text:
Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions/Archive 1

Obsolete list
Thanks for declaring this list obsolete, Kalki. It seemed kind of silly to me to have to post a notice here now that one can just check the category. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archive
Do we need any archive of the former speedy deletion candidates? I couldn't find any reference to a speedy-deletion archive here or at Speedy deletions. I suppose this make sense, as this list is primarily for articles whose lack of merit is non-controversial. I ask because I'd like to delete the "current" list, so as to discourage people who may not read the instructions (having proposed SDs on Wikipedia or other wikis before), but would reconsider when they saw no place to add new candidates. (I'd also like to make it clear right at the top of the article that we're using Wikimedia Categories exclusively now for SDs.) — Jeff Q (talk) 16:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I support for that we have no special log for speedy deletions and get rid of the list on the below. When we need a log, we can give a look to Special:Log. If necessary, we may have a rule "if you delete an article without no discussio, as SD, you may (or must) note " PD SD" (speedy deletion) at the top of its deletion reason." --Aphaia 07:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What do you mean by "PD" here? If you mean "pending deletion", that term seems to be used primarily as a signal that an article can't be deleted because of the block-compression error. That's an artifact of trying to delete something that's already been chosen for deletion; it's not a reason to delete something. Shouldn't the specific reason it was chosen for a speedy deletion (like what we should encourage people to put in the tag) be what we put in the deletion log? Or are you talking about the reason listed in the article itself (i.e., the info in the db tag)? In that case, "PD" still doesn't really tell us why it's being deleted, unless I'm missing something. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * sorry type of SD(speedy deletion). I can't figure from where this tweak has come .... ;=X
 * what I thought of were:
 * SD: test
 * SD: same to already deleted pages
 * and so on. The point is, once it is headded with "SD" we can pick them up easily from the deletion log. --Aphaia 03:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Prefixing the deletion log entry with "SD:" makes sense. (I see you're already doing it.) It might be a good idea to add "VFD:" for the others. (We shouldn't assume any not tagged are VfD, because people will occasionally forget to follow procedure.) We should add this to Deletion process, once we create it. ☺

 * But getting back to my original point, Eustace's recent attempt to call attention to the renewed Reirom assault by posting here reinforces my point about clearing out the existing list of speedy deletion candidates. I'll remove them all shortly, so there will be no need for obsolescence reminders at the top and bottom. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, indeed. Things go much better. Thank you for your cleaning.--Aphaia 23:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Policy
Currently I heard from some editors "if a main article was deleted, so its talk should be or could be deleted too." I don't oppose it but I can't find this rule among our current rules. Supposingly our rules were imported from Wikipedia in early days where speedy rule has been updated recently (just before a few months).

I think we are also better to update our list and clarify some points if necessary, Like how to treat an image already transwikied to Commons, or page containing only interlang or category and so on.

Any suggestions are welcome. --Aphaia 23:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You raise some good points, Aphaia. I've been assuming that we delete Talk pages because Wikipedia:Deletion process says "If appropriate, delete the article's talk page or any associated sub-pages first." It makes no specific statement about Talk pages in the Speedy deletion section, but that section is so terse it looks like an oversight, and I could see no plausible reason that one might preserve the Talk page of an article bad enough to warrant speedy deletion, when Talk pages for VfD candidates are casually recommended for deletion. (Wikipedia apparently doesn't give any guidance on how to interpret "if appropriate". In fact, the whole issue of Talk page deletion seems to be an afterthought.) — Jeff Q (talk) 01:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as transwiki images, I believe that's a transwiki policy issue that should be discussed at Category talk:Transwiki. If pages have no quote content, only category tags and/or interwiki links (i.e., not even the framework data we've been discussing at WQt:DP#Policy on framework articles), they sound like good speedy-deletion candidates to me, unless there's a reasonable hope for near-term quote additions. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your instruction, I agree on they sound like good speedy-deletion candidates. --Aphaia 00:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon's user page and talk
Sometimes we talk to anonymous users via talk pages. Invitation for registration, request for stopping some unwelcoming edits, and any necessary communication. I think those "anon's talk" can be a good speedy-deletion candidate. I think it necessary too. Not only because in most cases the unregistered users (in my opinion) is not a part of community in the true meaning -- and it doesn't mean "anons are evil" for sure, -- but mainly for technical reasons, that is, IP addresses belong to a machine, not an individual. Once I got a message when I was editing as an anon user on a wiki where I was inactive, and this apparently had been designated to another editor. For avoiding misunderstanding, I propose to speedy those talks after the message would be read for sure or a certain length of time would pass. And I add "anon's user page", though it is possible to create such a page technically, sould be deleted for the same reason. If an anon would like to have his or her own user page, this editor could have it as an registered user, I think, so this deletion is not unfair to treat those people. It is a strange idea, but I have seen some anon editors tried to create such pages on other project... --Aphaia 00:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have several thoughts on this subject.
 * Assuming there is no User page, we should be careful about deleting Talk pages. It's my understanding that they help sysops track repeated abuse. Perhaps we should consider deleting them after 6 months, with a warning 2 months before proposed deletion that the page will be deleted after such-and-such a date? This would give users, especially from fixed-IP networks, a chance to either save anything from them or get registered before the deadline.
 * If there is a User page, might this not reflect a user's wish to remain anonymous? This would be unreasonably rude to other users if they are using a floating-IP network, but if they have fixed-IP, perhaps it isn't. I've seen arguments that a registered user is more anonymous than an IP, since one can track down an IP address, but the counter-argument is the need for a registered user to provide an email address.
 * If we decide to delete IP-based User pages, we should again provide decent notice, like 2 months.
 * — Jeff Q (talk) 04:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Your ideas are decent, but proposed terms seem to me a bit long. 6 months waiting is not useful avoiding confusion. Almost half edits submitted to this project are made by anons, and sometimes anons communicate each other, it is fine, but if it is a sort of squattering, dynamic allocated IP in particular it might be rude as you said.
 * I agree anyone can stay anonymous, if they want. We shouldn't force them to register, and I didn't mean it.
 * The difference of fix and dynamic, I think it is not a great difference. Again I say, IP is assigned to a machine, not a person. It is not same that a person connects to the net always from one address, and that this address serves only him. So smaller though, there is still a prausibility of confusing.
 * German Wikipedia allows sysops to delete anon's talk speedily, and if I recall correctly, there is no dispute around this rule. Perhaps our case is a bit different from them, reflecting the differences of two projects, but I guess things go in a similar way rather than quite differently.
 * One factor we should consider is how frequent an anon visits the project. My rough observation says one month or two. Or they visit rarely - once a half year - or never (assumingly registered but no evident).
 * So my idea is that: we delete them after 1 months from its creation, with a warning at least 2 weeks before deletion. After 4 weeks pass, we can consider them speedy.  For user page, I think a warning or invitation for register should come first, but feel one month is enough wait for him to register. --Aphaia 15:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Pages with only link(s)
From WQ:VFDA

I propose to create a new speedy criteria - "an article which only contains either links including interlang links." It is less useful than encyclopedic articles (which can be transwikied to Wikipedia sometimes!) This criteria will help us to avoid link spamming. Any opinion? --Aphaia 14:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I support this. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm reluctant to add too many specific entries to WQ:SD. Can we just interpret "no meaningful content" to include "no quotes whatsoever"? Our interpretation must necessarily be different from Wikipedia's. It seems common expectation that a WP article has some basic value if it talks about the title subject, even if it seems poorly thought-out, which is why WP favors improvement of such an article over speedy deletion. But WQ gains no real value from anything that doesn't include at least one quote, although a basic intro (like a WP encyclo stub) is enough to encourage WP-like expansion, so it reasonably gets nominated for VFD in order to call attention to it. But slapping nothing but links seems to me to be of so little value that it might constitute "no meaningful content". Otherwise, is this not just another form of useless but recoverable stub, which should be VFD'd? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I would like to note my deletion of Freydis under the "no meaningful content" interpreted thusly. I would welcome feedback in case anyone thinks I have acted outside policy. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Another proposed speedy criteria
"Talk pages with nothing except flames and banter" -- see for example Talk:Avril Lavigne. Occasionally I have even deleted such pages, but now I've looked and I acted outside policy. These pages are actively detrimental, since they encourage users to engage in the flame war. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I couldn't find anything obvious in our policy after a quick search that discusses the elimination of flames and banter, but I'm certain that we've had a least an unwritten policy (based on WP guidelines) that Talk pages are for discussion about the article content, not its subject. I'd like a little time to uncover exact WP and WQ policies and figure out the precedents. Meanwhile, we have been deleting such inappropriate banter on occasion since Kalki's solo time, so we're not breaking precedents by doing so. We're still using unwritten traditions coming from a tiny-staff situation that predates the relative "explosion" of sysops back in April 2005, so we may have a little time to sort this out officially before adding yet another SD criterion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Slight correction to my above statement: I did notice that WQ:NOT includes "[Not] a discussion forum", which I interpret to mean "not for discussing anything but the article content, and that only on Talk pages". (It could perhaps use some clarification.) That doesn't make clear how we handle inappropriate discussions, but it does provide an implicit policy for not allowing them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Very short pages criterion
Case #4 in the current WQ:SD article says the following:
 * Very short pages with little or no definition or context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.").

This is a direct copy from Wikipedia, and isn't very Wikiquote-centric. A Wikiquote equivalent might be something more like this:
 * Very short pages with no quote content, and little possibility of becoming a robust article in the near future. This includes articles with nothing but links and articles about unpublished or unreleased media that have yet to provide sourceable quotes. This does not include article stubs with single quotes, which should be reviewed by VFD.

