text:
User talk:Rational thinker~enwikiquote

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Rational thinker. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Rational thinker~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rational thinker~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:Maurice Carbonaro

Radio silence

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

title: User talk:Maurice Carbonaro


text:
User talk:Leonhart9999~enwikiquote

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Leonhart9999. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Leonhart9999~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leonhart9999~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:Beyhankara

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

title: User talk:Beyhankara


text:
User talk:Kat~enwikiquote

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kat. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kat~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kat~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:Dan rowe~enwikiquote

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dan rowe. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dan rowe~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dan rowe~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:Tedzizik

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

title: User talk:Tedzizik


text:
User talk:Mahesh~enwikiquote

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Mahesh. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Mahesh~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mahesh~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:24.38.56.250

~ UDScott 13:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This IP address has been temporarily blocked from editing due to continued vandalsim, after the above warning. ~ UDScott 13:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:24.38.56.250


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Gary Kildall

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete.. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary Kildall
This page was created with only a single unsourced quote, namely, "640k ought to be enough for anybody." While commonly (and mistakenly) attributed to Bill Gates, there's no evidence that this person said it, either. There are only thirteen Google hits for "640k ought to be enough for anybody" Kildall, and it appears that all of them simply have Kildall's name appearing on the same page as the quote, but not as the originator. —LrdChaos (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in addition to LrdChaos's reasons, it is a single, unsourced [mis]quote designed to make the speaker look foolish. For that it should be deleted for the same reason that the Angela Beesley article was. To quote JeffQ: "After some high-profile controversies, Wikimedia has become much more sensitive to the creation of articles with the clear intent of embarrasing their living subjects, formulating w:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to prevent unsourced personal attacks." Koweja 06:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely. Tyrenius 07:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --McNoddy 08:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Cbrown1023 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless properly sourced Kildall quotes are added. The current one has to go without a source, given its suspect provenance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jeffq. 121a0012 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - As per Koweja's comment (noting that this is not a living person). WIKISUPERFIXER 13:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Roberth Edberg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete.. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Roberth Edberg
This is a Wikipedia user who is promoting himself as a "profound Swedish fellow" without sourced information and in defiance of Wikimedia injunctions against autobiographies and self-promotion. Roberth Edberg was deleted over a year ago; now he's come here. I'm particularly disturbed by someone who seems to have an ego so large that he cites his works about God in the same manner as Biblical quotes (e.g., Rob 1:42), as if the entire Christian world should recognize the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete unless rock-solid notability evidence provided and unimpeachable reliable sources given for any quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided, as per Jeff. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. :) Cbrown1023 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A frivolous entry in every respect. WIKISUPERFIXER 13:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or move under his username. When this user is not notable, his own quotes have no place in articles.--Jusjih 13:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Template:Bdal

title: Template:Bdal


text:
User:TathD

Check my UserPage on Wikipedia

title: User:TathD


text:
User talk:204.39.64.2

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikiquote. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~ UDScott 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikiquote. ~ UDScott 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalising Wikiquote. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This IP address has again been blocked for persistant vandalism. ~ UDScott 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, this IP address has been blocked for persistent vandalism. ~ UDScott 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

January 2009
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikiquote, as you did to John Stuart Mill. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support. When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project, incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in IP addresses being blocked from editing. Thank you. ~ Ningauble 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalising Wikiquote. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ~ Ningauble 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Again, this IP address has been blocked for persistent vandalism. ~ Ningauble 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:204.39.64.2


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Instructions

("VfD" as used on this page is an abbreviation for "Votes for Deletion".) To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:


text:
Template:Vfd-new

 * This page has been listed as a candidate for deletion.
 * In the normal operations of Wikiquote, some pages are deleted. Please see this page's entry on the Votes for deletion page for justifications and discussion.

