User talk:DanielTom

This is DanielTom's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to DanielTom.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikiquote? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

DanielTom is taking a short wikibreak and will be back soon.

Hi, welcome to English Wikiquote.

• 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 ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
• 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.

Enjoy! --Abramsky (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abramsky, thanks for the welcome message. Best wishes, Daniel Tomé 14:31, 26 December 2012 (GMT)

Bertrand Russell

Hi Daniel, I am sorry I didn't give you a direct response on your comment of 13:38, 23 January 2013 on the Talk:Bertrand Russell. The occurrence of a possible copyvio created a more or less urgent problem which has priority. I also apologize for possibly jumping to conclusion. I think if you start trimming articles or even start suggesting it, there will always be controversial. A series of people have contributed to that article to the best of their ability, and probably nobody will like it that there contribution will be trimmed or even removed. Trimming articles like you proposed will almost certainly disappoint several people, and should be treated with extreme care. Personally I think it should be a last resort if all other options fail. Also I tend to disagree that sub-pages are "page that only very few people read". I think sub-pages are an enrichment, which gives both us and the readers more options. If you have any questions about this, please respond here. There are different things playing at the same time, and I find it helpful not to try to discuss these thing all in one place. -- Mdd (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mdd, thanks for your time and explanations.

I only suggested trimming because I wanted there to be enough room in the main article for (what I consider to be) very important quotes that were being moved to other pages. I was happy to hear that there seems to be a better solution to the problem (putting a couple of key quotes in the main article from the books, with connections to the subpages). But I always shared your concern that trimming could "disappoint several people" and that is why I used the Talk page to hear other users’ opinions first. And you are correct about subpages, I didn't mean to belittle them, or the efforts of those who contribute to them.

I also agree with you that trimming "should be a last resort if all other options fail", and I truly never meant to upset anyone. Indeed, I am rather new to Wikiquote so sometimes I have to ask the opinion of more experienced users about some perhaps sensitive issues. Thankfully you and the other editors take the time to clear them up, and I appreciate that. Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Go

Wow, a champion. Kudos! I haven't played for years (as an unranked amateur). Did you know Wikiquote has an article on Go? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind message, Ningauble. I'm always happy to meet people who know Go (sorry to hear that you no longer play it). And thanks for telling me about that Go page, I will definitely check it out! Best wishes ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

Thank you for your kind comments. Please know that they are appreciated.

ELApro (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

My hat goes off for you :) Daniel Tomé (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Re. email

I prefer to reserve private email for situations that require confidentiality. Feel free to post criticisms on-wiki for community review. I will reply to your on-wiki rejoinder on-wiki. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Do you wish me to post the email I sent you in your talk page, so that you can reply there? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think it still needs to be discussed, go ahead. My reply to your on-wiki post about this is here. To wit: it is one thing to argue that a policy is distressing, it is another thing altogether to say people involved with it are motivated by sadism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your reply until just now.

Again, let me repeat, it's not that I disagree with your comments, but I should say that even if you don't think, as I do, that your accusation of "character assassination" was, ironically, itself an attempt at character assassination, it was certainly a misrepresentation of my intentions. So next time you want to put me in check, which you are certainly welcome to do, I suggest you use less loaded language because — at least in my country — accusing someone of "character assassination" is a pretty BIG deal. Finally, as I told you, my comment there was meant to be laughable (while conveying a point), but I admit that the language I used may have been too strong.

Now I suggest we move on. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm Azania

Hi Daniel, it seems we had the same idea at the same time. -- Mdd (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but not quite. Special Relativity shows that there is no "same time". Well, you're the engineer. :-p ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Lala

I choose mukburger (user gets kukunized) Mukburger 3 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you grow up? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm 43178941623412637012783213 years olkd. Mukburger 3 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

[Welcome talkback] Thanks

Hey There, thanks for the welcome, are you by any chance brazilian? Have some cookies. Eduemoni (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Some cookies to you!