This may address some recurring problems we've had with long-term and possibly permanent stubs, including the one mentioned above in Pages with only link(s). I would differentiate this from case #1, "no meaningful content/patent nonsense", because unlike garbage and nonsense, these articles appear to be attempts to provide content, just not very appropriate content. Opinions? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I've been deleting those: Herman Hupfeld Early Doors Christopher Caudwell (politician) Mark David Chapman Surej Anwar The Austere Academy and other similar cases have all been a victim of my Speedy-Delete button. If anyone thinks I've done something wrong (even non admins -- while the original text is not viewable, the deletion comment almost always contains the original text), I would welcome feedback. I guess that means that I agree, but it might also mean that I'm a rogue admin :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Defamatory & personal contact cases
I've just speedy-deleted two VfD candidates because the content was obviously about non-notable people and contained clearly defamatory and privacy-invading statements. We do not currently have a policy on such material, but I was concerned about potential legal implications of material that could be expected to become quickly searchable given Wikiquote's high Google profile.

Wikipedia has two specific cases which I think are worth considering adding to our own (despite my usual reluctance to add SD cases): disparaging content ("insult pages") and attempts to correspond with individuals. Both of these are a form of vanity page, but have special circumstances that recommend immediate deletion. Insult pages directed at non-notables can cause legal problems on defamatory and privacy counts, and, in my opinion, are much clearer than the legal issues surrounding copyvios that we still invoke VfDs for. Pages that are obvious attempts to contact non-notables may also violate privacy issues when archived in a global search engine like Google, and are obviously not quote content.

I concede that I may be too worried about such issues. I'd like to know what the community thinks about these cases. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I must admit I had an itch to SD them, but I was stopped by not having a policy, so I whole-heartedly support an addition of policy which would allow deletion. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I initially responded at the village pump, but will restate here: I agree with the idea that pages obviously created as just a place to post invectives against acquaintances should be speedily deleted. I don't perceive that there can be any valid reasons to keep them. ~ Kalki 04:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Wholeheartedly support; I would like to add an speedy-request instruction, "if you find so-and-so recommneded, you are strongly recommended to blank it and then put tag to attract sysop attention.
 * For preventing sysop abuse, a sort of report would be recommended to invite another sysop to review the emergent deletion supposedly. --Aphaia 12:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd considered blanking the pages, but I generally don't like to do this during a VfD, since the problem material isn't visible. But I realize that my distaste is probably illogical, since (A) it's still reviewable for anyone who takes the trouble to check the history, and (B) speedy-deleting the articles as an alternative makes the material only reviewable by sysops. (This might be what's been giving me this feeling of overreaction; I'm thinking now my dislike of page-blanking is too strong.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Aphaia, could you explain what you think is useful for a "report" to help prevent abuse? Would a mandatory notification on WQ:AN be appropriate, or do you have something else in mind? I definitely would like to have something in place to encourage a prompt review by other sysop(s). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we can have a Speedy deleted for review page, where admins could add pages which they deleted, but would like review? An alternative (that I hear some support on wp) is that even a sysop is not allowed to SD a page one-sidedly: anyone can tag a page for speedy, and a sysop can delete any tagged page that he has not tagged himself. For any but the most urgent cases, I believe this would make a good policy. Any thoughts? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought a page either WQ:VFD or WQ:AN. But perhaps it was illogical to limit the case; all speedy deletion could be reviewed, though currently we rely on other sysops totally and seldom try to review their actions. At least that is my case.
 * Perhaps it is the time for us to have a set of rules about deletion/undeletion/review system, not only deletion. Currently I have no steady idea where will be the best place we deal with controversial deletions and their review.
 * Though only sysops can review the deleted materials, it is nice for all of the community can easily notice the series of action in question. Perhaps WQ:AN is not an exclusive page, WQ:AN is enough to this purpose, or a report on VFD can be archived after getting a review(s) by other sysop(s). --Aphaia 20:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Instruction decreepting
Current list is as follows:

 * 1) No meaningful content or history (eg "sdhgdf"). See patent nonsense.
 * 2) Test pages (eg "Can I really create a page here?").
 * 3) Pure vandalism (see dealing with vandalism).
 * 4) Very short pages with little or no definition or context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.").
 * 5) Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikiquote deletion policy. This does not apply to undeleted content that was undeleted according to undeletion policy.
 * 6) Pages created and edited solely by a banned user, after they were banned unless the user has been unbanned. See bans and blocks. This is slightly controversial!
 * 7) Redirects with no history which have been created by moving user pages out of the article space. (Sometimes new Wikipedians accidentally create user pages in the main article space. Move them into the user space using the "Move this page" tool to preserve their history, and consider waiting a day or two before deleting the resultant redirect.)
 * 8) Articles which have already been moved via the transwiki system.
 * 9) Deleting an image which is an exact copy of something else, redundant, and unused.
 * 10) Users requesting the deletion of their own personal subpages.

I remember there used to be a proposal in Israel that any proposed law that needs a budget should have an appendix saying where the money is supposed to come from. In the same spirit, since we are contemplating adding cases, I would like to remove cases first, to forestall instruction creep. Here is a suggested updated list, containing only the above cases, but not all, and some are merged.

 * 1) Pages which contain neither an introduction to the topic nor any quote. This handles the patent nonsense, vandalism, and the very short pages clause
 * 2) Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikiquote deletion policy. This does not apply to undeleted content that was undeleted according to undeletion policy.
 * 3) Redirects with no history which have been created by moving user pages out of the article space. (Sometimes new Wikipedians accidentally create user pages in the main article space. Move them into the user space using the "Move this page" tool to preserve their history, and consider waiting a day or two before deleting the resultant redirect.)
 * 4) Articles which have already been moved via the transwiki system.
 * 5) Users requesting the deletion of their own personal subpages.

I removed the banned user clause (we don't ban here, we only block -- banning means a person isn't allowed to come back, under any user, and edit. Since I've never seen anyone banned, the usefulness of this clause is doubtful). I also removed the image clause, which is useless ever since we disabled image uploading. I have not added any cases in the above: my aim is to lower the number of cases, so that we have more "virtual instruction room" to add more cases. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Moshe's list makes sense as a base from which to add some of the newer proposed cases, rather than just add to the existing list. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Major revision to WQ:SD
I propose a major revision to Wikiquote:Speedy deletions, to be implemented as soon as practical, in order to help resolve the outstanding issues listed above, to allow all editors to nominate more obvious speedy-deletion candidates, and to reduce the current VfD workload in order to free up time to work on all the other numerous policy issues. The basic approach would be this: These are broad outlines. I plan to spend some time in the next week or so working on Speedy deletions/Draft to flesh this out, but I would really appreciate suggestions and thoughts. (I recommend they be posted here, not on the draft's talk page, because the latter currently has no discussions, and I think it will be better to copy an approved draft into the existing article and post its edit history on this talk page, than to replace the current policy with the draft page, losing all previous edits.) I am going to try to drive this quickly, as we have considerable experience here with policy initiatives that just peter out without such a drive. We really need this update! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Start with MosheZadka's reduced case list above.
 * Add appropriate items from w:Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, including (but not necessarily limited to) attack pages, unremarkable people or groups, and copyright violations.
 * Revise all cases with Wikiquote-specific wording and examples.
 * Tag each case so that it can be linked to by editors citing specific cases (and include information on how to cite, either with instructions or templates).

 * Okay, I've made a huge revision to "The cases" section. It has unfortunately increased the number of actual cases considerably, but they are now broken into specific types of pages (like Wikipedia's list), so it's a little easier to sift through them. I decided to recommend these Wikiquote-tweaked versions of WP cases because the closer we adhere to WP practices, the less controversy we will generate. Furthermore, many of the new WP cases address growing problems at Wikiquote as well, which suffers even more because of the dearth of administrators, who not only must execute SDs, but also must do a lot of support work for the VFDs created for pages that previously haven't been speedy-deletable.

 * I recommend that if anyone wants to discuss a specific case, they should create a new topic for it here. I anticipate that at least a few cases may generate significant discussion, and we don't want to mix up all the different discussions under just this current heading. Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages?
The draft currently does not mention talk pages at all. I think we need at least two cases: Also, a minor point but I believe the cases should be numbered so we can talk about G1, A3, R1 etc. as a reason for CSD like in WP. jni 13:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) orphaned talk pages (that do not contain significant discussions about deletion/notability/copyright) like Wikipedia rule G8.
 * 2) MosheZadka's "only banter and flames" suggestion. See above on this page.

