User talk:FotoDutch

Welcome

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

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

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! Mdd (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Lay out

Hi FotoDutch, thanks for your (new) work. You must have noticed the editorial changes I made in the Joseph Albers and Impressionism article. I merely try to implement the (nowadays) more standard lay-out. Some background info might give you a better understanding:

• Thematic division in the articles subtitles is avoided as much as possible. Regularly just time periods or book/article titles are used.
• The source description should give first a full account on the source. Extra description of - or comments on - the quote can be giving after this text, or in a separate line
• Extra white lines between the quotes are being removed
• There are Wikiquote:Limits on quotations concerning the number of quotes from one source. Now there are not yet specific quotes about how much can be copied from one website, but this should be limited. (and therefor I trimmed down the number of quotes here)
• More personally I like to limit the number of quotes from one author in overview article, such as in the Impressionism. Normally only the best (or most notable) quotes are listed in the overview article.

... -- Mdd (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I only just noticed that there is a second problem with the most quotes by Claude Monet in the Impressionism article, that the only (remotely) relate to the theme. Those quote perfectly fit in the Claude Monet lemma and have been added there, but need to be reconsidered in the Impressionism article. -- Mdd (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I try to follow your advice, see Renoir.

Another thing...... and a quite embarrassing thing to me:

When I search on Google with the words 'Renoir' + 'Quotes' then the recommended page-link for Wikiquote comes only at the second linkpage of Google!!!

The same counts for 'Monet' + 'Quotes'

Not very convenient and friendly for all the pupils, students, scholars, teachers and art-lovers who like to read good and sourced quality quotes of famous artists and use the simple and very common searching method: 'name' + 'quotes'

And not very encouraging for me and others to attribute on Wikiquote. Then something of the page lay-out on Wikiquote must be wrong that the search-machines can fins so badly.

All the best.

User:FotoDutch

Thanks for your understanding, and further additions to the Pierre-Auguste Renoir article. You might have noticed I rearranged the initial Impressionism article, taking a (big) step back in order to move forward again. In order to do so, I am trying to improve some of the related article as well.

As to the reason, why these Wikiquote articles are listed just on the second page had to do with the stub size of the article, the number of pages that link to "Pierre-Auguste Renoir" (which you can see here), and maybe also with the numbver of links the article offers.

What I try (almost) always to do with the lemma I created is to add links in other articles to the particular article, and I try to add (at least 3 to 7) quotes from the author in other thematic articles... -- Mdd (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding pictures

Hi, I noticed your request today and this earlier attempt. You are most welcome to select and add image yourself. Just keep in mind that on Wikiquote, we only add images available at Wikicommons.

To adding images there are a lot of possibilities, see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. The most simple way is to use basic coding such as, for example:

[[File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Le Moulin de la Galette.jpg|thumb|right|Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1876]]

So between the brackets you add the filename; the word "thumb" for thumb size; the word "right" for placement on the page; and any text you like. This can be a description of the image, but also any appropriate quote. I hope this will get you going. -- Mdd (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the manual for placing pictures on Wikiquote. I try. I noticed for the modern artists there are scarcly good pictures to finf on Wikicommons. Like for Joseph Albers. I saw your image there, but the point is, it is very uncharacteristic for the art of Albers in general.So it doesn't illustrate his quotes very well. The reason of course because there is little choice on WikiCommons! Is it possible to place pictures from http://www.wikiart.org/ (they have a large choice so you can really select) to Wikicommons? Then we can use them for Wikiquote.

FotoDutch (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed unfortunate that there are hardly any images available on modern and contemporary artists, especially if the haven't made any work in the open air. On the English Wikipedia they have a policy to use images based on fair use, but on Wikiquote they don't. This is understandable, because the primary mission is to collect quotes, which are already collected based on fair use practices.

As to the Joseph Alberts article, that first image was added there by UDScott (see here, and I just added another (see here).

