User talk:Ningauble

Archives

2008 2009 Jan–Jun 2009 Jul–Dec 2010 Jan–Jun 2010 Jul–Dec 2011 Jan–Jun 2011 Jul–Dec 2012 Jan–Jun

Frank Herbert

Concerning the see also section, I've started a discussion on the talk page. Thanks. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 17:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment brackets

Thank you for correcting that bad error with the unclosed comment! I thought I was checking carefully for unclosed comment brackets (I had missed one somewhere else, but immediately corrected it), but obviously I wasn't checking carefully enough. Will triple-check in the future. Thanks again. Macspaunday (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And I see I made the same mistake in about five other pages. Will quadruple-check next time. Apologies for putting you to all this trouble!! Macspaunday (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why have I been deleted?

I was in the process of adding quotes for a new wikiquote page for Evelyn Underhill which was going perfectly well until I went for a break and came back to find that I had been barred as an editor, accused of being a sock-puppet, and my worthy page had been put up for speedy deletion! Any help in this matter would be greatly welcomed. It appears that there is a rogue bot and or administrator loose....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That was no administrator: it was a mindless vandal. I am sorry there was not an administrator around to stop the vandalism sooner. It is nothing personal: when one of these mentally deranged morons goes on a rampage, they sometimes attack anyone who happens to be editing at the time. It is quite random and mindless: forget about it. You are in perfectly good standing with the administrators and the Wikiquote community. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of newly created proverb articles

Could you please stop deleting the newly created proverb articles? I will eventually add sourced proverbs to them. --Spannerjam (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you are doing on sourcing proverb pages; but it was a mistake to create pages with no quotes in them. First let me clarify a few points about what I did and did not do:

• I did delete one proverb page yesterday at Aboriginal Australian proverbs with the reason "Speedy deletion: Author request: the only contributor was Spannerjam". You wrote "This page sucks. You can delete it." on the page.
• I proposed deleting several pages using {{prod}} with the reason "No quotes. Article page used for discussion," but they have not been deleted yet. The "prod" process allows a week to resolve the situation before they are deleted. Note that, as explained by UDScott on the talk page of each article, these pages contained requests to un-delete pages that did not previously exist. There is nothing to be un-deleted. These pages are:

  Aramiac proverbs, Aramic proverbs, Cambodian proverbs, Kumaoni proverbs, Mesopotamian proverbs, Nigerian Proverbs, Persian Proverbs, Salento Proverbs, Samoan Proverbs, Scanian Proverbs, Sinhala Proverbs, Slovak Proverbs, Thai Proverbs

• You created several similar pages at the same time, for articles that were previously deleted. UDScott has restored the previous content to the article talk pages. I have not done anything about these pages yet, but if actual quotes are not added in a week or so then I will {{prod}} them with the same reason: "No quotes. Article page used for discussion." These pages are:

  Afghan proverbs, Azerbaijani proverbs, Balochi proverbs, Bengali proverbs, Bhutanese proverbs, Catalan proverbs, Dominican proverbs, Egyptian proverbs, Filipino proverbs, Frisian proverbs, Galician proverbs, Gypsy (Romani) proverbs, Haitian proverbs, Honduran proverbs, Indonesian proverbs, Ingush proverbs, Khakas proverbs, Korean proverbs, Kurdish proverbs, Malay proverbs, Maltese proverbs, Manx proverbs, Maori proverbs, Mongolian proverbs, Nepal Bhasa proverbs, Tuareg proverbs, Tywa proverbs, Vietnamese proverbs, Yoruba proverbs

• I also proposed deleting the Altay proverbs page for the same reason: "No quotes. Article page used for discussion." In this case you wrote "No sources found" in the article after the previous content was restored on the talk page by UDScott.

I think that summarizes what happened with these pages recently. Here are some points to bear in mind, and suggestions for moving forward:

1. Please do not create article pages without any quotes in them. That is not the right place to post discussions or requests for assistance. Article pages without any quotes are routinely deleted.
2. To request un-deletion you can use the talk page, or to be sure it gets noticed you can post a request on the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. You can also make an appeal at Wikiquote:Deletion review.
3. Please check whether the article has been deleted before requesting un-deletion. When you start to create an article, the system will warn you if it was previously deleted. If you do not see this warning then there never was an article with that title.
4. To post remarks about an article, such as "No sources found", please use the article talk page. Discussions about an article, and most kinds of self-reference to the article, do not belong in the article itself.