 * The problem with numbers is that whenever a case is added or deleted, any discussions citing those numbers no longer make sense. I've been citing WQ:SD case numbers for the past year, and this revision will break every one of them. This would happen if we adopted WP's method as well. The only way to minimize the impact is to give each case a short name. This has the additional benefit of not being cryptic, which is important when dealing with newer editors, who are the most frequent contributors to speedy-deletable pages. One of the things I really don't like about Wikipedia is that the wizened policy editors have a tendency to forget the general audience and to write more like programmers than prose authors, despite the fact that policy is supposed to be read and understood by all. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I remembering thinking about how to fit the talk page case in, but I obviously forgot to complete the thought. ☺ I've just added it to the "general" cases. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Flame and banter talk pages
Jni suggests above that we include MosheZadka's recommendation to delete talk pages that include nothing but flame wars and banter. (MZ's banter example comes from an earlier version of Talk:Avril Lavigne; a full flame war isn't hard to imagine.) Even though this content is undesirable, I'm not sure this is a good case for speedy deletion. Wikipedia's current guidelines on talk page usage suggest that the community there isn't completely behind disallowing general discussion of a subject. ("Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject" isn't exactly a forceful statement.) My own WP experience in advising chatters to stay on-topic about the article, not the subject, tends to confirm this mild ambivalence, at least when the chatter isn't significant. I'm also a little uncomfortable with the apparent lack of similar policy at w:Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and how open to interpretation "flaming" and "bantering" might be. However, if we can make a concise statement that follows a general WP practice, I'd be likely to support it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should really be covered under speedy deletion. I'm not really sure if pages like that should be deleted at all, or just archived away by an administrator. The line from the Talk pages guideline ("Wikiquotians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject", emphasis mine) seems to leave wiggle room in saying that while talk pages shouldn't be just banter/flames (or "partisan talk"), it doesn't say they can't (i.e., it's a strong suggestion, but not a rule). If banter or a flame war were to become a valid reason for speedy deletion, I'd at least like to see that particular part of the talk page guideline tightened up. —LrdChaos 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping
I think my tendency toward pedantry must have mede me split WP's "housekeeping" case into needlessly individual cases. I've replaced 2 existing "general" cases with the WP housekeeping case, which is just as appropriate for Wikiquote (and includes 1 specific case I missed). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy renaming of categories
Something seems wrong with the grammar for the first sentence of "Speedy renaming of categories." Right now, it's "Empty categories that have qualify for speedy renaming under the following guidelines:", and I just can't seem to parse that out. Also, assuming that the "empty" qualifier is meant to be there, wouldn't anything for that be first matched by the "empty category" rule? —LrdChaos 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I've fixed two problems with this copy of a WP policy. First was a typo; the correct sentence begins "Empty categories that have qualified", which makes sense. Second, I noted that we're talking about old, incorrect category names, and that the pages in the category should be transferred to the new name before deleting. In other words, categories SD'ed under this rule will typically start out non-empty, but be emptied after a category renaming and before the speedy deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirects created from page-move vandalism
Should a case be added for redirects created as the result of page-moving vandalism? Under the current guidelines, it seems like such a thing would fall under "Pure vandalism", but with the proposed cases, the two applicable cases would be General:Housekeeping or Redirects:Redirect of implausible typo, it's not clear that either of those actually covers the situation. —LrdChaos 18:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I should think that the "vandalism" aspect of the "nonsense" case under "General" is sufficient. We could probably say something like "vandalism (including redirects from vandalistic page moves)", but I don't see a need to be so specific. I don't want to encourage vandals to come up with ever more clever forms of vandalism that force us into rule creep. To mangle an expression, if it quacks like a vandal, its edits and moves should treated as vandalism. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That makes sense, once I read "content" as also including the title, which I hadn't originally. Any thoughts about when the new policy might become more than a draft? —LrdChaos 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * About a month ago, or so I'd hoped. I'd planned to finalize this quickly, but I've been dawdling about proposing a specific timeframe. I think it's time now to announce an imminent switch to the version in the draft in, say, 2 weeks, giving some time for last-minute comments. But I first want to make one more pass over the existing comments, tweak anything that needs it, and then make announcements and direct comments for the change on several commonly watched pages, so that we have a good-faith effort to involve the community. But I usually spend several hours prepping such stuff, and I've only been getting to quick things on the wikis lately. I'll try to tackle this in the next 2 days. If I haven't by then, I couldn't blame you you or someone else for getting impatient with me and forging ahead anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"No content" clause
In the VfD discussion for "Kyle XY" (which, eventually, will be archived here), Jeffq mentioned, under the new criteria of this draft, an article with no quotes would be speedy-deleteable. I checked the draft criteria yesterday, and it doesn't seem like the "no content" clause could be used in a case like that, where the article had an introduction, but contained no quotes. However, the phrasing of the clause ("Articles which contain neither an introduction to the topic nor any quote.") appears not to apply when an introduction, but no quotes, are present.

Would it be a good idea to include a "no quotes" section, either as a new criteria or by changing the way the "no content" clause is defined? —LrdChaos 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, nobody responded directly to this point, so as I implement the new WQ:SD shortly, I'll leave the existing text in place. I would suggest that, however tempting it may be to axe quoteless articles with an intro, Wikiquote might conceivably be better served if we nominated such an article for deletion and give folks a few days to scare up some quotes. We'll see how it goes in the upcoming trial run of the new SD. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring this up again; I think that with the new draft in place, a couple of pages have been speedied as "no quotes", and right now there's a page that has an introduction but no quotes (which brought me over here to check the exact wording, and then back to this discussion). I think it's a perfectly reasonable position for us to take that an article has to have at least one quote in order to not be deleted on sight; if the quote is inane, or wrong, or whatever, then the page can be taken to VFD. I think that it's clear that the point of Wikiquotes, and a page with no quotes has no place here. (That said, it's important to make sure that when the page you see has no quotes, it isn't just because someone blanked the quotes.) —LrdChaos (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the draft

 * 1) Sounds great to me! Good work Jeff! Essjay Talk • Contact 10:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Awesome. Among the new criteria I love to see "Unremarkable subject" specially. (BTW, we need to "copyvio" now?) --Aphaia 10:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) * I think we do need copyvio, but that's a big topic to bite off, and I didn't want it to slow down all the other critical SD revision. For now, I'm informally blanking obvious copyvios and including a history link on the article page (and VfD nomination, if there is one) to prevent search-engine caching while making it easy for readers to examine the evidence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) ** I see. And totally agree with you on that we are better to shift to the newer one, even if it lacks copyvio section. By the way, a derivative thought has come to me since before. Soon we have speedy candidates from the wider areas than before (or now) and a potential danger of controvercies around the validation of such verdicts done by a sysop would increase (it is phenomena that I have seen on many big projects; battlefield of deletionists vs inclusionists). So I presume now the time has come we need a new policy on Undelete pages? --Aphaia 10:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) *** Most definitely. Undelete is long overdue. At the moment, the only recourse folks have that I've been suggesting is posting complaints to WQ:AN. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Major deletion revision
I've just posted a summary of imminent bold actions I intend to take, along the lines of the above discussions, at Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy. Briefly, they are:

 * Update Speedy deletions with the text of Speedy deletions/Draft for a 1-month trial period, per Aphaia's suggestion above.

 * Update Votes for deletion to reflect the new archive process and a 7-day "lag time". The lag time will be phased in starting 14 September, per my suggestion.

 * Create a simplified Deletion review page similar to Wikipedia's, grouping by year instead of date.

 * Update Deletion policy to reflect all the changes.

Please review the detailed explanation at WQt:DP and comment there, so these actions (and any tweaks) can be more easily coordinated and implemented. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, folks! We are now operating under a completely revised speedy-deletion policy, verbatim from the current draft version, with the following exceptions:
 * It is tagged as a trial policy, which I've defined as "official during the trial period". (Please examine Trial policy to see if my wording is acceptable.)
 * It omits the proposed "Copyright violation" case, exactly as the draft recommends. Here is the omitted case:
 * It has a reworded note preceding the case descriptions which better fits a live policy.
 * Oh, and I fixed a capitalization typo (Administrators → administrators) in the first paragraph.
 * Oh, and I fixed a capitalization typo (Administrators → administrators) in the first paragraph.

I think that we should probably make further changes to the live policy, not the draft, as this is a trial period. I invite discussion on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Major update to deletion policy
I have just done a major update to Deletion policy to accomodate the accumulated changes of the past 17 months. It is still marked as a policy under revision, so I invite everyone to discuss these changes at Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbering cases
Aphaia has just added a set of numbers to the cases, much like w:Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion uses, and as jni recommended above at Talk pages?. I've argued (also at "Talk pages?"; see that for details) that we should stick with named cases. Let me summarize some pros and cons: There may be more advantages and disadvantages; I ask everyone to think about this a bit. I'm pretty sure that, if we decide we do want numbers, we can add a second label tag to make links like WQ:SD work, on top of the name links. Of course, if we decide the names aren't desirable, we can get rid of those as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PRO numbering
 * Shorter! "A3" is definitely easier to write than "Attack page", especially in edit summaries and deletion log comments.
 * Follows WP's general practice, even if not in exact numbering.
 * CON numbering
 * Harder to remember.
 * Harder for non-sysops to understand. (WQ:SD is at least a little self-documenting.)
 * Old discussion links will cease to make sense when cases are renumbered (as has just happened with this update).
 * Our numbers are, and probably always will be, somewhat different from WP, causing confusion.

"No content" vs. "No meaningful content"
It looks like one of the things we lost in going to this new policy is the "no meaningful content" clause, which isn't present here. I know that some people (myself included) have continued to delete some pages with that justification, but it doesn't seem like the policy would support deleting some of these pages, which may have one or more meaningless quotes (but quotes nonetheless) and no introduction. The problem is that the quotes themselves would not be considered patent nonsense; they use actual words, and are sometimes actual sentences, but often have no association with the page title (as an example, I recently deleted a page titled "YTMND"; it's content was: "Do a barrel roll!" -Peppy Hare, "STAR FOX 64", Nintnedo 64, 1997    For some reason, this is a popular fad going on right now on the net. Not sure why the hell it would be, but...yeah.

actually, this is a meme from 4chan :eng101: It's nonsense, certainly, but doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense.