As to those images on wikiart.org, there are also collected there using the fair use policy. Now the Wikimedia software allows us to only use images locally available or at wikicommons. Now again Wikicommons don't accept images to be uploaded on fair use policies because in a lot of countries, those rules don't apply... There is a lot more to it but I hope you get a general idea. -- Mdd (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Art movements

I saw you started already with Cubism!! Great! So we can go on with Futurism, Surrealism, Constructivism, Suprematism, De Stijl, Etc...

Is it possible to make a division in the quotes of such an art movement. ( That I had in my head to do with Impressionism, but it didn't evolve so far yet.)

I mean, for readers it will give clarity I believe, to differentiate between Artists quotes on Cubism from the Cubist artists & Quotes, comments, remarks, critics on Cubism from outside Cubism by artists / writers, art-critics Then we give at first a core-face or soul to Cubism art movement (including all kind of interior discussions and debates of course) as the Cubist artists developed, viewed, invented and reflected it - And a second part how later and/or outside Cubism there were all kind of reactions, comments etc .. by not-Cubists. It could be a model to all the oncoming art movements. What do you think? All the best FotoDutch (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The article on Dada started in 2007 (see here), and this year the new articles on art movements are Constructivism (art), Minimalism, Impressionism and Cubism. If you compare it to the number of articles on philosophical movements (see here) it is just a beginning. There is however the requirement, there there must be (potentially) a substantial number of quotes from notable people. For example, today I cancelled my plan to create an article on Pointillism, and a lemma on Fauvism probably also doesn't make it (yet).

As to the rearrangement of the article, I stipulated before that specific kind of divisions are accepted nowadays, either chronological of by author. Now the impressionism is set up chronologically. If however you want to have the main accent on quotes by insiders and quotes by outsiders, than a chronological division might be better better. Then sort of automatically the quotes from insiders come first. -- Mdd (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion - I started Futurism with chronological divisions. Do you want to cheque and correct?FotoDutch (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have given it a try, and ended up improving some of the articles on futurists. Eventually most of the initial quotes in the Futurism article are moved to those articles and others went in the other direction. The (or my) main idea is that this kind of thematic article should offers an (simple) overview; preferably of most important related artists. The lead of the Wikipedia article on futurism lists about 16 artists of which about 8 are mentioned. Not bad for a start. -- Mdd (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary

Can you explain me: If i Read in my contributions: Dada ‎ (more quotes before 1925) (current) What does it mean; Current. That is was already there in the quotes? Or something others? I attributed more quotes to Dada and removed the Stubb there, I Hope you agree. All the bestFotoDutch (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you are refering to overview of your user contributions here? The term (current) simply means that you were the last person to edit the article. When somebody else edits the article, that term will be removed in your overview of user contributions. This term is simply a feature of the wiki editor, and a relatively old one (which you can use similar to the use of your watchlist). -- Mdd (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks! I was worrying that there were two concurrent versions, or something like that. —This unsigned comment is by FotoDutch (talk • contribs) . 13:08, June 16, 2014‎

Josef Albers

Hi, the lemma is trimmed back (again) because far too much quotes from one single interview where copy/pasted here. Please keep this in mind. -- Mdd (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the source was of excellent quality (Smithonians Archive of American Art!!) and came from several interview-days. They pictured the figure Albers very well, I believe.
I want to use more Oral interviews from there for other artists. What is the maximum of quotes I can use from this one source? All the bestFotoDutch

The Wikiquote:Limits on quotations for spoken words speaks of "Five quotes maximum for any work not in the public domain." (see here) -- Mdd (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope you don't trim till 5. Is there a possibility to place more quotes than five on Wikisource and than make a link to it?

It depends. Five quotes (in similar situation) doesn't mean five long quotes; This should not be taken to the max. One long quotes and 4 short quotes could do, or just one, two or three longer quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way: all Albers Quotes I recently added are placed on TES - presented there by me for Open Source, so Public Domain.. Look at: https://www.tes.com/teaching-resource/josef-albers-his-art-quotes-on-painting-color-life-biography-facts-of-the-german-american-artist-6323426. Everybody can download them there for free.