Again, I do appreciate the research you are doing, and I encourage you to keep at it. It is just that the time to start an article page is after finding a sourced quote to include. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ningauble, and suggest that you create drafts of proverbs pages in user space, and then move them to mainspace when they have a number of fully sourced proverbs for the language in question. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Monteux

I have looked on http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Templates but cannot find any reference to 'interlinear citations' - could you point to the page where this rule is explained? Many thanks. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the descriptive term "interlinear citation" is not used there, the concept is described at Wikiquote:Guide to layout#Formatting of quotes (people) and illustrated in the template:

   * quote 1
   ** citation 1
   * quote 2
   ** citation 2

The reason for placing the citation immediately after the quote, as is done in virtually all compendia of quotations that cite sources, is simple:  unlike Wikipedia, where citations are supporting information that belongs in footnotes, quotation is the main event here, and citation is integral to it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your category fixing help at We Are Legion, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, keep up the good work

Hi Ningauble, I would like to congratulate you for your tireless and usually thankless efforts in trying to keep Wikiquote clean and of amazingly high quality. Your contributions log of deletes and reasoned arguments is truly a monument to tidying up. I try to create a little content and I am impressed by those who spend so much time on constructive improvements and are devoted to deleting the dross. The high quality produced from efforts like these is why I have chosen to visit Wikipedia for a while. Well done! VisitingPhilosopher (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

VisitingPhilosopher has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

spambot

The account User:CoolSmith361 was a spambot, along with numbers of others with patterns like XxxxxxXxx. We have a lot going around the place currently and for the past six months of so. :-( sDrewth 11:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I assumed as much. This is consistent with a general pattern of user-space spam that began last year. Early adopters of the method appear to have given up on it, but there seems to be no lack of new idiots willing to give it a try. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Did a CU on CoolSmith361, but it only turned up one other editor. I'll try to keep an eye open for stuff like this, though I'd wager that it's just drive-by stuff. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, blocking has little impact on people who use one-shot account names from variable IP addresses. Most of these fools eventually realize they are wasting their time. When patrolling Recent Changes, I always check newly created user pages for spam. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas the Tank Engine

I'm afraid you will indeed have to cancel your PBS subscription. [1]--Collingwood (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really mean any of them, I meant the collection. The page in question is consistent with a recurring pattern of vandalism that includes falsely attributing random commercial children's shows to PBS. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thousands of pages to improve

There's over 9,000 pages on Wikiquote that probably could use some sourcing improvement. Perhaps you could go work on some of those, instead of spending so much time pursuing pages I've created that actually are sourced? Thank you so much, -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is more work to be done than anyone can keep up with. Whining about it doesn't help.
You and I may have different views of what I am doing here, but rest assured that you are not being singled out. When pages are substantially at variance with ordinary Wikiquote norms and conventions, it doesn't really matter to me who "owns" them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with your assessment, it seems instead like an undue focus on your part. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the way things may appear from your perspective, the world does not revolve around you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Nor you! LOL. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Death#Unsourced

I don't know if it's intended, but you removed many quotations which are actually sourced... people tend not to note the "Unsourced" headers. --Nemo 06:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. I had just moved the entire section headed "Unsourced" without examining it too closely. (It was a large section.) I will circle back and sort out the ones that were in the wrong section. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have moved most of them back. Thanks for pointing it out. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Do NOT put words in my mouth

Do NOT put words in my mouth, as you did here. Do NOT make assumptions about what you think I may or may not think. That is inappropriate and it is also a pet peeve of yours in the past that you have seemed to get very upset about very quickly. It is hypocritical of you, Ningauble, to act that way towards others. Golden rule, please. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You said "The article Psychology we would be greatly helped by structuring according to the basis of their authority to address the subject." I asked a question, a pointedly rhetorical one, about what you meant by this. I then characterized your suggestion as "introducing our assessments of the authors' bona fides." This is in no way a mischaracterization of what you actually said. When I pointed out that this would express a non-neutral point of view, I did not say it was your intent, express or implied, to do so: I was trying to explain the consequence of your proposal.