Looking back at the old policy, there wasn't much in the way of description for what qualified for speedy deletion, but the very name of the case gave it broad application that our current "no content" clause lacks, both in name and in definition. Wikipedia's CSD A1 seems to be the sort of thing that we could use; our current "no content" clause appears to be derived from that (using a fundametally similar example). —LrdChaos (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It was derived from WP's A1 case. I shortened the name to make it easier to type, especially as we now have a more detailed explanation of what it covers, which includes several kinds of useless content. This goes back to my reluctance to use the inscrutable "A1"-style designations that also forces us to watch numbering and links as we make changes. But I'm not against restoring the old wording. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It just seems to me that the current description specifically excludes this sort of situation. The "neither an introduction to the topic nor any quote" part means that you can only delete a page if it lacks an intro and also lacks quotes; "a variety of non-article text" (the phrasing of which could probably be tweaked a bit; what constitutes "article text" when the page contents are quotes?) seems to mean that pages without any quotes can be deleted, which I suppose covers pages with no quotes. What follows that in parens seems to almost contradict this, however, as simply putting quotes to a page implicity represents "attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title." We might need to deviate more from Wikipedia, in phrasing at least, because of the inherent differences in missions and content; I'll try to work up some suggestions for changes in the next few days. —LrdChaos (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Trial period results
Well, it's been slightly more than 1 month since we switched to the new speedy-deletion policies. Since we billed this as a trial period, we should review how things have gone in that time and decide how we want to proceed. I would suggest one of three paths, but I don't claim these are the only ones: Since I've been pushing all of this, I'd like to get everyone else's opinions before commenting further. (Or maybe I'm just chickening out. ☺) Comments? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Revert to the old policy. This doesn't preclude making subsequent changes, but they'd go back to individual discussions instead of the coordinated mass-change.
 * 2) Accept the new policy. This also doesn't mean we can't discuss further changes, but they would start from the new situation.
 * 3) Extend the trial period. We may want to take more time to consider the major changes as a group.

 * I think we can accept the new policy, though there are a couple of possible changes in the near future that recently came up (most notably, the "real" limiter for the "unremarkable subject" clause, and maybe making "no content" more clear as to "no meaningful content). —LrdChaos (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've copied two related postings by 121a0012 and Fys from Wikiquote talk: Votes for deletion below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We've now had a couple of months' experience with this new policy, and it seems to be doing the job. I suggest it's time to make it permanent.  121a0012 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Seems to have caused no new problems while solving many old ones. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed this policy revision very carefully, but I'd go with accepting the new version. jni 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Unless we get some reasonable objections, I propose we remove the "draft" status at or after 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (approximately 1 week from this post). Perhaps this will also encourage us to tackle the subsequent issues, as LrdChaos mentioned. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Per Jeff's suggestion, and hearing no opposition, I have marked the policy as adopted, official, and in force. Essjay ( Talk )  07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rule for single-quote pages
Add in the "articles" section:

 * 5. Single-quote page. An article containing only a single quotation, the title of which is the same as, or nearly the same as, that quote, may be speedily deleted.  Such article titles are not likely to be typed in the same way more than once, and a search engine can find the quotation no matter which article it is in.  If the quotation is worth preserving (from a notable source, original, and not already present in the Wikiquote collection), it should be copied to an appropriate person or theme page prior to speedy deletion.

Comments? 121a0012 03:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Two:
 * I would say "… appropriate person, creative work, or theme page…".
 * We might recommend that if the quote is legit and has at least an attribution, the sysop SD'ing it check to see if it's been copied to such an article before axing it, and/or that whoever does copy it include a credit to the article creator in the edit summary. (That is, if we could somehow say all this without turning it into an essay instead of a simple case description.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to "unremarkable subject" case
A few times now (well, at least twice that I can recall), speedy deletion on the grounds of "unremarkable subject" has been proposed for pages that don't meet the criteria for that ("a real person, group of people, band, or club"). In one case, the subject was a fictional character, and in another, an apparently user-created Google video. In the first case, it was pretty clear from the outset that the subject was indeed not notable; the second (which at this time is still an open discussion) appears to be heading the same way.

Considering these cases, and I strongly suspect there will be others, would it worthwhile to eliminate the "real person, group of people, band, or club" criteria for the "unremarkable subject" case and make such a speedy deletion option available to any subject that doesn't claim or seem to have notability? I think it might be a good idea; I can't think of any problems that might arise as a result of such a change. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely support this change. As far as I can see, notability should be proven for anything that is in wikiquote -- otherwise someone could use this loophole to put up a page for a fictional character that was created out of thin air (and is obviously not notable). ~ UDScott 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I support this, but with a caveat: we really ought to establish some policy for disagreements that arise. We sysops can make mistakes, and there is no universal, unambiguous standard for notability or non-notability. It's inevitable that we will occasionally overreach. Therefore, we should have a protest mechanism that's a little more organized than posting to the closing/deleting sysop (or another one) or to Administrators' noticeboard. We've been talking about implementing a Deletion review, but haven't done so yet. I've been trying to summon the focus to make a draft of this, but I'm afraid I'm taking much longer than expected to regain my enthusiasm for serious work. Does anyone else want to take a pass at this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, as of May 2007, we have Deletion review, even as draft and no deletion has been reviewed yet. --Aphaia 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of "no quotes" clause
Something I've mentioned a few times on WQ:VFD and brought up when this was a draft policy is adding a clause for deleting articles with no quotes. The current "no content" clause specifies that pages lacking an intro AND quotes can be speedy deleted, and I think it's very clear that it doesn't permit the speedy deletion of pages with an intro but no quotes. I propose that we either add a "no quotes" clause, or rephrase "no content" to include pages without quotes. I have some proposed wording for a new "no quotes" clause:
 * No quotes. Articles which may contain an introduction, but do not contain any quotes. This does not apply to pages where quotes are present but their accuracy disputed, nor to pages from which quotes have been removed.

I'm sure that could stand a bit of refining before going "live", but I think it works at getting the point across: it's OK to delete a page with no quotes, as long as it's always been a page with no quotes. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this policy change, LrdChaos. I think this would be useful in weeding out some of the useless pages without unneccesarily burdening us with multiple VFDs. ~ UDScott 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. 121a0012 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to support this, but only if we come up with a practical system of holding off at least a week on new articles. We're getting more not-unreasonable objections to our habit of deleting (or nominating for deletion) new articles within hours — sometimes minutes — of their creation. We do this for practical reasons (namely, that we find these new articles through mechanisms like "recent changes" that only show the latest stuff, and there are precious few of us working on it), but I'm concerned that we're beginning to risk alienating potentially valuable contributors by our exigency-driven haste.

 * By "practical system", I mean something that allow RC patrollers to tag an article for review in a week or so, but only if we have folks who are going to actually do the reviews. I'm worried that if we make a practice of tagging articles with a "no content" template, we might not get enough people to take the next step and SD or VfD the articles after a short delay. (I'm not encouraged by the results so far of 121a0012's Category:Wikiquote no intro cleanup campaign; I suspect we're adding no-intros almost as fast as we remove them.) Can we do this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know that I'd support a week, but I would support some period of waiting and watching (perhaps something like three days). I agree that sometimes we're a bit overzealous in deleting or nominating for deletion when a new page is created, but at the same time, I don't want to foster the idea that it's OK for someone to drop in, create a page with only an intro, and then not bother adding any of the important content, namely quotes. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jeffq and User:LrdChaos. BTW, the no-intro business isn't me -- I think it was started by MosheZadka.  Here's a proposed restatement of the proposal:
 * No quotes. Articles which may contain an introduction, but do not contain any quotes, and are at least three days old. This does not apply to pages where quotes are present but their accuracy disputed, nor to pages from which quotes have been removed.
 * As far as how to handle marking these, I'd suggest something like this: put a template on the talk page of every new article that puts it into a category Category:Pages for review from Month, YYYY. After an article has passed its "probationary period" and proved to be real, remove the tag and/or delete the talk page.  (It would be nice if MediaWiki provided a more direct mechanism to do this automatically, since all it takes is a database query to find out when the article was created.)  121a0012 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, 121a0012 — when I said "cleanup campaign", I was talking about your recent suggestion at WQ:VP to work on no-intro, not the original organization, and I appreciate that you called attention to the problem. Anyway, although I'd prefer at least a week, I'd agree that 3 days would at least give new editors some time and reduce the likelihood of targeting active articles vs. "abandoned" ones. I'm not sure I see a point to a category by month if we're only delaying further action by three days or even a week, though. If we don't have sufficient ongoing editor-time to remove articles from an overall Category:Pages for review within a few days (either by SD/VfD tagging or content addition), we shouldn't be doing this delay step. If we do have the editor attention, monthly categories would only generate ultimately leftover maintenance pages. If this system is to work, I'd expect it to have only a modest number of articles at any given time in the category that editors can review (like we do "recent changes" or "new articles") to swiftly tag, de-tag, or (for sysops) speedy-delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I deleted a no-quote article and found A1 says only "Articles which contain neither an introduction to the topic nor any quote." So "no quote but bio only" doesn't met our criteria of speedy deletion! (You may undelete my deletions, of course). I would also support to include this clause to Article part. --Aphaia 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support the addition of this as a case for speedy deletion. A recent example was an article (Formiline) where the only content was an encyclopedic description of aindustrial company in Brazil. While the content was not nonsense and was meaningful, the page still does not belong here since it contained no quotes. These kinds of pages I think should be deleted on sight (which I did - although Aphaia called me on it since 'no quotes' is not yet an acceptable reason for deletion), but I also understand the need for a waiting period before deleting some pages that may or may not become viable pages as people add to them. In this case, I think that was highly unlikely, but I can see it for some people pages in particular. ~ UDScott 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would just have liked you to pay attention to this discussion, UDScott, and the article you deleted seems to have no possibility to be expanded in a foreseeable future in my impression. It is okay with me - but I don't want to let this discussion die out.
 * Reviewing the whole discussion, I found there are two versions proposed, say
 * No quotes. Articles which may contain an introduction, but do not contain any quotes. This does not apply to pages where quotes are present but their accuracy disputed, nor to pages from which quotes have been removed.
 * No quotes. Articles which may contain an introduction, but do not contain any quotes, and are at least three days old. This does not apply to pages where quotes are present but their accuracy disputed, nor to pages from which quotes have been removed.
 * So we need to determine which version we are going to apply. I am afraid it becomes a burden for us to keep them at least three days, besides it may mean we need to make a limbo    for those articles (perhaps as a category), keeping them would make the project look crappy. So I rather prefer the version 1.  --Aphaia 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 * It sounds like we might be considering a Wikiquote version of w:Template:Prod, Wikipedia's means of tagging articles that aren't obvious SD candidates but are so sub-standard that they can be deleted if there are no objections after a few days. This has the additional benefit of warning the creator of the imminent deletion, especially if we adopt WP's recommendation to notify the article creator on their talk page. I'm not prepared to set up and test a prod system right now, but if someone else wanted to do this, I'd probably support it. If not, I'm still a bit uncomfortable about summary deletions of non-quote articles that have potential, but I might not oppose it if there is a strong consensus to implement the simpler SD case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a Prod system here as well - it would be a very effective middle position between speedies and full-out deletion debates. BD2412 T 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, JeffQ. WP Prod system looks well-designed and a sensible solution. I'd love to test it. --Aphaia 08:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See Proposed deletion It is now almost a bare copy of Wikipedia version, and need your further cleanup. I listed up relevant pages on my user page (User:Aphaia/Prod). There are a lots of templates etc on our sister project, but I expect we don't need all of them for now, even they are nifty.

