Supporting what is written in Wikiquote by referring to a clear and reliable source will add stability to your contribution.

How to cite sources

 * For an easy-follow guide, see Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style

If you are the first to add references to an article, try to follow conventions generally accepted in the field of knowledge described in the article. Some of these might follow from formats proposed by WikiProjects.

If nothing in particular appears applicable, or if you don't know which style would work best:
 * The examples given in Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style might be helpful.
 * Consider using the templates provided by w:Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.

 * Further assistance may be derived from WikiBib, a simple bibliography maker written in Javascript that has most of these templates built in.

The system of presenting references in a Wikipedia article may change over time; it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system.

Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below.

Remember though: the most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease.

There are several ways of accomplishing this.

 * When writing a new article or adding references to an existing article that has none, follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning (if available and unquestioned).
 * An article's previous content contributors usually know the established practice - if possible, follow their lead if the article already has references.
 * If the established practice is unavailable or disputed, contributors should decide on a style that they believe strikes an appropriate balance between preserving the readability of the text and making citations as precise and accessible as possible.
 * If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references.
 * If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor.

'''If you are unclear as to which system or style to use, remember: the most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source. If necessary, put this information in the talk page, or in a comment on the main page, and ask others how to format it correctly for that article'''.

Citation styles
The following are different methods that you can use to insert references in Wikipedia articles.

The three most popular styles of in-text citations are Harvard style, footnotes, and embedded HTML links.

Note that no matter which inline-citation style is used, all the sources used in an article should be listed at the end in a references section.

Embedded HTML links
The MediaWiki software supports embedding HTML links directly into an article by enclosing a URL with single square brackets — — which appears like this: [ 1 ] A full citation ought then be given in the References section like this:

*Google's website, which appears as:

 * Google's website

A newspaper article referenced in an article by using an embedded link might be — — which looks like this. [ 2 ] The embedded link is placed after the period, or when placed within a sentence after a clause, then after the comma.

Then in the References section, a full citation is provided:

*"Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying" by John Plunkett, The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005

which appears as:

 * "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying" by John Plunkett, The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005

It is particularly important in the case of online newspaper articles to include byline, headline, newspaper, and date of publication, because many newspapers keep stories online only for a certain period before transferring them to the archives. With a full citation, readers will be able to find the article easily even if the link doesn't work.

It's also important to provide and place in quotation marks the headline of the article, or title if it's a scholarly paper, so that Wikipedia is attributing a description of the article's contents to a source, and not describing it ourselves. For example, it isn't Wikipedia's claim that Sorrell is accusing Murdoch of panic buying, but the Guardian's, and we should precisely quote the Guardian's headline, and not replace it with "A story about Murdoch's panic buying".

An advantage of these embedded links is that it is easy for an online reader and other editors to click on the link and jump immediately to the cited article (if still working). In principle, this makes checking sources very easy. Another advantage of these embedded links is that they are easy to create and maintain.

There are disadvantages with such embedded links, however. First, there is question of how much such checking and maintenance takes place: anyone who takes a random sample of these will find dead embedded links. Also, such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be difficult to rediscover the cited material, which is why it is particularly important to include a full citation in the References section.

Harvard referencing
The Harvard referencing system places a partial citation — the author's name and year of publication within parentheses — in the text itself, and a complete citation at the end of the text in an alphabetized list of "References". According to The Oxford Style Manual, the Harvard system is the "most commonly used reference method in the physical and social sciences" (Ritter 2002).

 * For one author, add the author's surname and the year of publication in parentheses (round brackets) after the sentence or paragraph, and before the period: for example (Smith 2005).
 * For two authors, use (Smith & Jones 2005); for more authors, use (Smith et al. 2005).
 * If the "References" section contains two or more works by the same author but published the same year, use a letter after the year to distinguish the different sources (for example, (Smith 2005a) and (Smith 2005b). Make sure that the in-text citations use the correct letters that correspond to the full citation in the "References" at the end of the article.

 * If the date of publication is unavailable, use "n.d." (meaning, no date)
 * Many times authors use an edition of a book that was published long after the original publication. In such cases, many people put the original date of publication in square brackets followed by the date of publication of the edition used by the author who is making the citation.  For example, a citation might be
 * (Marx [1867] 1967)
 * and the complete reference would be:
 * Marx, Karl [1867] 1967  Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I. Edited by Frederick Engels. New York: International Publishers.