On Wikipedia such would require the written permission of the author or its inheritances. And in the case of a interview, it should include the permission of the interviewer as well. These is a similar to contemporary artists, who have their work photographed by professional photographers, and with the complicated Wikipedia system of archiving those permission... very very hard to get. Best regards. -- Mdd (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I leave it for a while. I now go on searching for illustrating artist-quotes on: Dada Surrealism - Futurism which you started on Wikiquote. I do it chronologically & alphabetically, like now, alright?

Bram van Velde

Hi FotoDutch, I noticed multiple sections of the new Bram van Velde significantly exceeds the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations guidelines. For example from 10 pages of the Conversations with Samuel Beckett and Bram van Velde (1965 - 1969) book over 50 quotes (more then 100 lines) have been quotes. The limits on quotation suggest for prose a A recommended maximum of five lines of prose or eight lines of poetry for every ten pages of a book not in the public domain. or if you consider it an interview it is "Five quotes maximum for any work not in the public domain." Since Bram van Velde died in 1981 non of his work or words are in the public domain. -- Mdd (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Y Done I trimmed down two sections to meet Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. -- Mdd (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You undid the trimming down with the following argument here:

... very short - quotes of Bram van Velde are taken from a series of interviews, over a period of 6 six years; I indicated also the year of the quotes very clearly

Now I have one question: Is the source you mention the primary source, the first publication of these interviews, or have they been published before? -- Mdd (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not an argument for copyright-issue but for the precious character of the collected quotes of Bram van Velde you have trimmed. You very seldom meet quotes as such of an rather silent artist, taken during several years by a very faithfull interviewer.

My argument against your rigorous trimming - 3 times already, of good quality quotes of three different artists - is that you are basing your trimming only on a PROPOPSAL of a Wikiquote policy, and not on a DEFINITIVE policy. And what when such a rigid definitive decision will be decided? For only a small amount of permitted quotes from one source? Destroy all the attributions of years? Trim back many good collections quotes? Is that how you want to reward the work of all the editors? Just trim down many resources, like you did with mines three times? What a big loose for Wikiquote as a resource. But happily there is only a PROPOSAL till now. And I hope it will stay a proposal.

—This unsigned comment is by FotoDutch (talk • contribs) . 11:31, November 18, 2015‎

I just checked that:

• in the past 10.000 edits I trimmed down articles about 100 times (about 1% of my edits), and
• in Wikiquote as a whole since its beginning numerous articles have been trimmed down due to copyright concerns (see for example Wikiquote:Copyright Cleanup Project, which started in 2008 and trimmed down over 680 lemmas).

At the same time there is indeed only a proposed Wikiquote policy. The number of people actively involved in Wikiquote is small, and the people involved in copyright concerns even smaller. Recent discussions to upgrade the policy unfortunately ended up in an impasse.

Now in the past decennium of the existence of Wikiquote (internationally) the impact of copyright concerns has been significant:

• The French Wikiquote started from scratch late 2007 after initial copyright problems couldn't be restored in the existing articles.
• The English Wikiquote started the Wikiquote:Copyright Cleanup Project on September 7, 2008 as stipulated before
• The German Wikiquote around 2010 introduced the requirement of a secondary source, which limits all quote collection
• The Dutch Wikiquote between 2012-2014 implemented this requirement and reduced 50% over the articles 95% of its content, while this present of that requirement changes little in the actual copyright status of the work

In trimming down articles, I try to keep these events in mind: Wikiquote should keep acting on possible copyright infringements or others will take over and new significant events will be set in motion.

Now I admit that any trimming back quotes due to copyright concerns hurts, and could be considered a loss. (I personally try to compensate working from other primary sourced) Yet if you are not prepared to uphold certain limitations, you risk everything in the long run. -- Mdd (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC) / 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

that's a very essential discussion you start. I agree.