We have to determine how many days we allow those prod pages to survive; three days as JeffQ suggested, or the equal length of VfD as Wikipedia does. But it would be better to discuss on Wikiquote talk:Proposed deletion. --Aphaia 10:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

New criterion
We should have a criterion for "obvious hoax" that is not quite nonsense.--Poetlister 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And "quotes" from something before it is released? -- Herby talk thyme 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, under articles: 5. Unreleased material. This includes films not yet released, and especially pre-release material illicitly available.

Tyrenius 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


text:
User:Jeffq/Admin shortcuts

Cleanup

 * Categories: [ list all] … [ pgs needing ] … (Moshe's) … [ cats needing] … Schemes … Tree
 * Films: cleanup … stubs … List
 * People: cleanup … stubs … List
 * Television: cleanup … stubs … List
 * Wikiquote: cleanup … stubs
 * Misc: no-intro
 * AWB: tips

Major changes

 * Additions: Input boxes … Barlett's index
 * Deletions: SD … VfD … Log … VfDA … Contribs
 * NEW Deletions: VfD log - VFDA talk: repair
 * Modifications: Requested mergers … Requested moves
 * Transwiki: Incoming … Outgoing … Log
 * Policy: PolRev proj … Official … Drafts … To be revised … To be expanded

Monitoring

 * Pages: [ Anons] … [ New] … [ Old] … [ Short] … [ Long] … [ Orphans] … [ Wanted]
 * Images: CheckUsage
 * Lists: [ Block list] - [ My watchlist (all)] - [ New users] - System log - Protected titles
 * Assistance: VP - RD - Welcome - AN - RFA - CU
 * QotD: Jan - Feb - Mar - Apr - May - Jun - Jul - Aug - Sep - Oct - Nov - Dec - Today's

Miscellaneous info

 * Templates: Help … List … Messages
 * Special:Allpages (flexible searching) … Quick index (Allpgs by 1st 2 letters)
 * Sitenotice … Recentchangestext
 * Q all stats … En Q stats … Erik's table … Erik's chart … Q maint … Username list
 * Reference desk: My research
 * Synchronizing styles between WP & WQ: MediaWiki:Common.css … wikistandard.css … monobook/main.css

Useful Foundation pages

 * CU: m:Help:CheckUser — CheckUser policy — Privacy policy — RfCU
 * Designated copyright agent
 * Fundraising
 * Resolutions: Licensing policy
 * Foundation-l: Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies

A nod to Aphaia for giving me the idea.

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

title: User:Jeffq/Admin shortcuts


text:
Maxim Gorky

Aleksei Maksimovich Peshkov [Алексей Максимович Пешков] (28 March 1868 [16 March O.S. ] - 14 June 1936), known primarily by his pen name, Maxim Gorky [Максим Горький], was a Russian writer and socialist political thinker. He was nominated five times for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Quotes

 * There's a little book I'm thinking of writing — "Swan Song" is what I shall call it. The song of the dying. And my book will be incense burnt at the deathbed of this society, damned with the damnation of its own impotence.
 * Foma Gordeyev (1899) [also translated as The Man Who Was Afraid; the English music group Led Zeppelin would later name their record label "Swan Song".

 * The good qualities in our soul are most successfully and forcefully awakened by the power of art. Just as science is the intellect of the world, art is its soul.
 * Untimely Thoughts (1917-18) (original: Наиболее успешно и могуче будит в нашей душе ее добрые начала  сила искусства. Как наука является разумом мира, так искусство — сердце его.)

 * Everybody, my friend, everybody lives for something better to come. That's why we want respect for every man — who knows what's in him, why he was born and what he can do?
 * The Lower Depths (1902)

 * Some one has to be kind, girl — some one has to pity people! Christ pitied everybody — and he said to us: "Go and do likewise!" I tell you — if you pity a man when he most needs it, good comes of it. Why — I used to be a watchman on the estate of an engineer near Tomsk — all right — the house was right in the middle of a forest — lonely place — winter came — and I remained all by myself. Well — one night I heard a noise — thieves creeping in! I took my gun — I went out. I looked and saw two of them opening a window — and so busy that they didn't even see me. I yell: "Hey there — get out of here!" And they turn on me with their axes — I warn them to stand back, or I'd shoot — and as I speak, I keep on covering them with my gun, first on the one, then the other — they go down on their knees, as if to implore me for mercy. And by that time I was furious — because of those axes, you see — and so I say to them: "I was chasing you, you scoundrels — and you didn't go. Now you go and break off some stout branches!" — and they did so — and I say: "Now — one of you lie down and let the other one flog him!" So they obey me and flog each other — and then they began to implore me again. "Grandfather," they say, "for God's sake give us some bread! We're hungry!" There's thieves for you, my dear! [Laughs.] And with an ax, too! Yes — honest peasants, both of them! And I say to them, "You should have asked for bread straight away!" And they say: "We got tired of asking — you beg and beg — and nobody gives you a crumb — it hurts!" So they stayed with me all that winter — one of them, Stepan, would take my gun and go shooting in the forest — and the other, Yakoff, was ill most of the time — he coughed a lot . . . and so the three of us together looked after the house . . . then spring came . . . "Good-bye, grandfather," they said — and they went away — back home to Russia . . . escaped convicts — from a Siberian prison camp . . . honest peasants! If I hadn't felt sorry for them — they might have killed me — or maybe worse — and then there would have been a trial and prison and afterwards Siberia — what's the sense of it? Prison teaches no good — and Siberia doesn't either — but another human being can . . . yes, a human being can teach another one kindness — very simply!
 * The character "Luka" in The Lower Depths (1902) English translation by Laurence Irving (1912)

 * There — you say — truth! Truth doesn't always heal a wounded soul. For instance, I knew of a man who believed in a land of righteousness. He said: "Somewhere on this earth there must be a righteous land — and wonderful people live there — good people! They respect each other, help each other, and everything is peaceful and good!" And so that man — who was always searching for this land of righteousness — he was poor and lived miserably — and when things got to be so bad with him that it seemed there was nothing else for him to do except lie down and die — even then he never lost heart — but he'd just smile and say: "Never mind! I can stand it! A little while longer — and I'll have done with this life — and I'll go in search of the righteous land!" — it was his one happiness — the thought of that land. And then to this place — in Siberia, by the way — there came a convict — a learned man with books and maps — yes, a learned man who knew all sorts of things — and the other man said to him: "Do me a favor — show me where is the land of righteousness and how I can get there." At once the learned man opened his books, spread out his maps, and looked and looked and he said — no — he couldn't find this land anywhere . . . everything was correct — all the lands on earth were marked — but not this land of righteousness. The man wouldn't believe it. . . . "It must exist," he said, "look carefully. Otherwise," he says, "your books and maps are of no use if there's no land of righteousness." The learned man was offended. "My plans," he said, "are correct. But there exists no land of righteousness anywhere." Well, then the other man got angry. He'd lived and lived and suffered and suffered, and had believed all the time in the existence of this land — and now, according to the plans, it didn't exist at all. He felt robbed! And he said to the learned man: "Ah — you scum of the earth! You're not a learned man at all — but just a damned cheat!" — and he gave him a good wallop in the eye — then another one . . . [After a moment's silence.] And then he went home and hanged himself.
 * The character "Luka" in The Lower Depths (1902) English translation by Laurence Irving (1912)

 * One has to be able to count, if only so that at fifty one doesn't marry a girl of twenty.
 * The Zykovs (1914)

 * Processing the human raw material is naturally more complicated than processing lumber.
 * The I.V.Stalin White Sea - Baltic Sea Canal (1934)

 * If anyone want to become a socialist in a hurry, he should come to the United States.
 * American Sketches

 * It is quiet and peaceful here, the air is good, there are numerous gardens, and in them nightingales sing and spies lurk under the bushes.
 * Letter to Anton Chekhov

Quotes about Gorky

 * It was typical of hundreds held throughout Italy. In no other country was sympathy with the victims of Tsarism so widespread. After 1905, when Maxim Gorki, already one of the world's most famous literary figures, was delegated to raise funds in the United States for the Russian victims, his total collections amounted to one-third of what I obtained among the Italian workers and peasants who lived under conditions which would have seemed unbearable to most American workers. Gorki's mission was marked with sensational incidents. He was refused admission to a New York hotel where he attempted to register with the Russian actress, Andreyeva, with whom he had been living for some time, and American conservatives started a vicious scandal-mongering campaign against him. A relationship which was accepted as a matter of course in Europe placed too much strain upon the American bourgeois conscience. Even Mark Twain joined the chorus against him, a chorus which was answered by the many radicals and intellectuals who rallied to his defence.
 * Angelica Balabanoff My Life As a Rebel (1938)