If you are listing this page for deletion, please follow the steps at Nominating a page for deletion.

title: Template:Vfd-new


title: Template:Vfd-new3


text:
Template:Vfd-new2

{{ safesubst: Require substitution|1=

}}}
Vote closes: +1 hours:00, +7 days (UTC) }}

title: Template:Vfd-new2


text:
David D. Clark

David Dana Clark (born April 7, 1944) is an American computer scientist. From 1981 to 1989, he acted as chief protocol architect in the development of the Internet, and chaired the Internet Activities Board, which later became the Internet Architecture Board. He has also served as chairman of the Computer Sciences and Telecommunications Board of the National Research Council. He is currently a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

Sourced
We believe in: rough consensus and running code.
 * We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
 * (Presentation given at the 24th Internet Engineering Task Force)
 * frequently cited as the motto of the Internet engineering community

title: David D. Clark


text:
Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion/Instructions

Initial look
Thanks, LrdChaos, for assembling this process! I see that it is largely modelled on w:Template:AfD in 3 steps, so Wikipedian deletion nominators should pick it up with relative ease. It'll take me a little while to re-cast my mindset to someone who fears the 3-step process to give it a more thorough review. But for the moment, it seems workable to me. (Most nominations here, of course are from sysops, many (most?) of whom are active Wikipedians as well, so this may not be a significant issue.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Can we lose the complex edit summaries? Even though these are the same recommendations as Wikipedia "requires", virtually no Wikipedians follow them correctly, without any obvious detriment to the process. Also, they seem largely redundant to me:

 * Step I: The vfd-new tag provides the requested link to the discussion.
 * Step II: The nomination "REASON" in the discussion provides the justification, and we almost always know the nominated article from the name of the discussion. (Anything more complicated is likely not to fit in a summmary, anyway.)
 * Step III: The discussions are already transcluded in the log.

Wikipedia's failures

To see how well Wikipedians use summaries, I checked the first 10 entries in w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 2. (Skip to the next section if you don't want to be bored with details.) I found the following:

 * Step I
 * Of the 7 left undeleted, 4 used "afd" or "nominated for deletion" for the summary.
 * The others used varying forms of the requested statement, only one of which followed it exactly.
 * Step II
 * Only one followed the Step II recommendations exactly.
 * Another one tried, but left "PageName" for the article name.
 * One used "nominated for deletion", another used "afd", and a third inexplicably used "fdr".
 * Fully half of the nominators used a pointless recursive link to the discussion page itself.
 * Step III
 * Three included a link to the discussion, again only one of which followed the exact instructions.
 * One gave the discussion page name, but left the link out.
 * One used "+1".
 * Five gave no edit summary at all, and one of those even marked it "minor".

In summary, even the vastly more experienced Wikipedia deletion nominators can't follow these edit-summary instructions.

Let's simplify

I'd rather we make the summary part extremely simple yet informative, like:

 * Step I: +vfd
 * Step II: extremely brief reason (e.g., "unnotable", "1-quote subject", "bad theme", etc.; I'd avoid a specific list)
 * Step III: +DISCUSSION NAME

I say "DISCUSSION NAME" for Step III instead of "PAGENAME" because, although these will almost always be the same, in some cases we have things like "Hercules 64 and Pro Wrestling" or "Interwiki templates", and the summary should probably be something we can use to identify the discussion, not the individual pages.

Anything that might confuse nominators, causing them to mess up the use of the templates or other essential parts, should be made as simple and unobtrusive as possible. After all, edit summaries only exist to help understand one of two things:
 * When looking at the edited page, summaries suggest what was done by whom.
 * Step I: "+vfd" tells us all we need to know here.
 * Step II: We already know what was done for this page's 1st edit (nominated article). If nominating multiple articles, a formal linking scheme is likely to be too long for the summary anyway.
 * Step III: The discussion name is all we're looking for here in the log history.
 * When looking at a user's contributions, summaries show when and where they did something.
 * Step I: "+vfd" for the cited article is obvious.
 * Step II: Anything that suggests "I nominated this article" (i.e., "I created this discussion") should suffice.
 * Step III: "+DISCUSSION NAME" for the cited discussion again tells us what we need to know.

We could even simply this further by sticking with PAGENAME and adding a note at the bottom of this policy page and/or in Deletion policy on how to handle a nomination with multiple articles, which is pretty much always done by experienced Wikiquotian VfDers.