But the directions in which you are looking for solutions can be two: You are only focusing on the interior of Wikiquote: if you can rule there things on quote-limitations better, you can avoid troubles with copyright. I prefer the direction outside, to the world. And that means that you organize yourself in a way that you can defend yourself. Organisations like Foodwatch or on the climate sustainability already do, because they know they exist and must operate in a world of power relations. If you start something as Wikipedia / Wikiquote and you want to create a huge source of accessible knowledge for everybody you will meet your enemies. You know beforehand you will meet troubles and attacks. So you have to prepare yourself by creating funds from the very beginning, to pay your lawyers to defend your precious resources, free for everybody.

And you have organize debates on this topic of free knowledge for everybody. Find your mates in that battle, like many universities who started to offer their free resources. Also many knowledge institutes or museums do, like here in the Netherlands the Rijksmuseum where you can download high resolution pictures of their collection for free, on their images resource.

As Wikiquote you strive for realizing good-quality and useful knowledge, which pictures well the quotes of selected people and their role and place in the human history. Than you have to defend that freedom you want to take. FotoDutch (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In suspected copyright disputes I have stood on both sides of the line, and have thought about the possibility of defending work yourself to the outside world. This can only work if people reveal their identity. The situation however is that most people on Wikipedia and Wikiquote work anonymously, and such outside solution simply wouldn't work without changing this. One way or another Wikiquote as an organization will be held responsible eventually and it is up to the community to uphold some kind of control system to prevent this from happening.

If you want to have a better understanding how copyright concerns are dealt with, you might want to look at the Mehdi Akhavan-Sales lemma, its history and deletion review here:

• After the article was started the first editor nominated the article for deletion, see here
• A second editor replaced the content with a copy-vio tag, see here and voted for deletion
• And a third editor (me) trimmed down the original poem down to ten lines, and with some other rearrangements the dispute was eventually resolved.

Since in the Bram van Velde my regular solution has been undone (twice) these two other opinions are still open. One way or another this situation has to be dealt with.

Now the situation here is more complicated by the fact, that you just notified yourself this was the third lemma I trimmed down, and yesterday you exceeded the limits of quotation in (at least) a fourth lemma (here). In similar situations on the English Wikipedia users get formal warnings or even can get blocked, articles can be protected etc. Now in this particular situation, I want to ask you first if you want to start incorporating the limits of quotations into your work, or not? -- Mdd (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi FotoDutch, I restarted the discussion about the overquotation in the Bram van Velde article on its talk page, to have one central place to deal with this matter. You are welcome to join the discussion. -- Mdd (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fauvism

Hi, I trimmed down a section in the Fauvism, and want to let you know I made up my mind about our open disagreement: the burden of proof is on you (as @Ningauble: recently confirmed here). This means, according to me, that if a copyright violation is suspected (by me), it is not for me to prove that it is, but it is for the editor to prove it is not, before adding it back. I would appreciate if you gave this some consideration. -- Mdd (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The foregoing remark misrepresents what I wrote in another discussion. I was writing about, and citing Wikipedia's policy about, the burden to demonstrate verifiability of what the cited source says. The matter in dispute here is entirely different from verifying that a quotation actually appears in the cited source. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ningauble:, you are absolutely right, I haven't expressed myself clearly: In matter of copyright violation and verifiability (what you recently confirmed) the burden of proof is on the editor, who adds the quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please rebuild your user page...