 * A time will come when people will forget Gorky’s works, but he himself will hardly be forgotten even in a thousand years.
 * Anthon Chekhov

 * Yevgeni Chirikov's play Yevrei (1904; Die Juden, 1904) was also an attack on antisemitism, as were the numerous short stories and newspaper articles by Vladimir Korolenko and Maxim Gorki, who warmly championed Russia's Jews, particularly the poor ones.
 * Maurice Friedberg, "Encyclopedia Judaica: Russian Literature"

 * "As an old revolutionist you must know that revolution is a grim and relentless task. Our poor Russia, backward and crude, her masses, steeped in centuries of ignorance and darkness, brutal and lazy beyond any other people in the world!" I gasped at his sweeping indictment of the entire Russian people. His charge was terrible, if true, I told him. It was also rather novel. No Russian writer had ever spoken in such terms before. He, Maxim Gorki, was the first to advance such a peculiar view, and the first not to put all the blame upon the blockade, the Denikins and Kolchaks. Somewhat irritated, he replied that the "romantic conception of our great literary genuises" had entirely misrepresented the Russian and had wrought no end of evil. The Revolution had dispelled the bubble of the goodness and naïveté of the peasantry. It had proved them shrewd, avaricious, and lazy, even savage in their joy of causing pain. The rôle played by the counter-revolutionary Yudeniches, he added, was too obvious to need special emphasis. That is why he had not considered it necessary even to mention them, nor the intelligentsia, which had been talking revolution for over fifty years and then was the first to stab it in the back with sabotage and conspiracies. But all these were contributory factors, not the main cause. The roots were inherent in Russia's brutal and uncivilized masses, he said. They have no cultural traditions, no social values, no respect for human rights and life. They cannot be moved by anything except coercion and force. All through the ages the Russians had known nothing else.
 * Emma Goldman Living My Life (1931)

 * Ilyich (Lenin) liked Gorky the man, with whom he had become closely acquainted at the London Congress of the Party, and he liked Gorky the artist; he said that Gorky the artist was capable of grasping things instantly. With Gorky he always spoke very frankly.
 * Nadezhda Krupskaya "Reminiscences of Lenin by His Relatives" (1956)

 * I heard Gorky speak before a big union meeting. I could not understand what he said, but I could see that he was inspired by the crowd and the occasion, that he loved the workers deeply, and that they loved him. He looked as I thought he would, like a peasant. When I met him afterwards, he asked me about America, and whether we were still reading his books. I told him how much his Mother meant to me, and to many other Americans.
 * Ella Reeve Bloor We Are Many: An Autobiography (1940)

 * "proletarian" origins became a valuable commodity in Russian literature following Maxim Gorky's forceful autobiography
 * Ruth Wisse The Modern Jewish Canon (2000)

title: Maxim Gorky


text: User:Rossami

title: User:Rossami


text:
User talk:Rossami

I do almost all my work in Wikipedia. Comments will reach me most quickly there.

title: User talk:Rossami


text:
Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Joseph Leo Mankiewicz (February 11, 1909 – February 5, 1993) was a Hollywood screenwriter, director and producer.

Quotes

 * I am never quite sure whether I am one of the cinema's elder statesmen or just the oldest whore on the beat.
 * Time magazine (September 14, 1970)

 * I have a lot to be sad about. Not bitter in any way.  But I think it can be fairly said that I've been in on the beginning, the rise, peak, collapse and end of the talking picture.
 * "Joseph Mankiewicz, Master of the Movies," interview by Paul Attanasio, The Washington Post (June 1, 1986)

 * I got a job at Metro and went in to see Louis Mayer, who told me he wanted me to be a producer. I said I wanted to write and direct. He said, "No, you have to produce first, you have to crawl before you can walk." Which is as good a definition of producing as I ever heard.
 * Quoted in Leslie Halliwell, Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies, 15th edition (Harper Collins, 2003, ISBN 0-060-53423-0, p. 312

 * Every screenwriter worthy of the name has already directed his film when he has written his script.
 * Quoted in Leslie Halliwell, Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies, 15th edition (Harper Collins, 2003, ISBN 0-060-53423-0, p. 312

title: Joseph L. Mankiewicz


text: User:Vikreykja~enwikiquote

title: User:Vikreykja~enwikiquote


text:
Talk:Robert Browning

Transwiki merge
I added the "less is more" quote excerpt of "Andrea del Sarto" from Transwiki:Less is more. Here is that article's edit history:

This page was transwikied from en.wikipedia.org. List of contributors: 216.177.2.140 02:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * [2004-09-28T12:27:57Z] Abelson
 * [2004-09-28T12:33:33Z] Abelson
 * [2004-10-06T21:35:08Z] Poccil ( cleanup; substub )
 * [2004-12-05T04:04:09Z] 140.209.105.121
 * [2004-12-06T05:38:24Z] GTBacchus ( quote is by Robert Browning, context, minimalist reference )

The Transwiki article will now be listed for deletion. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

grow old (along) with me?
Most of the internet sources have the Rabbi Ben Ezra poem starting as Grow old along with me!, but I've seen another version (and often when the line is considered a single line "quote") that doesn't have the along, i.e. just Grow old with me!. I assume the former version is correct -- any ideas where the latter comes from? 98.245.113.96 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Browning


text:
Bertie Ahern

Bartholomew Patrick "Bertie" Ahern (born 12 September 1951) is an Irish former Fianna Fáil politician who served as Taoiseach from 1997 to 2008, Leader of Fianna Fáil from 1994 to 2008, Leader of the Opposition from 1994 to 1997, Tánaiste and Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht from November 1994 to December 1994, Deputy Leader of Fianna Fáil from 1992 to 1994, Minister for Industry and Commerce in January 1993, Minister for Finance from 1991 to 1994, Minister for Labour from 1987 to 1991, Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at the Department of Defence from March 1982 to December 1982 and Lord Mayor of Dublin from 1986 to 1987. He served as a Teachta Dála (TD) from 1977 to 2011.

Ahern is the second longest-serving Taoiseach after Éamon de Valera, and presided over three coalition governments. He was initially popular for the high economic growth during his tenure and his success negotiating the Good Friday Agreement establishing power-sharing in Northern Ireland. However, his support declined after the Great Recession severely impacted Ireland when the subprime mortgage crisis burst the Irish property bubble. He resigned in favor of Brian Cowen after the Mahon Tribunal began investigating him for corruption.

Quotes

 * The reason it's on the rise is because probably the boom times are getting even more boomer.
 * commenting on rising inflation in the Irish economy. – The Irish Times newspaper article, 14 July, 2006.

 * "I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit suicide"
 * commenting on people "talking the economy down", just before the crash. Speech at Irish Congress of Trade Unions conference 2007-07-3.

 * Time magazine reported him as speaking of "upsetting the apple tart".
 * Mr. Popularity Time magazine. 2007-04-26.

 * I never condemn wrongdoing in any area
 * 22 February, 2006 in the Dáil (Ahern corrected his slip, above, TO "condone" during the same statement.) Leaders' Questions Oireachtas Debates 2006-02-22.

 * I have always found him to be a proud, honourable man, loyal, true, persevering, principled, caring and committed but tough and a person who lost friends easily. On behalf of the Government but in particular on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, I thank him for his distinguished years of service to his constituents and his country.
 * Speaking about Ray Burke (who was subsequently jailed for six months for tax evasion) after Burke's resignation. Resignation of Member: Statements. Dáil Éireann - Volume 481, 1997-10-07

 * The public are entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, their officials and above all of Ministers. They need to know that they are under financial obligations to nobody.
 * Dáil Éireann transcript, December 1996

 * It is quite unacceptable that a member of Dáil Éireann and in particular a Cabinet Minister and Taoiseach, should be supported in his personal lifestyle by gifts made to him personally.
 * Dáil Éireann transcript, September 1997

 * I continued the arrangement, so whatever was on my mind, and the reason I probably can't give you a better reflection of what I was doing on the 19th of January is because I didn't do it. I am sure there are some mornings you get up and you think I might do this or I might do that and then you don't do them so, its hard to remember.
 * At the Mahon Tribunal on 20 September 2007. Planning Tribunal Transcript planningtribunal.ie. 2007-09-20.

 * Some people dye their hair yellow or put rings in their noses
 * Explaining to the Mahon Tribunal on 20 December 2007 why he did not have a bank account in 1993. Planning Tribunal Transcript planningtribunal.ie. 2007-12-20.

 * It was a political donation for my personal use.
 * 21 February 2008 at the Mahon Tribunal, referring to a £5,000 donation. Irish Times report 2008-02-21. (Subscription required)

 * It is not correct, and if I said so, I was not correct — I cannot recall if I said it, but I did not say, or if I did, I did not mean to say it
 * Straight answers needed to taxing Bertie questions Irish Independent, 2008-01-31.

 * That decision will in history be written as the biggest mistake that American administration ever made, because Lehmans was a world investment bank. They had testicles everywhere.
 * Speaking on the collapse of Lehman Brothers Bank. Lehmans world presence (Subscription required). The Year in Quotes (Subscription required)

-http://sbjh.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/bertie-ahern-quotes/
 * It took Ireland thirty years to become an overnight success.

Quotes About Ahern

 * Did Ahern, in his 11 years of power, make the most of this unprecedented prosperity for the public benefit? The answer can hardly be positive, given the present state of health, education and infrastructure, generally.
 * John A. Murphy, Credit where it is due -- and not due Sunday Independent, April 06 2008.