If you do not see that consequence then I am not sure how to explain it any better. If you disagree with my point, it does not justify coming to my talk page with false accusations of misconduct on my part. As I have said to you before, ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations are not welcome on my talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ningauble, you yourself have gotten quite upset in the past over what you thought were mischaracterizations of your prior statements. Then you do the exact same thing to others than yourself. You should be even more sensitive to that inappropriate behavior, not less. I did NOT say we should only have quotes from those with imprimatur on theme pages, just that they can be organized by author's background in subsections on that page, but NOT that others with less imprimatur should not be included. I never said that. I never even implied that. That is a mischaracterization of my words. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, I did not misrepresent what you said, I asked you what you meant by it. Ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations are not welcome on my talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You somehow drew the conclusion that I said only people with imprimatur should be quoted on a topic, which is completely different from what I did say, which is the page can be organized in subsections based on imprimatur. And that there is your gross and insulting mischaracterization of me. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not draw that conclusion, else I would not have posed the question. Ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations are not welcome on my talk page ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither on mine, and that is not my intent. I apologize if you feel you were "attacked", I hope you feel better and please know that was not my intent. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Amiable outreach

Amiable outreach. :)

Ningauble, I realize I've let myself get involved in an escalation of things lately, and I'm very sorry about that. I'd like to move forward with you to address issues in the future in a more lighthearted and friendly manner. I do value your input and advice, and I'd really love for both of us to work collaboratively together in the future where we both learn from each other. Once again, my apologies, -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss issues of Wikiquote content, as well as policies and procedures, in a collegial manner. However, if you have any issues with what you believe to be improper conduct on my part then I suggest taking them to WQ:AN for review by uninvolved administrators. If you raise such issues elsewhere I will refer them there. I say this because the basis and rationale of your numerous recent allegations frankly do not make a lot of sense to me. If I am doing something wrong it evidently needs to be explained from a different perspective for me to understand it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I just feel more discussion before going to VFD can't hurt. But I overreacted and you're right. Hopefully we can all be grateful and appreciate the positive outcome that this particular page was improved whilst at VFD, which is a good thing. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed way to move forward

I've proposed a suggested way to move forwards, at Talk:OT VIII. I hope it's helpful, -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Because we appear to have been talking past each other, from different perspectives on what "quotability" means, I don't think asking me to present my opinion again in converse form,[2] is likely to accomplish much. I think the best way forward is to get some other opinions, which is why I requested comment at the Village Pump.

I would also like to remark about actions such as (1) marking the discussion Done just one day after comments were solicited, and before anyone new to the discussion has commented; (2) starting a top top-level "compromise" thread after edits to the article that arise from an ongoing discussion; and (3) removing an unresolved discussion to an archive page:  I think these sorts of actions have a tendency to break off the discussion, or create impediments to keeping a discussion together in coherent fashion, and are not really conducive to the wiki way of reaching consensus. Please consider that these actions might be seen as giving the appearance, even if unintended, of unilateral preemption by an involved party. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ningauble's points above. Although I offered an opinion about what could possibly remain at the page in question, it was by no means the final word on the matter. It was just one opinion that was to be part of a discussion, with other opinions offered by others. I would rather have had a true discussion before ending the matter. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not mark a discussion as done, I just indicated I took a particular action that was done, which was implementing the suggestions from UDScott (talk · contributions). It appears, therefore, that you incorrectly read into something and assumed something that was not there. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your concurrent post at the Village Pump, "hopefully this is {{done}} and satisfactory now", certainly appears to contemplate the sense in which the {{Done}} template is ordinarily used: to indicate that an action has resolved the matter and it is finished. Nevertheless, it was not my intent to speculate as to what you meant by it but, rather, to ask you to consider the appearance it might be seen as giving. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, it was not my intent, and I have made a good faith extension to you, and I have stricken that usage, twice, so hopefully that is satisfactory for you. :) Hope you have a great day! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Abdou Diouf

dear Ningauble, sorry for such a late rely. i'm not a regular contributor of Wikiquote. I just saw your message on my discussion page and I'd like to ask you why quotes from the second president of Senegal Abdou Diouf are not considered pertinent for the project. thank you. --Iopensa (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted because the quotes were not English, and it had been tagged as lacking translation for more than a year. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. thanks. can you have access to that article and send it to me? maybe i/we i can put it on wikiquote in French. thanks. --Iopensa (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Done at your talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Iopensa (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello / Question (s?) / Request for Assistance

Ningauble: Hello - doubt you remember me, but we've talked before (some time ago.) I was just about to add a quote to the Calvin Coolidge page, and noticed what looks like an error in the text that I don't quite know how to correct properly. An earlier editor seems to have tried to create a link to Coolidge's Inaugural Address by an embedded link to Wikisource, which he coded as follows:

s:Calvin_Coolidge's_Inaugural_Address

This does not seem to translate in the way he intended. I have used similar links to pages on Wikipedia and on Wikiquote, but so far I haven't found the right way to fix this code so that it comes out correctly. I was tempted to just leave it as it stands, but since I also have some other minor questions I wanted to run by an editor with more experience than I possess, I thought this might be a reasonable opportunity to ask you for assistance. Can you tell me where I would find an explanation of how to code this properly, & can I pester you for a few other answers in the future? Best regards -- CononOfSamos (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

After some additional thought, I found a way to modify the Calvin Coolidge Tnaugural Address reference that seems to accomplish what I had been attempting to fix : I still have other questions I would like to ask you (for one, I have a change that I feel should be made to a page that is edit-locked), but I will wait to hear back from you before I bother you with the details.