 * When providing a page number, the convention is (Smith 2005:73).
 * For a quotation that is within the text and marked by quotation marks, the citation follows the end-quotation mark ("), and preceeds the period (.)
 * For a quotation that is indented, the citation follows the period.
 * When the author of the reference is named as part of the text itself, put the year in parentheses; for example "Smith (2005) says ..."

Note: Harvard referencing is not complete without the full citation at the end of the page (article) in the References section.

Complete citations in a "References" section
Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted ( * ) list, one bullet per reference work.

References typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the name of the publisher, and the date of publication. Different professions, academic disciplines, and publishers have different conventions as to the order in which this information should be arranged, or whether additional information is required. Usually, the list is in alphabetical order by the author's surname.

Typical references could be:
 * McDougall, D. (2003). "Trauma of quake's shattered children". Guardian. Retrieved October 23, 2005.
 * Smith, J. How to cite your sources, Random House, 2005. ISBN 1607000X
 * Smith, J. How to cite your sources, Random House, 2005. ISBN 1607000X

For more templates to assist formatting, see the citation templates.

Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, and the date you retrieved it if it's online.

Some books have been reprinted several times over the course of the years. Sometimes they have gone through several editions, and sometimes a book may be published by several different publishers. This can raise serious problems for citations, because different editions may be paginated differently. Ideally, all citations in a given article should refer to the same edition by the same publisher, and this edition information should be included in the reference at the end of the article and/or the ISBN (see there) should be given. That way, there would be no confusion over the correct page number for cited quotes or material.

 * If the "References" section contains two or more works by the same author but published the same year, use a letter after the year to distinguish the different sources (for example 2005a and 2005b).
 * If you do not know the date of publication, try to find it (you could try your local library, the web-page of a national library such as the Library of Congress, or Amazon.com)
 * If the date of publication is unavailable, use "n.d." (meaning, no date)
 * Many times authors use an edition of a book that was published long after the original publication. In such cases, they must provide the date of the edition they are using or else the ISBN, and preferably both.  This is important because different editions may be paginated differently.
 * When contributors use an edition of a book that was published long after the original publication, they may put the original date of publication in square brackets followed by the date of publication of the edition used by the author who is making the citation. For example, an in-line citation might be
 * (Marx [1867] 1967)
 * and the complete reference would be:
 * Marx, Karl [1867] 1967  Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I. Edited by Frederick Engels. New York: International Publishers.

As Wikipedia grows it is likely that different editors may rely on different editions of the same book.
 * Usually, different editions of the same book are published in different years. In such cases knowing the year is enough information to distinguish the different editions.
 * Sometimes, different editions of the same book are published in the same year. This often happens after a copyright has expired, and different publishing companies publish different editions.  In such cases, one must know the publisher to distinguish the different editions, or else the ISBN.

It is crucial that complete references be provided for each distinct edition referred to (or cited) in the article, and that each such in-line citation provide enough information to distinguish between editions.

Technical issues with footnotes
Citations using numbered footnotes are controversial in Wikipedia for several reasons:
 * 1) Until recently, the MediaWiki software had limited footnote support. In particular, automatic numbering of footnotes conflicted with use of embedded HTML links in single square brackets with automatic numbering, and the same footnote cannot be used multiple times with automatic numbering. In contrast, the software could already support the Harvard style without issue.
 * 2) * This appears now to have been addressed by the new <ref> element.
 * 3) Many of today's style guides forbid or deprecate footnotes and reference endnotes when used simply to cite sources . The APA style does not use footnotes to cite sources. The MLA style manual has deprecated reference footnotes and reference endnotes for decades in favor of in-line bibliographic references.
 * 4) Footnotes are normally simply numbered numerically.  Thus, determining who said what typically requires a reader to continually jump back and forth between the main body and the footnote/endnote to see if there is something of value.  When footnotes are simply providing a much more detailed argument, this is often not a problem, but if the footnotes are the primary citation method, this can be critical (since it is sometimes important to keep track of who claims what).

Note: If a Wikipedia article does use footnotes, the footnotes in their own section must include the normal source citations just as in the "References" section for other inline citations above.