Opinions? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I just changed the bits about edit summaries to eliminate most of the WP cruft. I decided not to try adding cases for later nominations or multiple pages, because I wanted to keep this simple for now and, in general, it's not something we often need to deal with (and a few people have their own style for dealing with multiple pages nominated together, and will probably adapt this as needed). We shouldn't forget about doing it, but I think we ought to take it one step at a time.
 * I stuck with PAGENAME (actually, it's mixed with WP-style PageName, but I'll correct that later) because it's clearer to a newbie that PAGENAME is the name of the page; to use DISCUSSION NAME, you'd need to define what the discussion name is, even if it's just saying "often the same as PAGENAME" (but then why have something different?). Again, it's something we ought to do, especially if we adopt this as the new method, but for the quick trial (which is what this really is) I don't see the need to unnecessarily complicate things. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * That all sounds fine to me. As for the casing of "PAGENAME", I don't know that it matters much, as long as it gets the point across. I was just thinking, when we're finished tweaking this, we might suggest our simpler version to Wikipedia. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Robust Step II template
LrdChaos, I see that you went beyond Wikipedia's Template:afd2 for our vfd-new2 by adding a conditional for numbered parameters, in case folks forgot to use the names. I corrected the syntax a bit, but the idea is excellent. Again, Wikipedia might benefit from your efforts here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems mixing old and new discussions
I've run into two problems while we're experimenting with this new nomination process. They're both caused by the fact that editing a section of a page that isn't a transcluded subpage will "scoop" up any transclusions that follow that section. To make this clear, I'll describe what happened.

 * Creating old-style discussion archives
 * When archiving the "Juke Box Blues" discussion, which was the last nomination before we starting adding the transcluded nominations (Step III), I did so by editing the "Juke Box Blues" section of WQ:VFD and copy-and-pasting it into Votes for deletion archive/Juke Box Blues. I failed to notice at first that all the more recent, transcluded nominations were included in the "section" edit. The result was that the archived discussion included transclusions of 11 more VfD discussions. (I later removed them, of course.) I initially thought this would be a one-time problem, but it will actually occur anytime we get new old-style nominations mixed in with the newer style (which brings me to the next problem).