CononOfSamos (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I do remember you, and had noticed that you returned recently after a period of absence. Welcome back. Feel free to ask about anything – I would be happy to help. If it involves a broad issue then we can take it to a community forum as Collingwood suggested on your talk page.[3]

For protected pages, the general answer is that you can post a request on the associated talk page. Include details of exactly what you want to change so that, if it seems like a good idea, an administrator can do it for you. If you include the phrase "edit request" in the edit summary and discussion heading then someone will probably notice the request. If not, you can call attention to it with a brief note at the Administrators' noticeboard. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

English proverbs "cleanup"-sign

Why does the English proverbs page need a cleanup according to you? --Spannerjam (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I will elaborate on this at the article talk page. I am a little busy with "real life" right now, so it will be later today or sometime tomorrow. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As indicated, Ningauble will provide comments later, but my opinion is that cleanup is needed for two reasons: the layout does not conform to the established templates (meaning the smaller font for the citation and meaning), as well as the sorting by subjective section headings, as discussed here. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The layout does not have to conform to established rules, if they are preventing you from improving Wikipedia or any of Wikipedia's sister projects. See Wikipedias' fifth pillar. Spannerjam (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You asked why the cleanup tag was on the page, and I gave the answer. Of course questioning or even ignoring rules if they prevent you from improving the site is good, but your alternate layout is the product of one person's opinion (yours). This site is built on consensus and, to quote from the same link you provided, ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." I don't believe a fight is warranted here, but your alternate layout should be discussed and a consensus reached on its use. I happen to believe that having templates does help improve the site because it provides a common look and feel. But in the end, mine is only one opinion too - this is something that should be brought up and discussed (and in the end, if a consensus is established, the templates can be amended) rather than just applied to a single page because one user feels it is better than what is already established. I also believe this should be discussed on a larger stage and have moved this to the article talk page rather than Ningauble's Talk page. I suggest we discontinue discussing it here. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How to write an article here?

Alex Trans (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that you skipped what should be the first step in creating a Wikiquote article: find some famous quotations.

The pages you recently created, with an advertising slogan and a couple promotional links (to a press release and a company website) are not appropriate here: Wikiquote is NOT a vehicle for advertising, it is a compendium of famous and "quotable" quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Site maintenance

I very much appreciate your work of maintaining Wikiquote. However, I encourage you to instead of just deleting (reverting) edits by newcomers, yourself reformat those edits if possible, and if the edit is useless, thoroughly explain why you deleted their contribution. If you don't have the time for this, please leave the maintenance for someone else who also maintains Wikiquote (such as me within the proverbs articles). See Wikipedia's guideline Please do not bite the newcomers for more information. --Spannerjam (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is some specific edit or deletion that you would like to discuss, please feel free to do so on the article talk page or at Deletion review.

By the way, thanks for reminding me that it is about time to carry out the consensus of the discussion at Talk:English proverbs#English proverbs "cleanup"-sign. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm refering to the reverted edit by 41.215.160.133. --Spannerjam (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been my experience that when someone makes a single unconstructive or destructive edit without registering, they are rarely heard from again whether or not they are sent a warning. They often never even see the message because the IP address is dynamically allocated by their ISP.

If this was a mistake made in good faith by a reasonable person, it should be quite evident that it was a mistake and I don't think it is necessary to explain the reversion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you know better since you have been maintaining Wikiquote for a longer time. --Spannerjam (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Merci Beaucoup pour votre travail extraordinaire sur Wikiquote

Ningauble, Thanks for making Wq library way' be'ta. "I think the health of our civilization, the depth of our awareness about the underpinnings of our culture and our concern for the future can all be tested by how well we support our libraries." ~ Carl Sagan Greentopia (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

[Bug 35306] Global (to a wiki farm or family) message delivery (thoughts)

You may be interested on commenting this, whether on bugzilla or the linked mw: page. --Nemo 08:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugzilla ticket is about bulk mail delivery, and the MW Echo feature is for system triggered notifications. I don't think these are at all closely related, apart from the matter of how to notify a user that they have new mail.