The Mediawiki backend is being updated soon, and your HTML driven user page will break. PLEASE rebuild it using the appropriate markup, Not raw HTML. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain me: what is raw html in my Userpage and how can I do it in another way?FotoDutch (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mostly this is that you are using a <table> directly, and a LOT of <li></li>. Mediawiki has perfectly good syntax for bothe tables and lists. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, now I understand. Can you please tell me where I can find in Mediawiki good syntax for both tables and lists. I have no idea and experience in that matter. FotoDutch (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove quotes from captions

I do greatly appreciate your very evident interest in the graphic arts and creation of pages for various artists, and your additions of images to these pages and such others as have existed, but please stop removing quotes from the captions of images. I have never actually approved the practice of simply putting descriptions or technical details of images into the captions, rather than relevant quotes, and though I have accepted it at times, where a few people have had such inclinations, I cannot condone the removal of quotes in favor of such descriptions. This is neither Wikipedia, where such technical details can be appropriate and proper, nor a site for presentations of merely graphic art without some reference to the quotations, which additions of images can and do enhance, in various ways. I certainly encourage the use and appreciation of images, but on these pages they exist for the benefit of presenting the quotes in interesting ways, and the pages do not exist merely to present images without some notable relevance to such quotations as appear on the page, and preferably, to quotations also used as captions. I have noted this at least once before after a few of your edits, but I had been too busy to comment on it previously. Though I had intended to examine such edits and restore the relevant quotations, I have remained too busy to begin such a process, but knowing you have been a prolific contributor, I am somewhat worried as to the number of significant quotes of various artists your practices may have diminished from such prominence as they should have on the pages of our project. I don’t have time to do much examination of things today, and might not actually have that for some weeks or months, but I thought I should make note of my objection to that particular aspect of at least a few of your edits. I certainly do not agree with such absolutist idiocy as would absolutely constrain the use of images only to very narrow or shallow tastes and inclinations, and I certainly do hope you do continue to add pages and arts with the zeal you evidently possess, but please stop ignoring the primary purposes of Wikiquote — to present quotations — of primarily the verbal sort, rather than the visual ones, such as all created images arguably are. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am also aware that others have placed many images on pages with relatively few quotes of the artists who created them, or even of some critics of arts, and do not seek to actually forbid such practices, but I believe it is generally preferable to try to keep the number of images to such levels as do not flow far beyond the text areas in at least some of the window sizes most commonly used on modern computers. I recognize that this can vary greatly with screen sizes and viewing preferences, so there actually cannot be a validly absolute rule against this, but even where I myself would prefer to use a few more notable images on a page, I generally comment out some of them if they extend too far beyond the text regions at many of the relatively narrow or mid-range window sizes (such overflow occurs with even a very few images on many of the widest windows — but I believe few people are inclined to use or read windows at the very broadest extents available, and tend to gauge image to text proportions to the midranges of window size which I believe most people are most regularly inclined to use when reading text). ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Kalki.. I realize that I indeed removed some quotes in the captions under the images, but I did only, because I could not find back that specific quote in the sourced quotes at the left side of the page. That was the only reason!! Then they are unsourced, I think, and nobody can verify them! Are they real existing quotes of that artist or person, or not?
I was starting to look for these caption-quotes at the right (several - in the case of Georgia O'Keeffe) because I just liked to add the year to that quote in the caption - if possible! But then I could not find them back, at the right - with Ctrl F - I tried it several times! But they were not there. Otherwise they would be still there in the caption. I do not remove quotes, just to make room for the descriptions!! And I never did!! Because the two can go together perfectly, as I did several times already under an image: some description ànd a quote.
So the question remains: what to do with a quote in the caption under an image, if it is not possible to find it back in the sourced quotes at the right side? Because then everybody can make / place his or her 'own fabricated' quote under an image. --- Why I like to place images of the artist's art ànd his or her quote under this image, is because I like to connect the quote and the image, the relation between verbal and visual. Because they can really clarify each other!! That is my only purpose. Thanks for your extended reaction, Kalki.FotoDutch (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am very glad to be informed that apparent lack of sourcing of the statement was the reason for the removal — that certainly makes it more understandable, and less alarming. I am now doing quick searches of distinctive portions of the phrase (framed within quote-marks), on the internet — which is usually one of the fastest ways to find sources of various statements — and will be adding adequate sourcing to the statements, if I can find them. I will probably make similar attempts to find sources and restore any quotes that might have been removed for such reasons in some of your edits in the weeks ahead. I know I had noticed it at least once before, but I will probably do a more thorough review of such matters in coming weeks and months.

