User talk:Geezerbill

Return to "Geezerbill" page.

Wikiquote:Limits on quotationsEdit

Wikiquote:Limits on quotations is a proposed Wikiquote "guideline", not a policy. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose, then? Leave entire routines up on the page? As Mdd said on your own talk page: "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." And yes, as a long-time Carlin fan myself, I know it sucks to have to narrow things down to 5 quotes. But the guidelines are there for some good reasons. Geezerbill (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and upon what authority do you get to decide what constitutes an "important" quotation in this case? Granted I'm pro-choice, but do we really need 3 of the 5 allotted quotes to be from the same damn routine? If you want to put one back in, you should at least delete some other one. Geezerbill (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In general, we want to keep the best (subjective) and the most famous quotes. (A Google search helps to determine which quotes are the most popular). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also in your recent edit summaries you are stating "...NO MORE THAN 250 WORDS PER QUOTE..." as if this is a valid argument in your recent removals. Now I could be mistaken, but it seems that none of the quotes removed exceeded the limit of 250 words. -- Mdd (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I also stated (in all caps) that there's to be no more than 5 quotes per page. Funny that you deliberately left out that part. If I removed ones that seemed to be under 250 words, then that's why. Geezerbill (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Many, or most, articles have quotes with more than 250 words. That isn't against any policy. Let's use our common sense here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Then what IS the "policy" on length, and number of quotations per recording? Is there one? I kept asking on the Talk page but nobody seemed to have much more information about it. Surely there should be something that prevents a person from putting an entirely transcribed 1000+ word routine up as a "quotation", as some people have in the past. And again, how does your personal deeming of a quote as "important" override my reinforcement of the site's guidelines? Geezerbill (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That article had been like that for years, even before it was trimmed. Now, you "reinforced" a guideline, not a policy. That is fine, of course, but could you relax and use your common sense here? Is there such a big problem with the section having 6 quotes, instead of 5? I don't see it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
1) "Relax"? On my own talk page? No, go fuck yourself. 2) This has nothing to do with "not using common sense", so stop stupidly repeating that line too. This has to do with what purpose a guideline has, and why you think I'm wrong for implementing it. Great, now that that's out of the way, 3) The article has NOT "been like that for years". I see people coming in every now and then, usually trying to add entire routines. Do you at least agree that we don't need entire routines pasted there? What about number of quotes per album? Since you seem to be the self-appointed authority on this, and you're going to play an edit war anyway, what limit is "acceptable"? Geezerbill (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Incidentally, it is not just me "personally" who deems that quote as "important": a Google search for "Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna fuck in the first place?" gives me 137 000 results, which is huge for a quote (compare it with, e.g., the 101 000 results Google gives for Shelley's "All love is sweet, Given or returned. Common as light is love, And its familiar voice wearies not ever.") ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So the "importance" is based on popularity, then? Fine. I don't know why you just couldn't say so. I still don't understand why we need the quote listed up to 3 times on some days (once as quoted in "A Place For My Stuff", another as quoted in "Back in Town", and a third time from one of his books). Again, these additions and deletions seem to come and go, but what's your justification for having it more than once on the same page? Geezerbill (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I did say so (see above). I agree that repeated quotes should be deleted, but in this case Carlin goes on to say other interesting things. Why would you want to delete that? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You already restored it, right? So what do you care? Why are you still whining about this? Your beloved quotation is back. YOU put it back. You won. What the fuck more do you want from me? A pinky swear from me not to remove it again? Geezerbill (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not a matter of it being "my beloved quotation": as I've shown you, that quote is important (or, OK, extremely popular). Yes, I put it back. Finally, you've asked the questions, and I answered them; I'm not trying to be confrontational. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Great. Now kindly fuck off, Daniel. Geezerbill (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My question here is, why do you mention this one argument, when all quotes you are removing are under 250 words? -- Mdd (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mdd, one of the reasons why I mention it is the hope that it will discourage some of the assholes who edit the page to insert entire routines again. There were two particular guidelines that people keep breaking, and I mentioned them both in my edit reasons in a single sentence, even though only one applied. If I had "and/or" in my comments, would you be complaining about this? And do you have your answers now, or do you still want to needlessly debate this point? Geezerbill (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Last modified on 21 April 2013, at 21:15