On the bulk mail front, referred to as "global message delivery", I don't care much about how it is implemented. I do care about the distinction between "global delivery of messages" (wherever the recipients are) and "delivery of global messages" (to all wikis). This is not really under consideration at Bugzilla, but I commented there anyway.

For the MW Echo feature, "public announcements" are expressly out of scope, so this does not relate to the communications issues we were discussing at the Village Pump recently. It appears to be mainly for new users who are unfamiliar with, or old users who do not like, watchlists and page histories. (For those of us with low bandwidth, I am afraid these interactive features will only slow performance and/or crash browsers like the ill-fated LiquidThreads experiment. Unlike LiquidThreads however, users will be able to turn Echo off with user preferences.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

User:John Daker

Thanks - I stepped out for a few minutes while this user continued to vandalize. One note, the same User name was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and vandalism on WP (see here). Assuming this is the same user, we should keep an eye on things once your block expires. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, and seeing that it is a unified account, I might just as well have used an indefinite block. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ron Kaufman

Hi Ningauble, Can you take a look at Ron Kaufman/Temp? User:Collingwood says it looks much better and I would like to get your opinion as well. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see my opinion about appropriate quantities posted earlier at Talk:Ron Kaufman#Draft in temporary subpage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, does that mean you've looked again since my later edits? I've cut it down considerably since you last commented on the Discussion page.HtownCat (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What I meant above is that I meant what I said before, about one quote per ten pages being more than enough, and about less being better. Yes, I reviewed the current draft before responding: in my opinion there is no qualitative difference between too much and much too much.

I encourage you to focus on identifying a handful of the most strikingly original and memorable examples. If you are associated with the subject, as appears to be indicated on the article talk page, then subjective assessments like this can be difficult, and it may be best to stick with passages that are widely quoted by independent sources. You may also want to consider disclosing the nature of your relationship with the subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Knowledge

Hi Ningauble, thanks for fixing the quoted source I missed. -- Mdd (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Some stylized forms of reference, such as conventional bible verse citations, are so succinct that they can easily appear to be incomplete or obscure. They are obscure if one is not familiar with them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cite quote

Forgive me, but I can't recall the last time this was discussed, but hasn't the use of such a template been previously considered and rejected? I marked a page containing it for cleanup, but I just don't remember the discussion on using something like this. Do you recall? ~ UDScott (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And I see other newly introduced templates by the same user - do we need any of these? ~ UDScott (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to, and still will, comment on these. {{Cite quote}} is clearly not consistent with current format guidelines, but the others (inline sister links) may be more debatable preferences. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WQ:VP#Quote citation template. Starcartographer is looking for a resolution[4] but despite a lot of verbiage (mea culpa) only two users have responded to the proposal, so your input would be welcome. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Orwell page

Do you agree with what Macspaunday did to the page? 92.13.95.249 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to the edit which you reverted here, yes, what Macspaunday did is consistent with Wikiquote's Image use policy. Per that policy, the images should not be re-added without obtaining consensus on the talk page first.~ Ningauble (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A stupid hick!

Do you know the fool and the brutish person you are! Stupid! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.185.196.8 (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2013

sourced quotes?

Any idea where i can find them? I also asked another admin/user. Thank you. --7exkd (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind

For this, the sorce is in the page Thomas Dewar, 1st Baron Dewar. It's no ok? --Spinoziano (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It is better to include the citation at the point of quotation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question ("Misattributed" section)

Hello Ningauble, can you help me with a question? Shouldn't a red box appear in the "Misattributed" section? I am curious as to why that doesn't happen in the page José Saramago. Am I missing something? Thanks. Daniel Tomé (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"It's Supposed To Be Automatic But Actually You Have To Press This Button."_{— John Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar}.

Place a {{Misattributed begin}} before the section heading, and a {{Misattributed end}} at the end of the section. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. It worked. Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

I replied at Wikiquote:Bots#RileyBot :) -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 00:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotes on cases

Can i make pages regarding the rape cases?

I mean, there was recently one, in which many politicians/popular ones had expressed there view. So a page can be made? On such event?

Justicejayant (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would such quotes not just go in Rape? BD2412 T 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem

I didn't know this, but I presume you I wouldn't recreate a deleted page again. I'm so sorry for what I did to this page. After all, it's one of my favorite movies, the one that 2010 classified it as "This year's coolest animated comedy" and "This year's funniest animated comedy".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.181.72.177 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2013

I don't know why they often delete that page I create (Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem) no matter how many information I put on it. I promise for this page not to be deleted ever again if you ask me: What is the minimum number of bytes for a page on this website?—This unsigned comment is by Voltlds (talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 March 2013‎.