 * Posting to active old-style discussions
 * When I attempted to do a section edit to Aphaia's discussion for "Image:Hawking.jpg", I added my vote to the bottom, but realized just before saving it that, because she used the old-style of adding text to WQ:VFD instead of a subpage transclusion, the subsequent new-style nomination for "History is a lie agreed upon" was actually the bottom line of this "section", like so:
 * Had I done the usual thing and added my vote to the bottom, it would actually have shown up as a lone text line underneath the "History is a lie agreed upon", looking like (but not part of) that discussion. (In other words, it would either have been incorrectly counted as a vote for the latter discussion. Worse, if someone noticed that the comment didn't make sense for the "History" discussion, and tried to edit that discussion to "remove" it, they would be confused to see that it wasn't in there to be removed. It would actually be sandwiched between the "History" transclusion and the next VfD discussion [text section or tranclusion] on WQ:VFD, floating there with no TOC link to find it. It could take a while for someone to puzzle out what happened.) For that reason, I converted the discussion into a subpage.
 * Had I done the usual thing and added my vote to the bottom, it would actually have shown up as a lone text line underneath the "History is a lie agreed upon", looking like (but not part of) that discussion. (In other words, it would either have been incorrectly counted as a vote for the latter discussion. Worse, if someone noticed that the comment didn't make sense for the "History" discussion, and tried to edit that discussion to "remove" it, they would be confused to see that it wasn't in there to be removed. It would actually be sandwiched between the "History" transclusion and the next VfD discussion [text section or tranclusion] on WQ:VFD, floating there with no TOC link to find it. It could take a while for someone to puzzle out what happened.) For that reason, I converted the discussion into a subpage.
 * Had I done the usual thing and added my vote to the bottom, it would actually have shown up as a lone text line underneath the "History is a lie agreed upon", looking like (but not part of) that discussion. (In other words, it would either have been incorrectly counted as a vote for the latter discussion. Worse, if someone noticed that the comment didn't make sense for the "History" discussion, and tried to edit that discussion to "remove" it, they would be confused to see that it wasn't in there to be removed. It would actually be sandwiched between the "History" transclusion and the next VfD discussion [text section or tranclusion] on WQ:VFD, floating there with no TOC link to find it. It could take a while for someone to puzzle out what happened.) For that reason, I converted the discussion into a subpage.
 * Had I done the usual thing and added my vote to the bottom, it would actually have shown up as a lone text line underneath the "History is a lie agreed upon", looking like (but not part of) that discussion. (In other words, it would either have been incorrectly counted as a vote for the latter discussion. Worse, if someone noticed that the comment didn't make sense for the "History" discussion, and tried to edit that discussion to "remove" it, they would be confused to see that it wasn't in there to be removed. It would actually be sandwiched between the "History" transclusion and the next VfD discussion [text section or tranclusion] on WQ:VFD, floating there with no TOC link to find it. It could take a while for someone to puzzle out what happened.) For that reason, I converted the discussion into a subpage.
 * Had I done the usual thing and added my vote to the bottom, it would actually have shown up as a lone text line underneath the "History is a lie agreed upon", looking like (but not part of) that discussion. (In other words, it would either have been incorrectly counted as a vote for the latter discussion. Worse, if someone noticed that the comment didn't make sense for the "History" discussion, and tried to edit that discussion to "remove" it, they would be confused to see that it wasn't in there to be removed. It would actually be sandwiched between the "History" transclusion and the next VfD discussion [text section or tranclusion] on WQ:VFD, floating there with no TOC link to find it. It could take a while for someone to puzzle out what happened.) For that reason, I converted the discussion into a subpage.
 * Had I done the usual thing and added my vote to the bottom, it would actually have shown up as a lone text line underneath the "History is a lie agreed upon", looking like (but not part of) that discussion. (In other words, it would either have been incorrectly counted as a vote for the latter discussion. Worse, if someone noticed that the comment didn't make sense for the "History" discussion, and tried to edit that discussion to "remove" it, they would be confused to see that it wasn't in there to be removed. It would actually be sandwiched between the "History" transclusion and the next VfD discussion [text section or tranclusion] on WQ:VFD, floating there with no TOC link to find it. It could take a while for someone to puzzle out what happened.) For that reason, I converted the discussion into a subpage.
 * Had I done the usual thing and added my vote to the bottom, it would actually have shown up as a lone text line underneath the "History is a lie agreed upon", looking like (but not part of) that discussion. (In other words, it would either have been incorrectly counted as a vote for the latter discussion. Worse, if someone noticed that the comment didn't make sense for the "History" discussion, and tried to edit that discussion to "remove" it, they would be confused to see that it wasn't in there to be removed. It would actually be sandwiched between the "History" transclusion and the next VfD discussion [text section or tranclusion] on WQ:VFD, floating there with no TOC link to find it. It could take a while for someone to puzzle out what happened.) For that reason, I converted the discussion into a subpage.
 * Had I done the usual thing and added my vote to the bottom, it would actually have shown up as a lone text line underneath the "History is a lie agreed upon", looking like (but not part of) that discussion. (In other words, it would either have been incorrectly counted as a vote for the latter discussion. Worse, if someone noticed that the comment didn't make sense for the "History" discussion, and tried to edit that discussion to "remove" it, they would be confused to see that it wasn't in there to be removed. It would actually be sandwiched between the "History" transclusion and the next VfD discussion [text section or tranclusion] on WQ:VFD, floating there with no TOC link to find it. It could take a while for someone to puzzle out what happened.) For that reason, I converted the discussion into a subpage.

It seems like we'd better insist on using the new method until we decide if we want to keep it or not. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * To avoid this for the time being, I've hidden the old "requesting deletions" instructions in an HTML comment (same for the "new request link"). In its place, I've transcluded the documentation for the new, trial style. I don't know if there are any other pages that give documentation about listing a page for deletion, so this was the only one I changed. It should be a fairly simple matter to replace it with the original instructions, if that's what we decide to do.
 * One thing I don't think has been given much thought: how long do you we want the trial period to continue before looking to make a decision either way? I know that it's been less than a week so far, but do we want to try 2 weeks, a month, etc.? (I think that 2 or 3 weeks should be enough for everyone to get accustomed to it, enough to make an informed decision, anyway.) —LrdChaos (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I like the emphasis through color that the transcluded instructions add. The only other important place for this info is Deletion policy. To my horror, I discovered it didn't actually say how to nominate an article anyway. It worked out better this way, I think, because I just directed readers to WQ:VFD for details.