As I stated earlier, I believe descriptions of the images can be accepted as a "stand-in" for quotes, where appropriate quotes for any images you or anyone else might wish to add are not clearly evident, but even then would actually much prefer that any descriptions added eventually be "commented out" and quotes that are as well matched to the images as possible be used, without overt citations about the images themselves, other than those on their Wikimedia Commons pages, or any details you might wish to add in normally invisible comments. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 10:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I had already started a quick search earlier, and found the statement sourced to O'keeffe in various works, but had paused in my searches, because I had already found one presentation in which it was encountered directly after a statement of Gaston Bachelard in a way which made it seem that such citations to O'Keefee might be dubious — but further investigation confirmed the quote as O'Keefe's, and the confusing incident was merely one where clearly two different people were being quoted in way which made it seem two separate statements to be a single one of the first (Bachelard), until one looked to the distinct end-notes of the chapter the two consecutive statements were in. The quote had probably previously been sourced on the WQ page — but I haven't bothered to look as to how it became "lost" — I might do so eventually — but I have to attend to many other things now. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and investigations, Kalki. All the best!FotoDutch (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove boldface from most "Last words"

Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on User:MonsterHunter32's massive censorship of sourced quotes without discussion

I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? You can read more about it at the link above, and at the other discussions linked in that discussion. Thank you. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The user User:Jedi3 is keeps falsely blaming me of censorship and keeps edit-warring. He is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source.  He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim.

Or making up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

He falsely keeps saying I'm censoring him when all I've done is remove those quotes which aren't notable in any manner. Not those which are notable and i've preserved many of the quotes he has added. also removed the subsection of my complaint here. He himself censors me here and here in the past.

I've warned him several times including here, here and here. He doesn't listen and has removed my comments several times from his talk page.

Not to mention this person has also insulted me by terming me annoying after another user called me so, besides also calling me a vandal, when he himself can be indicted for edit-warring and vandalism. please block this user. I've been trying to cooperate with him, but it is clear he only wants his ideology imposed here. Their is no bar on any person of any ideology, even though Wikiquote is about neutrality but he doesn't care about anything and is being unprofessional.  and it is clear he doesn't care what he does to get his edits here at all costs.

Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revert is a revert whether partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. I would first like to check all his quotes and then discuss them one by one.

I am discussing even right now all quotes one by one who Jedi3 says must not be removed, has is not cooperating. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The first of your points is a content dispute, the place to discuss these is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes). These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles.

When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you. --Jedi3 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Raphael

Hello FotoDutch! Have You noticed the new site Raphael?--Risto hot sir (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Risto. Thanks for telling me and for starting the new page. I added a Stubb and a new quote.FotoDutch (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminship

Please share your support. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions). Thanks. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 00:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Deviations from standard page intros and section headings

At the page for Vincent van Gogh I altered a few recent and obvious deviations from standard practices for pages here, and then simply added a cleanup tag to it and a couple others you've recently edited. I do NOT have the time today to do much further on the MANY things wrong with such pages, but though lengthy pages on individuals have divided sections into decades and specific sources — there is NOT a need to specify micro-periods of individuals lives with separate sections EACH headed with the generalized pseudo-specification "Quotes, [of such periods]", rather than headings of actual specification of particular sources or more general periods. I must be leaving again soon, but though some slight deviations from normal practices are to some extent sometimes tolerable in the creation of a few pages, definite deviations become rather intolerable when they proliferate into a standardized disregard for what have been the standard layouts for intros and sections. There is no need or warrant to alter the intros from simply "Named artist" to "Named artist in quotes" at the lead of each artist's Wikiquote page. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC) + tweaks

Hallo Kalki,

Perhaps you are right, and I do the wrong things, but it is because I try to make the quotes on Wikiquote more accessible for the people who are searching for them. That people can find them rather easily on the Internet. You call my attempts 'pseudo-specifications'. I see them as attempts to make the quotes more attainable. Maybe wrong attempts..