What footnotes are normally used for

 * Some publications use footnotes for both the full citation of a source, and for tangential comments or information of interest to the reader.
 * Some publications use Harvard style notation for sources, and use footnotes exclusively for tangential comments or information of interest. In this case, in other words, footnotes are notes with relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Such footnotes can be especially helpful for later fact-checkers, to ensure that the article text is well-supported.  Thus, using footnotes to provide useful clarifying information outside the main point is fine where this is needed.

What to call the References section when using footnotes
Technically, footnotes appear at the bottom of a page; endnotes appear at the end of a chapter or book. Since wikipedia articles may be considered to consist of one long page, or of no pages at all, Wikipedia footnotes appear at the end of an article, but are nevertheless called footnotes.

Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Wikipedia:
 *  ==Notes==  section: Used for footnotes which are not full citations of sources.
 *  ==Notes and references==  section: Used if there is no separate section with general references, and if all sources of the general content of the article are covered by the footnotes.
 *  ==Footnotes==  section: Used for all other cases.

What to do when a reference link "goes dead"
When a link in the External links/Further reading sections "goes dead", it is not a serious matter, and it can be removed from the article. Reference-section links (i.e. links to sources actually used to support material) in the article are another matter. In general, they are still worth keeping as part of the referencing apparatus of the article; often, a live substitute link can be found. Here are some pointers. In most cases, these approaches will preserve an acceptable citation.

 * A very large proportion of pages can be recovered from the Internet Archive. Just go to http://www.archive.org/ and search for the old link by URL. Make sure that your new citation mentions the date the page was archived by the Internet Archive.
 * If this was a non-blind citation of web-only material, it may be worth the effort to search the target site for an equivalent page at a new location, an indication that the whole site has moved, etc.
 * If the link was merely a "convenience link" to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, it is acceptable to drop the link but keep the citation.
 * If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They won't be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.

If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. Note also that whilst many printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.

How to ask for citations
If an article needs references but you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the templates unreferenced or Primarysources. It is often more useful to indicate specific statements that need references, by tagging those statements with fact, which can be placed in the same place you would place an inline reference.

Citing Wikipedia in other works
For suggestions on how to cite Wikipedia in other works, see w:Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia; the tool w:Wikipedia:Special:Cite is also available there to help you.

title: Wikiquote:Citing sources


text:
Wikiquote:Wikiquette

This page offers some principles of etiquette or "Wikiquette" (WI-kee-ket) — i.e. guidelines on how to work with others on Wikiquote. You can read about more basic conventions at the policies and guidelines page.

Wikiquote's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.

Principles of Wikiquote etiquette

 * Assume good faith. Wikiquote has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
 * Treat others as you would have them treat you.
 * Be polite, please!
 * People can't see you or know for sure your mood. Irony isn't always obvious, and blunt, raw text can easily appear rude. Be careful of the words you choose — what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be as intended.
 * Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).
 * Work toward agreement.
 * Argue facts, not personalities.
 * Don't ignore questions.
 * If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
 * Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
 * Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
 * Be civil.
 * Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.
 * That way at least you're not spiralling down to open conflict and name-calling by your own accord, you're actively doing something about it: taking a hit and refraining from hitting back - everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).
 * However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way -- otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their "subtlety", and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. "I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...").
 * Be prepared to apologize.
 * In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
 * Forgive and forget.
 * Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
 * Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. If you see someone doing a good job, drop them a friendly note on their user talk page.
 * Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
 * Help mediate disagreements between others.
 * If you're arguing, take a break; if you're mediating, recommend a break.
 * Come back after a week or two. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
 * Walk away or find another Wikiquote article to distract yourself — there are articles on Wikiquote! You can lend your much-needed services at Cleanup or work on a requested page.
 * Remember what Wikiquote is not.
 * Review the list of faux pas.
 * Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
 * Amend, edit, discuss.
 * Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to allow dignity to others.

How to avoid abuse of Talk pages
Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but Talk pages are not a place for striking back. They're a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they're for forging agreements that are best for the articles they're attached to.