 * As for how long to run, as I write this, we've heard from 5 regular VfD participants at WQ:VP: you, me, Cbrown1023, 121a0012, and UDScott. We have yet to hear from Aphaia (who I just asked to try this out), InvisibleSun, Fys, or any of our occasional regulars. At some point, if it looks like we're leaning toward  permanent implementation, I believe we should announce on WQ:VP and WQt:VFD that we'll do it in, say, 2 weeks after the post, so everyone get their comments, suggestions, and/or objections in before that. So far, 121a0012 has only one (quite reasonable) objection. (We should probably see if s/he feels that this is a show-stopper or if the advantages still outweigh the disadvantages. S/he makes quite a few nominations, so his/her persepective as a non-sysop nominator is quite valuable.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification
I added a suggestion to notify principal contributors using VFDNote in step 3. ~ Ningauble 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


text:
The Holiday

The Holiday is a 2006 romantic comedy film starring Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet, Jude Law and Jack Black. It was distributed by Columbia Pictures and Universal Pictures. The movie is set in the United States and England.
 * Written and directed by Nancy Meyers.

Iris

 * [first lines] I've found almost everything ever written about love to be true. Shakespeare said "Journeys end in lovers meeting." What an extraordinary thought. Personally, I have not experienced anything remotely close to that, but I am more than willing to believe Shakespeare had. I suppose I think about love more than anyone really should. I am constantly amazed by its sheer power to alter and define our lives. It was Shakespeare who also said "love is blind". Now that is something I know to be true. For some quite inexplicably, love fades; for others love is simply lost. But then of course love can also be found, even if just for the night. And then, there's another kind of love: the cruelest kind. The one that almost kills its victims. Its called unrequited love. Of that I am an expert. Most love stories are about people who fall in love with each other. But what about the rest of us? What about our stories, those of us who fall in love alone? We are the victims of the one sided affair. We are the cursed of the loved ones. We are the unloved ones, the walking wounded. The handicapped without the advantage of a great parking space! Yes, you are looking at one such individual. And I have willingly loved that man for over three miserable years! The absolute worst years of my life! The worst Christmas', the worst Birthday's, New Years Eve's brought in by tears and valium. These years that I have been in love have been the darkest days of my life. All because I've been cursed by being in love with a man who does not and will not love me back. Oh god, just the sight of him! Heart pounding! Throat thickening! Absolutely can't swallow! All the usual symptoms.
 * But I think what I've got is something slightly resembling, gumption. [Slams door shut in Jasper's face. Lifts hands up and screams with joy]
 * That was brilliant. Brutal, but brilliant.
 * I like corny. I'm looking for corny in my life.
 * That would be confusing.
 * You're supposed to be the leading lady in your own life, for God's sake!
 * Because you're hoping you're wrong. And every time she does something that tells you she's no good, you ignore it. And every time she comes through and surprises you, she wins you over, and you lose that argument with yourself, that she's not for you.
 * Listen... I know it's hard to believe when people say "I know how you feel"... but I actually know how you feel. You see, I was... seeing someone, back in London. We work for the same newspaper. Then I found he was seeing this other girl, Sarah, from the circulation department on the 19th floor. It turned out he wasn't in love with me like I thought. What I'm trying to say is... I understand feeling as small and insignificant as humanely possible. How it can actually ache in places you didn't know you had inside you. It doesn't matter how many new haircuts you get, or gyms you join, or how many glasses of chardonnay you drink with your girlfriends, you still go to bed every night going over every detail and wonder what you did wrong or how you could have misunderstood. And how in the hell, for that brief moment, you could think that you were that happy. And sometimes you can even convince yourself that he'll see the light and show up at your door. And after all that... however long "all that" may be... you'll go somewhere new. And you'll meet people who make you feel worthwhile again. And little pieces of your soul will finally come back. And all that fuzzy stuff, those years of your life that you wasted... that will eventually begin to fade.
 * I could go with you as like your date or something [to Arthur].