As reaction on your critical remarks I did a little research - finding on-line the quotes of 3 well-known persons, to find out how Wikiquote appears in these searches. I did this with Google, because in January 2018 74.52% of the searches worldwide were powered by Google. Only 7.98% by Bing (the second most popular). Baidu did c. 20%, but this search-engine does not work in English. Moreover: Google is dominating the mobile/tablet search engine market share with 93%.

- first search I am searching for Quotes of Beethoven. So I search with two words: Beethoven' & 'Quotes. As result Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Beethoven as 5th link. The first four links are all commercial quotes-websites with a lot of advertising. They really take care for their searchers!! Morover: the Google.com-link to Wikiquote says: 'Jump to Quotes about Beethoven'. It means that Google refers to the second title of the Wikiquote-page: 'Quotes about Beethoven' because the first title there only says Quotes!! Beethoven is not mentioned.

- second search: I am searching for Quotes of president Kennedy. So I search with 3 words: John' 'Kennedy' 'quotes. As result Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Kennedy as 14th link - the second link-page of google.com! The google.com-link says in this link: 'Jump to Quotes'. Because the name Kennedy is nowhere mentioned in any title of the Wikiquote-page of John Kennedy. A part of the reason why Google gives Wikiquotes on the 14th place in the row of links.

- third example: I am searching for Quotes of Bob Dylan. So I search with the 3 words: Bob' 'Dylan' 'quotes. Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Bob Dylan as 22nd link. This is on the third link-page of google.com! The google.com-link says in the link: 'Jump to Quotes', because the name Bob Dylan is not mentioned in any title of the Wikiquote-page of Bob Dylan.

My conclusion: Search-engines look for security. That's why titles are very important for Google to check them for reliable search-words, in relation to their content. You cannot cheat in your titles because titles promise something to the searchers - and Google knows that! But Google also want to verify the search-words in the texts, do they appear there also... If they are only in the title and not in the texts, there comes alarm from the spy-robots of Google and your link-range goes down…

Wikiquote on the contrary is very busy for years already with keeping itself clean. It is eliminating and removing the important search-words – out of the titles and from the texts. Now many of my attributions are getting a cleaning.. So the important search-words are lost.

I think Wikiquote is a very precious and valuable public source for people all over the world. In fact it is property of everybody, I believe. Just the same as Wikipedia. Wikiquote is the only website worldwide with sourced and reliable quotes! It creates so human history. I am very glad to attribute to this project! But then Wikiquote must also accept the responsibility to take care that people who are searching for quotes are able to find them. It must create the necessary accessibility on-line. There is one fundamental law on the Internet: you must name your content. If you don’t name your content, you are not found by the people who are searching for you. You make your project less useful. In fact you hide your precious content, for a part. It is a waste of all the energy and work and dedication. kind regards, FotoDutch (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Google and other search engines have always had diverse criteria for their rankings, — but I believe that without specifically aiming to be, Wikiquote has usually long been a prominent option on the first page of most searches for quotes of various individuals or on various subjects.

I believe commercial sites have often exploited options for using numerous and often hidden "keywords" on their pages, to increase the likelihood of hits, but so far as I know, guidelines at neither Wikipedia nor Wikiquote have ever recommended the use of such excess keywords to increase hit ratings on search engines, in either overt or hidden fashion, and I don’t believe titles of sections on our pages should be tailored to attract search engine hits rather than providing simple and easily understandable organization schemes.