 * We can spit on Bertie Ahern till our mouths run dry, but he didn’t invent the amorality of our public culture. He was never a large enough figure to be able to shape the way Irish society thinks and feels. He was just an artful dodger, a skilled exploiter of the opportunities created by widespread tolerance for ingratiating chancers.
 * Fintan O'Toole, Giving the people of Ireland a chance not chancers Irish Times, March 27, 2012.

title: Bertie Ahern


text:
User talk:199.31.3.196

You Kicked My Dog
Welcome to Wikiquote! I see you created the page You Kicked My Dog yesterday, but it doesn't have any quote content. In fact, it looks like a template for creating Wiki pages. Were you just experimenting, or do you have some quotes to add under this title? When experimenting, the usual practice is to edit Sandbox, a page reserved for experiments, so you won't accidentally create non-quote pages in the main article space, as you've done here. If you have some quotes for You Kicked My Dog, could you replace the current text as soon as possible with those quotes? (I'm not familiar with this topic. Is this about the web cartoon that features some irate phone calls about a girl kicking someone's dog?)

If you have any questions on how to edit, or any other aspects of work on Wikiquote, I'll be happy to assist. Just let me know by clicking on the (talk) link in my signature below and pressing the "+" tab at the top of the page to post your questions to me. Thank you for participating on Wikiquote! — Jeff Q (talk) 06:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:199.31.3.196


text: Category:Screenwriters

title: Category:Screenwriters


text:
User:Jeffq/Research

I use this page to track my current Wikiquote research in wiki-formatted text. Please do not add or change any information on this page; I will most likely delete or revert such changes. If you absolutely must add something, please add your text with a proper signature and timestamp, and I'll fold it into my research (with attribution!) if I find it useful.

= References =

= Articles =

 * Polybius: Transwiki to Wikisource

 * Ben Payton: notability of Dr. Benjamin F. Payton
 * Google search
 * Bush speech: whitehouse.gov, Tuskegee U
 * T.U. info: WP, Payton quotes, President's Welcome, Payton bio
 * I intend to bring these up in the VFD entry, but not until after the sockpuppetry dies down, to see if the proponents intend to do any real work. But utimately, the article is what matters.

 * Aristotle: "exercise of vital powers" quote
 * Babylon 5 episode "The Exercise of Vital Powers" (aired 1997-06-02) claims the following as a quote of Aristotle's:
 * "Happiness is the exercise of vital powers, along lines of excellence, in a life affording them scope."
 * However, the only uses of this phrase I've found so far start with the B5 episode. Some notables have since quoted it in exactly this form:
 * President Timothy J. Sullivan's William & Mary commencement address, 1999-05-16
 * Richard Feldman of Juilliard, quoting John Stix's usage, November 2004
 * Rev. Peter J. Gomes's UNC commencement speech, 2005-05-16
 * JMS's own reiteration of the quote from "ancient Greeks", 2005-11-24
 * Canadian Conservative Forum: Aristotle quotes, undated, but domain established 1998-02-17
 * Aristotle has many quotes about happiness, but none of them this succinct and apparently memorable line.
 * Q: Is this an actual Aristotle quote, or another JMS-ism like the unsourceable "ancient Egyptian blessing"?
 * Possible pre-B5 instances:
 * "Shanno", Inspiration Quotes, purportedly on 1996-10-24
 * "Why the future doesn't need us", Wired, April 2000; cites Hamilton, Edith; The Greek Way; W. W. Norton; 1942: p 35.
 * A 1998 book also citing Hamilton's book: "the saying that Edith Hamilton related from the Nicomachean ethic"
 * JMS again, purportedly in a 1996-05-12 CompuServe posting
 * Neither Amazon nor LoC have this edition, but IOBABooks.com claims it has "347pp, including References", which suggests the cited quote is around 10% through the book.
 * GOT IT! Hamilton, The Greek Way, 1964 paperback edition, reissued 1993, ISBN 0393310779; p. 24 (of 212), or the lead sentence of the 5th paragraph of chapter 2, "Mind and Spirit":
 * The exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope" is an old Greek definition of happiness.
 * NOTE: This is not attributed to Aristotle or any particular Greek.
 * The closest Aristotle gets to this concise statement is in several passages in (Nicomachean) Ethics:
 * I.7: … whereas honour, pleasure, intellect, in fact every excellence we choose for their own sakes […] we choose them also with a view to happiness, conceiving that through their instrumentality we shall be happy…
 * I.13: … since Happiness is a kind of working of the soul in the way of perfect Excellence…
 * X.7: … Self-Sufficiency…
 * X.8: the liberal man must have money to do his liberal actions with, and the just man to meet his engagements (for mere intentions are uncertain, and even those who are unjust make a pretence of wishing to do justly), and the brave man must have power, if he is to perform any of the actions which appertain to his particular Virtue, and the man of perfected self-mastery must have opportunity of temptation, else how shall he or any of the others display his real character?
 * "Introduction" (by J. A. Smith): The main factor which determines success or failure in human life is the acquisition of certain powers, for Happiness is just the exercise or putting forth of these in actual living […] These powers arise from the due development of certain natural aptitudes […] In their developed form they are known as virtues (the Greek means simply "goodnesses", "perfections", "excellences", or "fitnesses"), some of them are physical, but others are psychical, […] These last fall into two groups, which Aristotle distinguishes as Goodnesses of Intellect and Goodnesses of Character […] The latter constitute "character", each of them as a "moral virtue" (literally "a goodness of character"), and upon them primarily depends the realisation of happiness.
 * Sheesh! No wonder Hamilton boiled it down. Aristotle is even more loquacious and indirect. His pupils must have paid him by the hour for his elocutions.

 * Umberto Eco: Boscoe Pertwee quote: "I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure."
 * InvisibleSun comment from Pertwee VFD:
 * Some of the Google results come up with a mention of Boscoe Pertwee in Umberto Eco's book Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition. One of the search results offers this quote from Eco: "a quotation from Boscoe Pertwee, an eighteenth century author (unknown to me) which I found in Gregory (1981:558): 'I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.'"

=Topics=
 * Categories
 * Copy & tweak guidelines from Wikipedia
 * How to do we want to organize them?
 * Dates: how to use Preferences formatting w/o creating 365+ articles?
 * Transwiki
 * Collecting multiproject overview of actual practice in my sandbox

=Reference desk=

But what does it do?

 * "But what does it do?" "Do? It doesn't do anything! That's the beauty of it!"
 * William Shatner, Barbary Coast (Cash & Cable)
 * Dick Van Dyke Show, "The Masterpiece" (auction)
 * Hitchhiker's Guide (2005), Arthur Dent & Slartibartfast
 * 51st State (2001), Felix & Elmo-NS
 * a Mel Brooks film (Robin Hood: MiT, Spaceballs-NIS)
 * Simpsons (Mr. Burns gives Simpsons stone head for Bart's blood [??])-NIS
 * Simpsons, "Brother Can You Spare Two Dimes" (Herb Powell's [Danny DeVito] drinking bird invention)-NIS, partial soundclip doesn't have it
 * Willy Wonka-NIS
 * Real Genius
 * Star Trek:TOS, "Trouble w/ Tribbles"
 * A Christmas Story' (the leg lamp)-NS
 * Kramer, Seinfeld
 * Catch-22
 * Ender's Game, "author's definitive ed.", p. 157, Ender & Bean
 * Nowhere — it's a psych experiment for false certainty

 * HIT! Courtesy of, , and hosmackah at Photobucket (Flash screencap).
 * [Bookkeeper/inventor Harold Harold (Burgess Meredith) shows Detective Tim Tilson (Gary Conway) a large mechanical box with moving gears, pulleys, bells, and a fan.]
 * Harold Harold: Eh, I-I-I always take this with me when I travel. At home, I have a much bigger one.
 * Det. Tilson: What is it?
 * Harold Harold: Well, it's my... my therapy. I'm still perfecting it.
 * Det. Tilson: What does it do?
 * Harold Harold: Do?!
 * Det. Tilson: Yeah, what's it for?
 * Harold Harold: Well, nothing... nothing. I mean, that's the beauty of it! Uh, uh, every machine in the world does something, but not mine!
 * Burke's Law, "Who Killed 711?" [2.12], 9 December 1964, Library of Congress registration # LP32958; effective registration # RE-598-393; registration date 8 December 1992
 * LoC info fm TV.com; it and IMDb provide ep date & cast; apparently early in episode

Eat, drink, and be merry…
Biblical passages:

 * A man hath no better thing under the sun than to eat, drink, and be merry. ~ Ecclesiastes 8:15 (Old Testament)
 * Therfor Y preysid gladnesse, that no good was to a man vndur the sunne, no but to ete, and drynke, and to be ioiful; and that he schulde bere awei with hym silf oneli this of his trauel, in the daies of his lijf, whiche God yaf to hym vndur the sunne. ~ Wyclif's Bible, 1395 (Middle English)

 * Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die. ~ Isaiah 22:13 (Old Testament)
 * ioie and gladnesse is to sle caluys, and to strangle wetheris, to ete fleisch, and to drynke wyn; ete we, and drynke we, for we schulen die to morewe. ~ Wyclif's Bible, 1395 (Middle English)

 * Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. ~ Luke 12:19 (New Testament)
 * And Y schal seie to my soule, Soule, thou hast many goodis kept in to ful many yeeris; rest thou, ete, drynke, and make feeste. ~ Wyclif's Bible, 1395 (Middle English)

 * If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. ~ I Corinthians 15:32
 * If aftir man Y haue fouyten to beestis at Efesi, what profitith it to me, if deed men risen not ayen? Ete we, and drynke we, for we schulen die to morewe. ~ Wyclif's Bible, 1395 (Middle English)

title: User:Jeffq/Research


text:
User talk:212.254.30.70

Aaron Franks
I see that you created the Aaron Franks page. I've been trying to find out who this person might be, but have found neither a well-known person by this name, nor a source or any other information on the handful of other quote websites that include this (and only this) quote.