You are welcome. No, I'm Portuguese, but thanks for the cookies ;-) ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Look

At my contributions! --74.131.177.233 23:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, you're going to be blocked. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this the same user? I guess my contribs are full of reverts of this guy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but thanks for your help! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why I vandalized

Someone deleted my perfectly good article called John Tripp and dissmissed it because, "It didn't have resources." Which it did, I did cite the progressive and yet someone deleted it. This is why I hate the Wikimedia Foundation, you find good information however a lot of articles are deleted for no F__king reason other than to censor stuff that not a lot of people know about! Trout the Wikimedia! 204.169.235.150 14:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your disappointment, but that's not an excuse for vandalizing articles. I would think you could find a better way to make your point. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Autobiographer

Hi Daniel, thanks for this link correction. I totally agree. -- Mdd (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. (-: Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Stoicism

Thanks for the recent additions to the Stoicism page, but I wish to note that using the abbreviation Ibid is usually discouraged here, in preference to fully named citations (though not necessarily with repetitious links). One reason for this is that many casual wiki editors can often break up strings of such quotes, and make improper citations seem correct, and make actual corrections more tedious. Though an admirer of many stoics, and many stoic discernments, I too perceived many deficiencies in many manifestations of it, as Bertrand Russell and others have, and to include many sides of any disputations or arguments is usually a helpful thing to do, and thus some of your additions are very welcome. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC) + tweak

Thanks for letting me know. My thinking was that we could use Ibid. if the same "block of text" (source) appeared over and over again, in order to avoid repetition, but I do understand the point you make. As to Bertrand Russell, despite his sharp tongue, I actually think that he was a Stoic himself, at least to some extent. Finally, hats off to you Kalki for creating that article! Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Warren Farrell

Hi Daniel, sorry if we got in any edit conflict. I will leave it for now. -- Mdd (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. The clean-up is all yours — great work! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I Ching

Thanks much for the creation of this page. A couple days ago, I had grabbed a copy of one recent translation of some of the more ancient texts from my home to use at my current location, in preparation for a page on it in the next week or so. Now I might just add a few things in coming weeks.

On my mentioning of measures of intelligence levels in a recent argument about images — I can agree it might not have been the most tactful way to reveal that — but I had decided to begin to indicate some things about my past experiences in future weeks and months, beginning at a very early age — and I had realized that some things would not be easily understandable without some awareness of that fact — and a bit of irritation at the repeated denigration of the use of images as if they were to dismissed as something childish and infantile was something I was attempting to squelch a bit, in deciding to indicate it then, rather than waiting a bit longer in relation to other more general contexts. My initial draft of the note I posted actually had much more info about some other things, which might have clarified some of my intentions a bit better, but which I decided not to mention, as I realized I might not have much chance to be online for several days and adequately clarify some of them. As an absurdist I never expect to be able to communicate all I might wish to — nor fully understand all that others might wish to, but I remain resolved to attempt to indicate many of the things I believe to be vitally important and helpful, when I have the opportunity to do so. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I must say that at first it was rather hard for me to understand the text, perhaps because the translations were not very exciting, but then (luckily) I found that wonderful site from where I took those quotes, which made I Ching quite a joy to read through... As to your comment, I have already responded... I appreciate your battle... It could be interesting for you to write more about yourself in your User page. (I still don't understand why you call yoursel an absurdist!) Best wishes, Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User: 2.28.30.139

Hi,

Before I created my username Vouthon, I created an article here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jan_Van_Ruusbroec

I would like to know how I can get these contributions under my IP address put under my new username?

