User talk:Mdd

Hi Mdd. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

• For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
  • Also see 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! WelcomeBot ^owner!_question? 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Murray Gell-Mann‎

Thanks for your recent additions, including those to this page. But I just wanted to give you a heads up that we usually do not include so much in the intros to pages. Usually we limit it to one or two sentences and let the user click through to WP if they want to see more. Before I trimmed it, I wanted to at least let you know. Thanks. ~ UDScott 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. I added the description because of the stub-tag, see here. Am I correct, that you just have to added one more sentence to get that tag removed? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you were thinking - actually, the stub tag just refers to the number of quotes that are on a page. It's a bit subjective - see Wikiquote:Stub#Identifying_a_stub for more, but it is applied to a page when it just seems to need a bit more to stand on its own. ~ UDScott 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Three more (short) questions:

1. Do you think the Murray Gell-Mann‎ is no longer a stub now?
2. And what about the Kenneth Boulding article? Is this also still a stub?
3. Is het ok, that I moved down the stub tag to the bottum of the article, for example here

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It's borderline, but I'd probably say that no it's no longer a stub - although more quotes would be good if there are any.
2. Yes, and actually this page has a problem in that none of the quotes are sourced - as such, this page could be nominated for proposed deletion. When trying to determine if a page is a stub, I would not count the unsourced quotes.
3. Actually, no we like to keep the stub tag just below the intro - we found that when it is placed at the bottom of the page, it got lost and people ignored it. When it is higher, it is more easily seen and usually people try to add quotes.

~ UDScott 01:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Computer science and telescopes

I left a reply at Talk:Computer science. Cheers, —Ruud 22:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Prodwarning

Thanks for sending a warning to User:Pavan duggal. When someone else proposed the deletion, you can notify contributors with {{PRODNote}} instead of {{PRODWarning}} if you prefer. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this tip. I was unfamiliar with this template, but will use this next time. -- Mdd (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Translations

Hi Mdd. I undid a recent edit of yours ("English text first") because it is longstanding practice at Wikiquote to place the original text first and the English translation beneath, as described at Wikiquote:Guide to layout and illustrated at Wikiquote:Templates. I would not say one way is better than the other (though I personally like giving priority to the original), but it is good to be consistent.

Thanks, by the way, for your work on the Knowledge article. Your chronological reorganization is turning out very well. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no intention of violating the practice at Wikiquote to place the original text first. I do have a problem with that article (after the heading) starting with four line of Ancient Greek, because I like article's to be approachable and as simple as possible. The subject itself is difficult enough.

For this reason I already rearranged the three Aristotle quotes to solve my first objection. I would prefer to move the Ancient Greek text to the Aristotle article, and just leave the English text. Do you mind? -- Mdd (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell ("1970s")

Hi Mdd, could you check again the "1970s" subdivision that you've made in the Bertrand Russell article? I do not think it makes much sense because Russell didn't say those lines in the 70's. Thanks! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. If you have more information about the origin of those quotes, please add that to the description, and rearrange those quotes. I did make a subdivision in the article, but I didn't double check single quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Actually, I was at a loss of what to do with those quotes (because no, I do not have more information about their origins), and that is why I asked you. I now have a good idea (I think) about what to do with them, but I will discuss it with UDScott first. Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It might be an idea to alter the title of that final chapter in "Posthumously". -- Mdd (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to create a more general section, where we could put those quotes AND other (few) key quotes that appear in the subpages of Russell's books (with a link to those pages). I do not know what to call it, though (I am not sure if calling it "Sourced" is right). What do you think? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it simple and follow established good practices. Now I noticed the contents of the Albert Einstein seems like a good example to follow, particular the sections "Youth" and "Attributed from (memory and) posthumous publications". And in combination with the example of Dostoevsky's page UDScott gave this afternoon. -- Mdd (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. "Attributed from posthumous publications" seems fine, if you like you can add that section yourself. Maybe tomorrow, or in the next few days, I will work on the Russell page again, and then I will follow your and UDScott's advice. Thanks for the help. - Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done and thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Knowledge‎

Fantastic job in historical/chronological format! It should become a standard for the type.