The reason for deletion, given at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem, has nothing to do with the number of bytes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Why did you delete the page about the 5 questions you need to answer? Why? Why? Why? It was a competition? You should have particapated in it? The question is: Why did you delete it?--74.131.177.233 14:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote is for quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Listen Ningauble, I left a note on my IP's talk page and told him why he was blocked! If he vandalize wikiquote again, I will let you know that way you can block him for 72 hours because that is not good! And I actually explained to him about what he did wrong. Should I let you know if he vandalizes wikiquote that way you can block him again for 72 hours? How's that? --Starship9000 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page about acting like two people and using an IP to vandalize Wikimedia projects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I can confirm via Checkuser that the IP and Starship9000 are one and the same. Reblocking the IP to tweak the settings. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any famous quotes that DOES NOT have a article? I will be more happy to create them! --Starship9000 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Abraxas

Hello Ningauble, sorry to bother you, but could you please clarify something for me?
Why did you write at User:Abraxas "Please refer to confession for evidence", and in the edit summary "confirmed"?
In my opinion, that was not fair at all.
Kalki did admit that the account was his, but that is not "sock puppetry", at least to my understanding of the term. A Wikiquote sock puppet is another account belonging to a user, used for causing trouble, vandalism or as a way to get around Wikiquote's policies. So, how was what he said a "confession" of that? Did you read his statement carefully? Kalki wrote: "I continue to assert was the rampage of IMPROPER account blocking and page defacement based upon many FALSE ASSUMPTIONS and accusations of misuse or abuse of my accounts." As you can see, what he said was the exact opposite of a "confession" of sock puppetry. Why put words in his mouth? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What has been confirmed is that, as previously suspected, this was indeed one of Kalki's accounts.

There is a general consensus, elucidated in numerous extensive community discussions, that Kalki's use of hundreds of accounts does, in fact, cause trouble. An admission of the act falls within the meaning of the term "confession" even when accompanied with protestation that the act or intention was harmless. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I looked at those records, and it seems to me that many people just enjoy provoking Kalki. And I think that your comment "arrogant misappropriation" was also clearly meant to incite a response. In any case, you tend to be right, so I guess I have some more thinking to do. It's certainly not my place to speak for Kalki, and I will stop here. Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Rawls, John

Hi, could you advice me what to do with the PROD of this redirect? I am under the impression that there are a lot of those redirects (for example Miller, William) and those redirects help to search for names, when you use the search function. That is at least were I encountered them the first time, and I find them very useful. -- Mdd (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I found some conformation, that there are indeed a lot of these redirects. Since Jan 2008 BD2412 alone created over 700 of these "last-name-first redirect". -- Mdd (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that redirects from last name first are very useful. Anyone can contest a {{prod}} by simply removing the template with an explanation. You could leave an edit summary like "de-PROD: last name first redirects are useful and common, use Wikiquote:Votes for deletion if you disagree". You could elaborate further on the talk page if you prefer, but it doesn't seem necessary. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed your advice here. Could you also give your opinion on the PROD of the Spiritual Intelligence redirect? I wonder if they are common around here? Or even exist more often? I have no clue how I could check, since redirects don't seem to be listed in any category here. I recall from earlier discussion elsewhere, that "last-name-first redirect" are also useful because they create extra (google) search engine entry, but "double-capital redirects" don't. They can easily be avoided in articles by making link-corrections (such as here). -- Mdd (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect-from-alternate-capitalization is not nearly as useful, because the search tool is case insensitive. There may be some situations where alternate forms are so common that the "piped linking" to which you refer becomes onerous, but none come to mind at the moment. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, now I found the Wikipedia Category:Redirects from other capitalisations. There are much more of them on the English Wikipedia then I could have imagined (379,812), but I guess that is no reason to continue that same practice here. -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

People can sometimes become quite obsessed about capitalization: see http://xkcd.com/1167/ for a humorous observation on the phenomenon at Wikipedia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Tadaram Maradas

• Notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NotabilityTsillaria360 (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with deleting a page

Mr. Ninguable ;-) I tried to nominate the page "Prep" for deletion, but was not able to successfully add it to the deletion log page. Would you be able to do that correctly for me? Thank you. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Y Done.[5][6] (Inconsistent capitalization breaks links.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Latin Quotations

Do you think it would be possible to create an article for Latin phrases (not proverbs)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not keen on the idea of using Wikiquote as a phrasebook, in Latin or otherwise. It would be a useful resource, but I think Wikiquote is a different type of resource. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I said "phrases" because that is what the the book I use calls them ("frases", in Portuguese), but you could call them quotes.