Could you shed some light on the identity of this quotee? I've nominated the page for deletion, as Wikiquote is intended for quotes from notable sources, but would happily cancel the request if we could just find a bone-fide person behind this quote. Thank you for any help you can provide. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:212.254.30.70


text:
User:Ductapedaredevil~enwikiquote

[Wikipedia Userpage]

title: User:Ductapedaredevil~enwikiquote


text:
Siegfried Sassoon

Siegfried Sassoon (September 8, 1886 – September 1, 1967) was a British poet and writer, best remembered for the poems he wrote as a soldier in World War I.Decorated for bravery on the Western Front, he became one of the leading poets of the First World War.

Quotes

 * Let no one ever, from henceforth say one word in any way countenancing war. It is dangerous even to speak of how here and there the individual may gain some hardship of soul by it. For war is hell, and those who institute it are criminals. Were there even anything to say for it, it should not be said; for its spiritual disasters far outweigh any of its advantages.
 * As quoted by Robert Nichols in his introduction to The Counter-Attack and Other Poems (1918)

And I was filled with such delight As prisoned birds must find in freedom.
 * Everyone suddenly burst out singing;
 * "Everyone Sang" (1919)

That once kept Europe safe for Perpetuity.
 * The visionless officialized fatuity
 * On reading the War Diary of a Defunct Ambassador

 * I must add that in the light of subsequent events it is difficult to believe that a Peace negotiated in 1917 would have been permanent. I share the general opinion that nothing on earth would have prevented a recurrence of Teutonic aggressiveness.
 * Siegfried's Journey, 1916–1920 (1945), p. 57

A Soldier's Declaration (July 1917)
I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers.''' I believe that this War, on which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest.
 * '''I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.

I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed. On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the contrivance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize.
 * I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.

The Counter-Attack and Other Poems (1918)

 * Poems from Counter-Attack and Other Poems at Wikisource

Spouting dark earth and wire with gusts from hell, While posturing giants dissolved in drifts of smoke.''' He crouched and flinched, dizzy with galloping fear, Sick for escape,— loathing the strangled horror And butchered, frantic gestures of the dead.
 * '''Mute in the clamour of shells he watched them burst
 * "Counter-Attack"

Down, and down, and down, he sank and drowned, Bleeding to death. The counter-attack had failed.
 * Lost in a blurred confusion of yells and groans...
 * "Counter-Attack"

Drawing no dividend from time's to-morrows.''' In the great hour of destiny they stand, Each with his feuds, and jealousies, and sorrows.
 * '''Soldiers are citizens of death's grey land,
 * "Dreamers"

They think of firelit homes, clean beds, and wives.
 * Soldiers are dreamers; when the guns begin
 * "Dreamers"

I'd live with scarlet Majors at the Base, And speed glum heroes up the line of death.
 * If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,
 * "Base Details"

Yes, we've lost heavily in this last scrap." And when the war is done and youth stone dead I'd toddle safely home and die — in bed.
 * I'd say — "I used to know his father well;
 * "Base Details"

Who cheer when soldier lads march by, Sneak home and pray you'll never know The hell where youth and laughter go.'''
 * '''You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
 * "Suicide in the Trenches"

The bronzed battalions of the stricken wood''' In whose lament I hear a voice that grieves For battle's fruitless harvest, and the feud Of outrage men. Their lives are like the leaves Scattered in flocks of ruin, tossed and blown Along the westering furnace flaring red. '''O martyred youth and manhood overthrown, The burden of your wrongs is on my head.'''
 * '''October's bellowing anger breakes and cleaves
 * "Autumn"

Collected Poems (1949)
The unheroic Dead who fed the guns?''' Who shall absolve the foulness of their fate, — Those doomed, conscripted, unvictorious ones? Crudely renewed, the Salient holds its own. Paid are its dim defenders by this pomp; '''Paid, with a pile of peace-complacent stone, The armies who endured that sullen swamp.'''
 * '''Who will remember, passing through this Gate,
 * "On Passing the New Menin Gate" (1927-1928)

'Their name liveth for evermore' the Gateway claims. Was ever an immolation so belied As these intolerably nameless names? '''Well might the Dead who struggled in the slime Rise and deride this sepulchre of crime.'''
 * Here was the world's worst wound. And here with pride
 * "On Passing the New Menin Gate" (1927-1928)

Revisitation

 * This poem is about W. H. R. Rivers.

To my heart’s room returns? From the perpetual silence where the grace Of human sainthood burns Hastes he once more to harmonise and heal? I know not. Only I feel His influence undiminished And his life’s work, in me and many, unfinished.'''
 * '''What voice revisits me this night? What face

Who in solitude, one bygone summer’s day, And in the throes of bodily anguish, passed away From dream and conflict and research-lit lands Of ethnological learning, — even as you stood '''Selfless and ardent, resolute and gay, So in this hour, in strange survival stands Your ghost, whom I am powerless to repay.'''
 * O fathering friend and scientist of good,

And still he comes uncalled to be my guide In devastated regions When the brain has lost its bearings in the dark And broken in it’s body’s pride In the long campaign to which it had sworn allegiance.'''
 * '''Deep in my morning time he made his mark
 * Lines from a draft version of "Revisitation" omitted from final version.

Quotes about Siegfried Sassoon

 * Just after we came up from dinner, two young men came—one very shy, the other to all appearances very much at his ease. The former was Siegfried Sassoon. He was in khaki: at first I only noticed his sticking-out ears and obvious embarrassment, but a closer scrutiny revealed great charm and a certain sweetness and grave strength in his countenance. I felt much drawn towards him, but had no conversation with him. Nichols, on the other hand, was twice introduced to me by the zealous hostess and we spent the remainder of the evening side by side. He was a thin alert face and is quick and agreeable to talk to—he expressed great admiration for Siegfried, both as poet and soldier. They have both had shell-shock. For Siegfried, he claimed astonishing valour. They each read some of their own poems... Siegfried in a terse, laconic style... Siegfried's have a brilliant, grim irony.
 * Lady Cynthia Asquith, diary entry (15 November 1917), quoted in Lady Cynthia Asquith, Diaries, 1915–1918 (1968), p. 366

 * Freyberg inveighed against the Georgian Poets and reproached me for holding a brief for Siegfried Sassoon. I maintained that, having fully demonstrated his personal physical courage, he had earned the right to exhibit moral courage as a pacifist without laying himself open to the charge of cloaking physical cowardice under the claim of moral courage. Freyberg is very uncompromising in his condemnation and, with some justice, says it is offensive to come back and say, "I can't lead men to their death any more"—it implies a monopoly of virtue, as if other officers liked doing it because they acquiesced in their duty. He thought the poem called "The Hero" caddish, as it might destroy every mother's faith in the report of her son's death. Certainly Siegfried Sassoon breaks the conspiracy of silence, but sometimes I strongly feel that those at home should be made to realise the full horror, even to the incidental ugliness, as much as possible.
 * Lady Cynthia Asquith, diary entry (16 December 1917), quoted in Lady Cynthia Asquith, Diaries, 1915–1918 (1968), pp. 380-381

 * As Sassoon's wartime diaries reveal, he was an extremely complex character, troubled by his homosexuality and anxious to prove his manliness in combat and so to earn the respect, perhaps even love, of his men. Also, as a poet first and foremost, he was never at ease with the majority of his fellow officers whom he found boorish, dull and snobbish, hence his delight in meeting other poets and literary men such as Graves, Owen and de Sola Pinto. Both on his own account, and for the reputation of poets, he wanted to prove himself a hero and did so in several gallant actions. But in seeking to protest against what he thought of as the excessive suffering of his men in an unduly prolonged war he allowed himself to be influenced by pacifists who had little respect for men in uniform and were disappointed that he did not provide publicity for their cause by going to prison.
 * Brian Bond, Survivors of a Kind: Memoirs of the Western Front (2008), pp. 106-107

 * Although his satirical poems hit some legitimate targets in shirkers, profiteers, hysterical women and home-front militarists, they are too sweeping, savage and self-centred to carry conviction. Indeed some now seem unnecessarily brutal, telling us more about the poet's troubled mind than about the war on the home or military fronts. Most seriously, at that time Sassoon shows no understanding of the meaning of the conflict in strategic or political terms. Although his protest had been well-intentioned and required great moral courage, it took another world war for him to admit that in 1917 there was no possibility for Britain or her allies to gain acceptable peace terms.
 * Brian Bond, Survivors of a Kind: Memoirs of the Western Front (2008), p. 107

 * It may be that it will be by his war poems that his name will last. He has gone far beyond them. His poems are diverse both in styles and subjects. As one critic has said: "There is no telling where a reader may fetch up when he goes out with this poet." But a poet is more than a man with metrical skill and an ability to make verbal music. (Sassoon is not high in this department.) He is a man apart from others. He has a way of looking at things that is not the ordinary man's. Sassoon has had his vigils and his visions. He has written Allow me now much musing-space To shape my secrecies alone. Happily his Collected Poems allow us to share some of them.
 * Oliver Edwards, 'Siegfried's Journey', The Times (8 September 1966), p. 16

 * If A Fox-Hunting Man presents the Edwardian Age as an idyll of hunting and cricket, The Old Century is a complementary idyll of a serenely cultivated existence carried on, like the former, in the atmosphere of perpetual summer.
 * Michael Thorpe, Siegfried Sassoon: A Critical Study (1967), p. 131

 * [A]s he relates the story there emerges a most delightful picture of English country life, by no means of its sporting side only. It is written in the pleasantest of good prose, simple, cool, and telling. It is marked by very vivid perception and by quiet and good-humoured irony.
 * 'A Foxhunter's Memoirs.', The Times (5 October 1928), p. 8
 * A review of Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man

title: Siegfried Sassoon