Here are a few things to bear in mind

 * Wikiquote articles are supposed to represent all views, instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.
 * If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that (1) the person hates you, (2) the person thinks you're stupid, (3) the person is stupid, (4) the person is evil, etc. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong - a common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if you insulted their religion. Also, always remember that anything that is written on Wikiquote is kept permanently, even if it is not visible.
 * Wikiquote invites you to be bold. Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: Is this really necessary to discuss? Could I provide a summary with my edit and wait for others to quibble if they like?
 * You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
 * If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikiquote is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get on with someone, try and become more friendly and if that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them.

A few more tips on polite discussion

 * Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
 * Quoting a post is O.K., but stating how you interpreted it is better. Before proceeding to say that someone is wrong, concede you might have misinterpreted him or her.
 * Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
 * Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.

Other words of advice
Parting words of advice from Larry Sanger:
 * to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
 * to be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,
 * to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
 * to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
 * to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikiquote with respect and good will,
 * to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
 * to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

An outline for a Wikicovenant from Kingturtle:
 * Make others feel welcome (even longtime participants; even those you dislike)
 * Create and continue a friendly environment
 * Turn the other cheek (which includes walking away from potential edit wars)
 * Give praise, especially to those you don't know (most people like to know they are wanted and appreciated)
 * Forgive.

What to do in case of problems

 * Rules of (Dis)engagement
 * Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
 * w:Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

title: Wikiquote:Wikiquette


text:
Wikiquote:Don't disrupt Wikiquote to make a point

State your point; don't prove it experimentally
Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikiquote itself proof that the rule does not work.

In the past, many contributors have found their Wikistress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled in a way they consider unfair. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?"

In this situation, it may be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy the contributor objects to. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the "proof".

In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Many readers consider such techniques to be spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which, indeed, are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly, without irony or indirection. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.

Gaming the system
Gaming the system is the use of Wikiquote rules to thwart Wikiquote policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption.

A simple example would be obstinately reverting an edit exactly 3 times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement to revert, and doing so is regarded as a disruption of Wikiquote operations. In fact, gaming the system in this way, over a prolonged period of time, is likely to lead to sanctions, and, in extreme cases, a permanent ban.

Examples

 * If somebody suggests that Wikiquote should become a majority-rule democratic community...
 * do point out that it is entirely possible for Wikiquotians to create sock puppets and vote more than once.
 * don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you.
 * If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Votes for deletion...
 * do make your case clearly on VfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.
 * don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on VfD.
 * If someone lists one of your favorite articles on VfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles...
 * do state your case on VfD in favor of the article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples.
 * don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on VfD in one day in order to try to save your own.
 * If an article you've nominated for deletion on VfD is not deleted...
 * do reconsider whether your nomination was justified.
 * don't frivolously nominate inane quotes from the article for Quote of the Day.
 * If someone deletes a quote you consider to be important from an article, calling it unimportant...
 * do argue on the article's talk page for the quote's inclusion, pointing out other examples of where similar quotes have been included.
 * don't delete all the quotes from the article, calling them unimportant.
 * If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
 * do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus
 * don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion
 * If you feel that a particular attack should not be called "terrorist"...
 * do argue on the article's talk page that the term "terrorist" is POV and should be removed.
 * don't add the word "terrorist" to articles on dozens of other incidents, which only some people believe constitute "terrorism".

Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive.

Hoaxes
On a related note, please don't attempt to put misinformation into Wikiquote to test our ability to detect and remove it. See Wikipedia:Hoaxes.

cs:Wikipedie:Nenarušujte encyklopedii kvůli ilustraci tvrzení de:Wikipedia:Bitte nicht stören es:Wikipedia:No sabotees la Wikipedia para respaldar tus argumentos fr:Wikipédia:Ne pas désorganiser Wikipédia pour une argumentation personnelle hu:Wikipédia:Ne kelts zavart a Wikipédiában fi:Wikipedia:Älä häiriköi esittääksesi kantasi uk:Вікіпедія:Співробітництво чи Дезорганізація?


text:
User talk:212.219.116.39

~ UDScott 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

~ UDScott 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:212.219.116.39


text:
Knock knock jokes

Knock-knock jokes are one of the best-known forms of the pun, and represent a time-honoured "call and answer" exercise. Developmental psychologists study knock-knock-joke usage in younger children, as it provides valuable insight into how children advance their language skills.