I thought of adding some of them to the Latin proverbs page, but they are not really "proverbs"; of course, I could add said quotes to the article of each individual author, yet I figured it would be a better idea to compile them (the most famous Latin expressions) into a single article (at least the ones that have a clear source).

Still no? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what type of quotations you have in mind. If by "famous expressions" you mean what are sometimes called "proverbial expressions", then that is what I mean by material better suited for a phrasebook. If you mean quotations in general, that happen to originate in the Latin language, then I think it would be too broad: one could devote an entire wiki to them. I would much prefer that quotations be organized by People, Works, and Themes rather than by language of origin. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Very interesting. (Except that it's dead.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I found this. :) DanielTom (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

et cetera in infinitum, nisi singulis secundum speciem suam. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Dudeism

In response to your inquiry on my page — and so that you don't have to put up with downloading it, I am posting my response there here:

I believe that "Religious parodies and satires" could be an appropriate category for both that and any pages having to do with Discordians — but I so wish to emphasize that I sincerely believe they would both still belong as genuine religions and philosophies — as I believe they are genuine religious traditions which religiously satirize the taking of many things too seriously. As to the size of the page — and download times on dial-up — I can accept that IS a SERIOUS issue, and sympathize, and sorrow at that situation. It does not make me inclined to use graphics much less — for graphics are far more extensively used elsewhere, but I would suggest using an alternate browser with ALL imaging turned off for visiting pages or sites with many unwanted graphics. Such was a strategy I once used when download speeds were much more of a problem than they are now, for me and most people. I actually used to keep several browsers open at once, years ago, but now seldom have more than two open — usually either Safari or Firefox — although there are occasional explorations with others just to test their "feel" and the appearances of things with them, I really find no actual need to use more than those two. There are several with good reputations for speed which you could check out, and I believe the top ones probably all have some options to not display ANY images — though I haven't used such options myself in quite some time. For your sake and those of a few others who do not like images much, for various reasons — it might be a good idea to suggest an option to the software developers of turning off images in the wiki-preferences — and not simply reducing the size of their display to 120px — that would be an ideal solution for you perhaps. I have been stripping out the previous 144px specs I had used on most pages, and I hope that can be of some help to you. I do not know how hard or difficult it might be for programmers to do a more complete exclusion option, or when they might get around to it — but I hope it is an one they might be able to take care of in coming versions of the software.

I truly hope a satisfactory strategy on handling of graphics can be developed for you soon. Blessings ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

PS : I also think we should probably create a category page for Humanism for I believe that Dudeism and other philosophies would probably relate well to such a category. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Religious parodies and satires":  It could be a subcategory within both Religion and Philosophy. (There is a great deal of overlap between the two modes of thought.) It was not my intention to suggest that parody and satire are not serious or that these are in any sense not genuine forms of religious or philosophical expression, but I think it useful to distinguish them from other schools of thought that are associated with, for want of a better word, orthodoxies.

Regarding page size:  Wikimedia developers have long declined to do anything about rich media overload because, as you note, browsers have an option for omitting image files. However, rather than further handicapping my browser, I prefer to generally avoid pages that are too bloated to be useful to me. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully will defer to your judgment

Dear Ningauble,

I am being, ahem, repeatedly queried on my user talk page by a user, DanielTom (talk · contributions), that is perhaps still holding on to a bit of lingering emotional states and exhibiting some of that in this ongoing behavior pattern, due to an unrelated issue from English Wikipedia where I had filed a sockpuppet investigation involving him and Kalki (talk · contributions).

I am glad that you have chimed in with this astute comment at the admin noticeboard about this particular issue.

Because of this ongoing potential prior vested interest by DanielTom (talk · contributions) against me, I feel it would be best for you to take the lead on what to do from here with regards to the BarkingFish issue.

I respectfully will defer to your judgment about what should next be done about how to resolve this matter with this sleeper sockfarm on Wikiquote.

Perhaps you could help to close this issue for now with regards to Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#BarkingFish_and_sockpuppets?