ELApro (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I fully agree that the article is improving, although I personally sort of got stuck in the process. But I doubt that this is the only right way. For example the arrangement of the German Wikiquote article Wissen is an other option, which has it's charm. The same with the compact Italian article Conoscenza. Every of these arrangements seem to have it's strengths and weaknesses. -- Mdd (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Polymath (redirect)

I have proposed to delete the Polymath redirect that you created, for the reason given in the {{prod}} notice on that page. Feel free to discuss on the talk page if you disagree. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, you are right, my mistake. -- Mdd (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Advice re. edit summaries and large edits

I would recommend doing this sort of thing in two edits, for a couple reasons: (1) "wikify" refers to formatting and linking, and does not adequately describe the removal of large quantities of unsourced quotes; and (2) when you reorder quotes and remove quotes at the same time, it is difficult to see what was removed if, perchance, someone wants to work on sourcing them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that for clearity "wikification" and "removal of large quantities of unsourced quotes" should kept separately and mentioned in separate edit-summeries. I will try to keep this in mind. Thanks you. -- Mdd (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea to prune external links in the Roger Penrose article as you did here. But again, the edit summary "Some rearrangement(s)" does not describe what was dome. When removing content from an article, especially large quantities of content, it is very helpful to describe what you are doing, and why. This is useful when people review recent changes or research article histories, and it is a courtesy to contributors who added the information in the first place. Regards, Ningauble (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In my vocabulary "some rearrangements" means "rearrangement of the article more according to the general standard". And that is often the reason why I trim an introduction and/or an excessive external links section. Those sections are most of the time copy/pasted from Wikipedia articles in the first place, and keeping the mirrored version here is rather questionable... and not according to general standards. So "Some rearrangement(s)" in general does explains, why I removed those sections. -- Mdd (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, it does not strike me as explanatory at all. Imagine a newcomer wondering why their contribution was removed: "some rearrangements" gives no indication of what was wrong. Sometimes this language is used as a euphemism that deliberately avoids saying what is going on, as e.g. when a corporation announces layoffs without actually saying anyone is being laid off, but this usage is not a good way to inform our contributors about what is happening and why.

As Wikiquote's newest administrator, you will probably find many more occasions to remove or delete content. When this happens, even if one is not acting as an administrator, I think it is very important for administrators to be clear about what we are doing and why we are doing it. Please consider being more explicit about the reason when you remove substantial content. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell again

Hi Mdd, how are you? I want to thank you for trying to sort out the copyright issues with the "What Desires Are Politically Important?" and other sections of the Bertrand Russell article. Just so you know, I went ahead and trimmed it a little bit. Of course I am now second guessing myself and wondering if that was too bold of me. But the final result looks pretty OK to me. Finally, and on a different note, I should admit that I sometimes copy your format for pictures&quotes; please take this imitation as a form of flattery ;) Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for your important input. FYI, I don't plan to do any more edits to the "What Desires Are Politically Important?" section. I leave it to others now. Regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Howard S. Becker

Hi Mdd. Thanks for your note, and thanks for the interesting Becker quotes. ~ talk

Admin?

I was wondering if you would be open to becoming an admin here. I believe you have been a solid contributor for quite some time and that the site would benefit from having another admin. If you are OK with it, I will nominate you for the position. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I like to accept your offer. I am prepared to assist in administrative tasks on Wikiquote, where I can. -- Mdd (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! Please signify your acceptance at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent disputes

I believe I tend to agree with you on what I can understand of most issues in at least some of your previous disputes with others, though probably not all of them, but I don't recommend calling for censure or retaliation in any way that is not necessary to prevent further harm to oneself or others, even when you feel you have been wrongly accused or even slandered. I am aware that most people are prone to think they are entirely or largely right and others entirely or largely wrong, when the absurd truth is that many adversaries of each other can often be both right and wrong in ways neither clearly discerns or suspects — and the disputes we must most involve ourselves in are very often not those that are or can be most openly and overtly dealt with. I still support your admin nomination, and though I can perceive you might have been mistaken in the past in regard to some things, I believe others were probably more mistaken in regard to others, and I hope that eventually much more forgiveness can be found among all the disputants. May your good fortunes here and elsewhere increase, with the passages of Time. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Posthumous publications

I noticed that, in organizing people articles with chronological sections, you have been using the heading "Attributed from posthumous publications" for attributions in works by others. The term posthumous publication generally refers to works written by the author but not published in his lifetime, e.g. unfinished manuscripts, letters, journals, and such. For things that are not "works of the author" per se, I am not sure this is the best heading. I think that when an attribution identifies the date of origin it can be placed in the main chronology, and when it does not then it is probably sufficient to simply label the section "Attributed". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ningauble, earlier discussion started here on my talk page at Bertrand Russell ("1970s"). In short: it is a phrase Daniel and I decided on following the example of the Albert Einstein article, which has section called: "Attributed from memory and posthumous publications". If you want to propose some changes here, it seems like a good idea to move this discussion to a more public place. -- Mdd (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In the Bertrand Russell page, an "Attributed" section would be fine for quotes such as those from My Father — Bertrand Russell (written by his daughter, "from memory"), but it is not, I think, good enough for books such as The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell (1983-2005), i.e., compilations of the author's work published after his death. I don't know what the best solution to this problem is. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, is something like this an acceptable solution? -- Mdd (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but those really are "attributed" to the author. The problem, however, is that "Attributed" is not the right word to use for anthologies, at least to my understanding. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky‎