Amanda

 * I need some peace and quiet...or whatever it is people go away for.
 * You know Graham, I just broke up with someone and considering you just showed up and you're insanely good-looking and probably won't remember me anyway...I'm thinking we should have sex...If you want.
 * And that is why they pay me the big bucks.

Graham

 * I'm Mr. Napkin Head!
 * I have a cow and I sew. How's that for "hard to relate to"?
 * I have the classic male problem of no follow-through. Absolutely never remember to call after a date, but as this wasn't a date, I guess I am off the hook.
 * Long-distance relationships can work, you know.
 * I have another scenario for you – I'm in love with you. I apologize for the blunt delivery, but as problematic as this fact may be, I'm in love... with YOU. I'm not feeling this because you're leaving, and not because it feels good to feel this way... which, by the way, it does, or did before you went off like that. I can't figure out the mathematics of this, I just know I love you. I can't believe how many times I'm saying it! And I never thought I'd feel this way again, so that's pretty phenomenal. And I realize that I come as a package deal: three for the price of one. I know my package, perhaps in the light of day, isn't all that wonderful, but I finally know what I want and that, in itself, is a miracle. And what I want is YOU.
 * Is that a trick question?

Miles

 * It's Christmas Eve and we are going to celebrate being young and being alive.
 * The wind...It's what makes it so warm at this time of the year. Legend has it, when Santa Anas blow, all bets are off, anything can happen.
 * [plays melody he wrote for Iris] Iris, if you were a melody...I used only the good notes.
 * [about the Jaws theme] Two notes... and you've got a villain.

Arthur

 * So, he's a schmuck.
 * [as Iris drives him home] I've lived here for 47 years. Back then, there were only six houses on this block. Every year, they tear another one down. Not that I blame them. They weren't that great to begin with. But that's how I got confused. I didn't recognize one house.
 * I like this Hugo Boss, he cuts a nice suit!
 * Iris, in the movies, we have leading ladies and we have the best friend. You, I can tell, are the leading lady, but for some reason, you're behaving like the best friend.
 * Let's get this embarrassment over with.
 * This was some Meet-Cute!

Dialogue

 * Graham: And what did you say?
 * Iris: I asked her to hold. Can I call you back?
 * Graham: I can hold while you speak to her.
 * Iris: Really?
 * Graham: Find out how she is.
 * Iris: Okay. (switches call) My brother wants to know how you are.
 * Amanda: Can you tell him I'm good and that I'm just taking Charlie for a walk in the village. Um, what's he been up to? Did he say?
 * Iris: I'm not sure. Do you want me to ask him?
 * Amanda: Uh, sure.
 * Iris: Okay. Hold please. (switches back) I can't believe that you have had sex with the woman staying in my house!
 * Amanda: He told you that?!
 * Iris: Oh my God! I thought I was talking to Graham! Can you just hold, please? I'm terribly sorry. (switches again) I can't believe you had sex with Amanda! The one thing she asked me was, 'Are there any men in your town?', and I assured her that there were not. And then you meet her and immediately get into her knickers!
 * Amanda: Still me!
 * Iris: Bollocks! I must have lost him. Amanda, I am so sorry.

 * Graham: Bad?
 * Amanda: Weird. Kissing a total stranger.
 * Graham: Really? I do it all the time.

title: The Holiday


text:
User talk:84.203.147.210

~ UDScott 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This IP address has been blocked from editing for persistent vandalism, after the above warning. ~ UDScott 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:84.203.147.210


text: User:Anachronist-retired

title: User:Anachronist-retired


text:
User talk:196.218.189.102

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Hi,

When adding quotes under individual character Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, please check the Dialogue section to see if the quote is already included (I've reverted your two additions, as both quotes were already included). This can be done easily by doing a search (Ctrl+F) in the page for one or two unique-ish words from the quote. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:196.218.189.102


text:
User talk:205.213.171.4

Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works. When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in IP addresses being blocked from editing. ~ Kalki 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:205.213.171.4


text:
User talk:130.49.148.41

~ UDScott 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

~ UDScott 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This IP address has been temporarily blocked from editing due to repeated vandalism, after the above warnings. ~ UDScott 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:130.49.148.41