Kind regards,

Vouthon (2.28.30.139)

Hi. Thanks for that article, and welcome to Wikiquote! Unfortunately, it's not possible to change the attribution for edits, which means that if you want your edits to be assigned to your account, you have to edit while logged in. Try to remember that from now on, it's important. :-) Of course, you can write on the talk page that it was you who created the article, if you like. In any case, don't be disheartened, your contributions are appreciated! Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It just came to me...

as I was making up the userpage, but since I am not really that brilliant, it was probably something that I heard a very long time ago, and stored deep in the sub conscious.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I think it is a wonderful motto to live by. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

George Carlin

Hi Daniel, you have added back a 429 words quote here. Now before we end up in an edit war, I would propose that we first discuss these matters before putting more quotes over 250 words back. -- Mdd (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the question here is, if you can make an (legitimate) exception to the copyright rule of "maximum of 250 words per quote, and in exceptional circumstances 272 words". And if we can make one, can we also make a dozen like in the former George Carlin article? I think we cannot, but if you think you can, we have to take this to the next level. -- Mdd (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I only noticed your message now. While I accept the need to trim the old George Carlin article, which is something I am doing, and plan to keep doing in the future, there are also MANY quotes, in MANY other articles, that exceed the limit of "250 words". (And you misquoted that proposed policy, it doesn't say "in exceptional circumstances 272 words": the "272 words" are only given as an example.)

I don't know about you, but I myself have read all George Calin's books, and I know by heart all the words he said in his HBO shows. Do note that the George Carlin article has been and remained the same for YEARS, and I believe it is one of the most popular pages here. So if you want to delete something, it is you who have to discuss it in the talk page first. Otherwise you may end up keeping the more trivial quotes and deleting very important ones, which was exactly what happened. So, yes, I am adding BACK those important quotes to the article (slightly trimmed), and trimming the other quotes as I go.

That's my quick reply; as to your last line, you should, of course, do whatever you think is best. Yours, DanielTom (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should take all the time we need to sort things out, before adding any larger quotes back. You might have missed that I have shared my concern about this article two weeks ago, see here? -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my message above? Major DELETIONS should be discussed FIRST in the talk page, as is the case with any MAJOR changes. I actually took the time to "sort things out", which to my mind doesn't mean deleting entire passages without even leaving a single line behind: please note that DELETING is different from trimming, as deleting ONLY TAKES A FEW SECONDS, and no effort at all. Now, I have just finished restoring the most relevant/important quotes (trimmed) to the article. (See here and compare the material before the trimming with it now, after my last edits.) DanielTom (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well here we seem to have a mayor disagreement. When it comes to upholding the copyright guideline "Inappropriately lengthy quotes will be trimmed or discarded, with a maximum of 250 words per quote", I think people don't need permission to proceed. Especially if they have shared there concerns earlier, and didn't get any response.

Also to keep it simple, we should not assume one can make an exception to the copyright guideline, whenever one feels like it. It seems like a good idea, that those exceptions should be approved on the talk page first. -- Mdd (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing. I already stipulated on the talk page, that I didn't trim the quotes but (temporarily) removed them (see here). My idea here is, that any expert can easily add appropriate sections (back), but layman cannot. Temporal removal should be a normal and acceptable option. -- Mdd (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Extreme procrastination

Temporary Notice: don't expect me to be active in the next week or two. Studying for college is an unfortunate and painful necessity, but a necessity nonetheless. Time for me to suffer. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish you well as well — your contributions have certainly been a very welcome and actively educational influence here lately — but certainly they should not come at the expense of neglecting necessary involvement in processes of education elsewhere. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind messages. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for expanding the Story page so rapidly — and thanks again for your help at WIkipedia. I have to be leaving soon, but I figured I would simply make a note of appreciation before doing so. Blessings ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it was a pleasure. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ts'ao Sung

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ts'ao Sung, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mdd (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop posting to my talk page

Please stop posting to my talk page, as I am going to attempt to follow this advice by admin BD2412 (talk · contributions). Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you stop blocking accounts that have zero malicious edits here, then we may have a deal. Otherwise, no. Potential contributors to Wikiquote are more important than your primitive desire to deface their harmless accounts and to use the " Confirmed" template. I think you are in serious need of psychiatric help. Please seek it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your last sentence is a personal attack. Please redact it. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's say I know someone who I think is (for example) considering suicide. What you're saying is that, basically, if I tell that person to contact a mental health professional immediately, that would be a "personal attack". But it isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)