The standard format has five lines:

 * 1) The punster: Knock-knock
 * 2) The recipient: Who's there?
 * 3) The punster: a name
 * 4) The recipient: a name plus who?
 * 5) The punster: the punch line

Quotes

 * [Francisco at his post. Enter to him Bernardo.] Bernardo: Who's there? Francisco: Nay, answer me: stand, and unfold yourself.
 * William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1 (first two lines)
 * The play is described in Slings and Arrows as "the longest knock-knock joke in history".

title: Knock knock jokes


text:
Josh Groban

Joshua Winslow Groban (born February 27, 1981), commonly known as Josh Groban, is an American singer, known for his mature, dusky baritone voice. His musical style ranges from classical to pop.

Sourced

 * You're Still You (lyrics by Linda Thompson)

"I look up to Everything you are In my eyes you do no wrong And I believe in you Although you never asked me to I will remember you And what life put you through" (From 2002's Josh Groban)

 * Per Te (lyrics by Josh Groban)

"Per te, per te vivro' L'amore vincera Con te, con te avro' Mille giorni di felicita Mille notti di serenita Faro' quello che mi chiederai Andro sempre dovunque tu andrai Daro tutto l'amore che ho Per te"

"For you, for you, I'll live Love will win With you, with you, I'll have A thousand days of happiness, A thousand nights of serenity All that you ask me to I'll go everywhere that you go I will give all the love I have for you"
 * English translation:

(From 2003's Closer)

Quotes

 * I hoped to sell 50,000 records. My main goals were to sing my heart out, to challenge myself vocally, to find beautiful music that has great stories and to express what I love about the musicality of different languages. And if 10 people bought it, I'd be thrilled that 10 people listened to it. And if it was 10 million, I'd be thrilled that 10 million people listened to it. This is just beyond any dream that I could have possibly had."
 * Las Vegas Sun, 08/13/04

 * I've been fascinated by music for as long as I can remember. I was the kid on the playground in the third grade who would tell other kids about Paul Simon or Depeche Mode."
 * Kansas City Star, 08/16/04

 * First and foremost, I'd like to continue taking risks with my music. Everything I've done so far has been a gut reaction, honest and real. And that's who I am. That's what I want my music to always be -- honest and real."
 * Chicago Sun Times, 11/16/03

 * "I'm not crossing over from anything. I think of it as pop music with different influences. "When I walk in the music store, [my] album is under classical/pop/easy listening. It's hard to say what genre it is. It's genreless. I try not to define what it is. I let the audience define it. Because for me, it's just me."
 * UK Sunday Times, 5/9/04

 * "When I make an album I take a lot of risks. I ignore the trends of the moment and one of the things I have to think of when making an album like this is the honesty of it. To connect. It goes against the grain. It's nice to know I can go against the grain."
 * Miami Herald, 4/23/04

 * "I wanted to experiment with that live energy, to push myself a little. It's very much about having intimacy with the music. I love theater - and I love playing in these old theaters. It's not a Vegas stage show. It's very much just me and the music and a five-piece band and a 20-piece string section from each city."
 * Miami Herald, 4/23/04

 * It's really tough to make a name for yourself without compromising and without fitting yourself into a real specific mold. When I made the choice that I would be involved in every aspect of music and not necessarily make music for radio or MTV, I was saying, 'OK, this is me. You decide who it is.' "
 * Inside Connection, February 2004

 * I just have to feel it first. It can't be cerebral at all. I'm big on lyrics, a big lyric person, especially the kind of singing I do. It's hard to sound not cheesy sometimes with the voice I have with English songs."
 * Inside Connection, February 2004

 * I can only say so much about how I feel. Music is what I always turned to when I was feeling a certain way. It's been my reason for everything."
 * Inside Connection, February 2004

 * I try to have a real close connection with my fans. That's extremely important. They are the ones that have been there from the beginning and proved everyone else wrong."
 * Inside Connection, February 2004

 * It's a nice feeling. I was not like the popular guy in high school. This is revenge for all the bullies in high school [laughter]. It's a great feeling. Maybe women sometimes are more open to romantic music."
 * Inside Connection, February 2004

 * My life is an unfinished product, but instead of just saying, 'How do I top what I've accomplished,' I decided I wanted to move forward, express my growth and take a big step into the next chapter."
 * Florida International Magazine, January 2004