I just did a search for "Kennedy quotes" and "Picasso quotes" on Google, and had a 7th ranked hit for Wikiquote on each one, which I believe is sufficient standing. There is no need nor actual utility to having a section named "Quotes of Picasso" merely so that Google can specify a "Jump to Quotes of Picasso" rather than jump to "Quotes" such as reflects the actual naming practice of the lead section of most pages on Wikiquote. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

When I just searched for 'Picasso Quotes' with google.com I get a 10th ranking for Wikiquote, just at the bottom of the link-page. And that is probably, because now in the page the title says: 'Quotes of Picasso' This is alreday since 23 March 2018, when I enlarged the title. From then the Wikiquote-statistics give a considerable montly increase of visitors till now: February 2018: 2279 visitors, March: 2661; April: 3029, May: 3644, June… But when someone cleans the title back to 'Quotes' only - I bet the ranking for Picasso on google.com will fall down to c. 20th in a month or two. Also the amount of visitors in the Wikiquote-statistics will fall back from 3644 till again a 2280 a month. I consider that as a waste of energy of us all Wikiquoters. A loss of 1/3 of your visitors

I did some more searches on google.com, to get a better picture - they differ completely in results:

- 'Einstein quotes': 21th ranking - beginning, third link-page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Faulkner quotes' 3th – beginning, first page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Sartre quotes': 4th – beginning ,first page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Leonard Bernstein quotes': 7th – bottom, first page

- 'Janis Joplin quotes': 10th – bottom, first page (a small Wikiquote-page)

- 'Pablo Neruda Quotes': 8th – bottom first page (a comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Sara Teasdale Quotes': 5th - first page

- 'Stephen Hawking Quotes': 33rd – fourth page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Gandhi Quotes': 8th – bottom, first page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

FotoDutch (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I do NOT consider it a "waste of energy" to compose pages which are relatively simple and clear presentations for human beings, rather than corrupting them and crowding them with many "hooks" designed to target the attention of search-bots. I much prefer that Wikiquote be noted by those who are sufficiently mindful to do searches with care and concern for the integrity and worth of quotes available, rather than to reduce our concerns to simply trolling for hits, as if our own existence, or the integrity of human knowledge depended upon our numerical popularity, among the plethora of sites offering quotes. Google criteria have seemed to recognize ours as among the best and most notable, if not the most absolutely popular of sites, for many years. Nothing short of reducing our standards and deliberately competing with commercial sites for hits by using similar tactics and strategies as theirs is likely to increase our standings in "hit" popularity, even IF one were to concede that as actually an extremely worthy objective. Those many searchers who are quite satisfied with the unverified, unsourced, and usually poorly organized quotes available at the most prominent of commercial sites, which might well be the majority of casual searchers, are often not likely to find the more rigorous citation standards of Wikiquote all that significant or appealing, but I believe that these standards should be maintained to the benefit of those who can and do, and that our general formatting and page organization should primarily be designed to be interesting, appealing and notable to human beings rather than search-bots. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 08:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about different things, I think. I talk about naming and indicating the content on Wikiquote realistically. So that people who search realistically can find the content they search for. All the best, Kalki.FotoDutch (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Pablo Picasso and Françoise Gilot

Hello. We received an email via OTRS from almost a year ago, regarding this edit, specifically the quote in which Picasso is talking to Gilot. The date given for the quote is 1908 but Françoise Gilot was born in 1921. Could you check the date again please? Green Giant (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right. And Gilot left Picasso in 1952, so it must have been Dec. 1948 instead of 1908. I don't have the book myself and I can't open it in Google Books; so I can not research more accurate than this. I changed the year in 1948.FotoDutch (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Uitnodiging voor Open podium

Hoi FotoDutch, bedankt voor je bijdragen alhier. Gezien de situatie op Wikiquote.nl ben ik op User:Mdd/Werkgroep Copyright op Wikiquote begonnen de actuele situatie en het mogelijke vervolg alvast in kaart te brengen. Op de overlegpagina ben ik een open podium gestart en wil ik je uitnodigen om de situatie alvast hier te bespreken. -- Mdd (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)