Thank you for your wise input,

-- Cirt (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cirt, why did you just cite a comment made by Beyond My Ken which was retracted by himself just 3 minutes after it was posted? That shows extremely bad faith on your part, and is outrageously rude. Need I remind you that you apologized to me for that case, which was clearly motivated by your Kalki-bashing agenda? You don't learn, do you? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an expression for what you're doing in Portuguese: esconder-se por detrás das saias da mamã (something like "Hiding behind your mama's skirt", where Ningauble will apparently be taking the maternal role). Everyone can see that you bringing up this old dispute (shamefully initiated by yourself) is just one more of your really quite pathetic attempts to evade taking responsibility for your own actions. Please, do grow up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the policy question is of some interest and is an appropriate issue for WQ:AN. Bickering about each other's motivations and rhetoric is of no interest to me whatsoever, and I tend to ignore it unless it rises to a level of disrupting the wiki that forces matters.

Regarding closing the AN discussion: I gave opinions there and several active admins have not, so I do not think it would be necessary or appropriate for me to close discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@Ningauble, I agree with everything you have said above. Regarding the policy discussion, I will respectfully defer to your judgment about what should be done about that. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, mentioned you in a thread

Please see this comment, I've mentioned you in a discussion thread. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by DanielTom

Please see Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attack_by_DanielTom.

Can something be done about this?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's say I know someone whom I think is (for example) considering suicide. What Cirt is saying is that, basically, if I tell that person to contact a mental health professional immediately, that would be a "personal attack". Well, it isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here are the supposed "personal attacks" I made to User:Cirt:

• BD2412, here is my advice to you: block Cirt. This guy is an absolute troll.
• If you, Cirt, 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.

I stand by these assertions, namely that 1) I think Cirt should be blocked [or better yet, desyopped, to prevent him from continuing to abuse his admin tools and status], and 2) I think Cirt needs mental help. I tell the truth as I see it, and if it gets me blocked, I have no problem with that. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC) last edit: 20:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

How do I find historical quotations? I have off course tried Googling with varying degrees of success.--Spannerjam (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is hard to answer. Read a lot of historical books? Don't believe everything you read on the internet? Personally, I use GoogleBooks a lot, where I ignore most things published less than 20 years ago, and I disregard attributions in self-help and instructional books. Sorry if this is not much help.

I think the main thing is to acquire a broad familiarity with the sort of general literature that is studied in a "liberal arts" education. One can spend a lifetime doing it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

One possible source is to look at established quotation collections (such as Bartlett's) - this can be found online here. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your fantastic work as an administrator, I hereby award you the Admin's Barnstar. You will always be the admin in my book. :) DanielTom (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I also appreciate your sense of humor, as you know. ;-) DanielTom (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Page view statistics

How come Wikisource and many other projects have "Page view statistics", but Wikiquote does not? How do we go about implementing it? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I should ask at Meta? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your first question, "how come?", is that these are ad hoc tools, external to Wikimedia, that interested people developed for things that interest them. Meta is the "logical" place to enquire about taking them global, and might be worth a try, but folks there are often indifferent to Wikiquote. For your second question, I would suggest contacting people who are involved with the tools.

I assume you are referring to the external "Page view statistics" tool on Wikipedia history pages that links to stats.grok.se. There is contact information about the tool here, but I don't know whether it is current.

In February a Wikipedia Signpost article described other tools that use the same underlying data dumps. It identifies people involved in the section captioned "Data details and alternative perspectives". There is a MediaWiki page about the popular Wikistats package. Though it has aggregated rather than page specific data, folks there may know who to contact.

At Meta, the Research team might have information about uses of Pageview statistics. You might also consider pinging the Wikimedia Analytics Team about this.

Unfortunately, you are enquiring about ad hoc tools that are even more unorganized than the characteristically "grass roots" wiki way of muddling through, because they are not on-wiki collaborations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the pointers, much appreciated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked Henrik and he said this:

If you'd like it linked in the same place as enwp (under the history tab on all pages), have an admin edit http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Histlegend and add something like

 <span style="white-space:nowrap;">[http://stats.grok.se/en.q/latest/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}} Page view statistics]</span>

Not sure if it works (I think it just links to WP stats...), could you try it? ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was also under the impression, from coverage at the Signpost and elsewhere, that the stats.grok.se dataset only covered Wikipedias. It is great news that Wikiquote and other "sister projects" are also included. (example)

Unfortunately, though the resulting report includes Wikiquote statistics, several components of the report (title, link to article, interactive selector) are hard-coded for Wikipedia only, so I have some reservations about adding it to our interface in its present state. I have enquired at Henrik's talk page about enhancing the report to work better for sister projects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the title fooled me, but it seems to work! The details you mention (title, link to article, etc.) should be easy to fix. Thanks again ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed now :) DanielTom (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Y OK. I have added this to the "Revision history" screen, with other tweaks, and anounced the change at the Village Pump. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very good news. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)