 * "The shower is my time to open up my operatic chops, because of the enormous echo. You sound five times as big in the shower, so I break into some "Nessun Dorma" [from Puccini's Turandot] or Pearl Jam. You've got to go big when you're in the shower. There's no half-singing in the shower, you're either a rock star or an opera diva."
 * VH1.com, 11/23/03

 * I don't have a social life right now. I try to -- it's something that I miss -- but David Foster told me: 'The golden microphone is in front of your mouth. You have to sing into it or it will get passed onto someone else.' It's very lonely, what I'm doing. Even though you have a lot of people around you, they're not experiencing it first-hand. It's hard to name more than five close friends. As much as people want to understand, it's hard when you don't see someone for five months at a time, and they're like, 'C'mon, make time.' But I don't have time. My days are gone. There are a lot of firsts for me. And I'm not going to toss it off. It would be silly to say, 'No, I'd rather go see a movie.' I know there will be time for that later.
 * UK Sunday Times, 5/9/04

 * I have to work hard to not look like a nerd all the time. My friends are the only people I know that don't care about my image. I need to have people who treat me just as Josh, not as Josh the singer.
 * Bangkok Post-Outlook, 8/27/02

 * I was the hopeless romantic. I had so many crushes. But not on the real obvious girls. I was into the quirky ones. I was so shy, though.
 * UK Sunday Times, 5/9/04

 * No matter what your age and no matter where you come from, everyone can change the world in some way, whether it's being a mentor to someone younger than you or someone that doesn't have as much experience as you. If you're passionate enough, you can do whatever you want and definitely change the world.
 * Teen People Video Short, 20 Teens Who Will Change the World, 2003

title: Josh Groban


text:
Talk:Josh Groban

I'm new to Wikiquote, so I've tried to put together a decent article based on what I've seen. Feel free to add/correct, please just put a comment here regarding any changes. After the "cleanup" stub showed up, I did go in and clean it up as best I could without help. Danke schon, Danypo 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Song lyrics?
I'm also new to Wikiquote, but I think that a singer's song lyrics should not be considered quotes. I think that these should be removed. Anyone else agree?~ mrt

Concert Quotes
---From the Denver show, in response to several people yelling things at him at once. "We love you more!!" "Well, we could go back and forth on this all night!" - Josh ---From the Denver show "YES!" (In a deep, sexy voice) "And I know why..." - Josh ---From the Philadelphia show, where the theater was very hot and muggy ---From the Providence show, after backing into a mic stand ---From the Columbus show ---From the Columbus show, after singing "Broken Vow" ---From the Nashville show, after a fan yelled "Josh, you rock my face off!" ---From the Syracuse show after having fans yell "I love you Josh!" ---From Radio City Music Hall in NYC ---From the summer tour show in Houston ---From the Grand Rapids show in MI after having fans yell "Josh, you rock my socks!" ---From the "Awake" tour show in 'The Point Theatre', Dublin (30-05-07), in response to a fan handing him a Guinness t-shirt. ---From show in 'The Point Theatre', in response to fans screaming after his every word.
 * "To me, that sounded like "monkey tree xanadu!"
 * "I love you guys." - Josh
 * "Are you guys hot?" - Josh
 * "These props are kicking my butt..."
 * "I feel goofy tonight. I had a pixie stick before the show."
 * "So don't go around dumping people. That's the moral of that story."
 * "I rock your face off? I rock your face off. I rocked someone's face off at the Grand Ole Opry. Check that off my list."
 * "Yeah, it's hard to sing sad songs when there's so much love"
 * "I love you all...I love you all very much!!"
 * "I love you more than you could ever know...I could just GAG I love you so much."
 * "You rock my socks too!"
 * "I like my Guinness like I like my women - bitter and cold."
 * "...Bananas!"

title: Talk:Josh Groban


text:
User talk:168.254.225.254

~ UDScott 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

~ UDScott 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

~ UDScott 16:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

2010
~ Ningauble 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Maximillion Pegasus 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony jeselnik
I have added a "" template to the article Anthony jeselnik, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ole.Holm 20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:168.254.225.254


text:
User:Darkildor~enwikiquote

See here

title: User:Darkildor~enwikiquote