Awesome work on this page, which has needed attention for quite some time. I just have one comment on your work - the way you have presented the sources (in small text) is not something I would advise. It tends to diminish the importance of sources, which is never something we want to encourage. That is why our templates do not use this format (for some similar discussion, see here where one of the items discussed is the use of small text for citations). I would recommend changing these back to full size. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks UDScott, I was planning on doing something about that small text and I will. -- Mdd (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies - I didn't pay close enough attention - I thought you had added the small text. I'll leave you to it. Thanks again. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Congrats

I just closed your RfA and promoted you to administrator. Congrats, and try not to delete everything in celebration. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for volunteering to help with the janitorial work. Feel free to ask me or anyone at WQ:AN if you have questions about the mop & bucket. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you both. -- Mdd (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! ~ UDScott (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope to put my mob and bucket to good use here. -- Mdd (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have clearly already been a worthy worker here — and I am glad you have been officially recognized as such. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations from me also - cheers! BD2412 T 16:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also thanks you both, glad to be aboard. -- Mdd (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted user-talk page

Thank you for your contributions around the project. You deleted the page User talk:Ort43v, which was written by someone and I had never visited. But I wonder what was there. It doesn't seem to be just testing but seems something for me. Would you check it out? --Ort43v (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ort43v, I removed a message of myself where I suggested to remove your userpage experiments, such as also happened on wiktionary (based on their WT:CFI: contributions first, then a user page). But after I noticed your Meta experiment I decided to give you a change. -- Mdd (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mdd. It might have been clearer to use speedy deletion case #G4 "Author request" with a comment about retracting your own post, rather than using "Test page", which is normally used under case #G1 "Nonsense" or #A1 "no content". (By the way, I don't see "contributions first..." at WT:CFI, but the idea has some merit.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ningauble, I will keep this in mind. And, it indeed seems SemperBlotto made a judgment call on WT (as well). -- Mdd (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

Haha, good job completely and utterly confusing me with the restoration of Michael Schumacher. I'd deleted the interwikis and accidentally clicked it in one of my non-en contrib pages, and was confused as to why it was still there. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. In the last minute I decided this article should be cleaned and not deleted. I will work on it. -- Mdd (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I had to undo my edits on the dozen different language editions of the article, but that's hardly the end of the world (and not terribly difficult); the guy definitely seems notable, so if that's the price I have to pay for us to have a decent page, so be it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Chongkian

Hi Mdd. Why delete a harmless page? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It have asked myself the same question, and decided to removed this userpage anyway because that one edit seems like a test edit. If this user has more intentions. we will find out soon enough. -- Mdd (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a good idea to check if the user contributes to other projects before deleting his page here. User:Chongkian, in this case, has a similar User page on Wikipedia, and that's why I wouldn't delete his page here. I think that, when in doubt, it's better to keep harmless user pages, rather than deleting them, so as to not drive away potential contributors. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I already noticed and restored the userpage. I fully agree with your last argument, and will check next time. -- Mdd (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

''Persona 4: The Animation''

''Persona 4: The Animation'' has been listed at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/''Persona 4: The Animation''. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification. I apparently missed something, when I removed the db nomination, earlier. -- Mdd (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mohamed Nasheed

Thanks for being a "good" person. :-) DanielTom (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this person seems quite notable, and since there were quotes available on the Wikipedia article, this was a small effort. -- Mdd (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

David Fischman

Hola, Mdd! Thank you so much for your additions to David Fischman, I'm new at this, the language used in wikiquote is kinda complicated soon I'll get used to, and will improve my contributions. —This unsigned comment is by Sonqo Munan (talk • contribs) .

Edit summary

I think it's a bit misleading to call [1] a "correction". You changed one valid link to another valid link. 121a0012 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that if a (new) article is available on Wikiquote, the link to the Wikipedia article should be replaced by a direct link to that (new) article. Don't you agree? -- Mdd (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but something like "local links" would be a much more informative edit summary in situations like this. "Correction" is misleading because the previous links were not erroneous. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Darling, a true lady..."

Hi Mdd. Your decision to delete that page was, of course, correct, but could you tell me which user/IP created it? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It was IP:207.181.250.191 -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)