Last modified on 30 August 2014, at 01:07

User talk:Ningauble

Return to "Ningauble" page.
Archive
Archives

Category Edits to Joshua CasteelEdit

Greetings, you removed four theme categories from Joshua Casteel. Can you please point me to some Wikiquote policy guidance indicating that theme categories should not be applied to pages named after individuals even when quotes on the page deal with the subject matter of a particular theme category? It would seem to me helpful to readers and appropriate to populate theme categories with pages which contain quotes pertaining to the subject matter of the theme even though the category is not descriptive of the person to whom the quote is attributed. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental categories at Wikiquote are organized by the type of article subject, e.g, People, Themes, etc. This is fundamental.

What you are envisioning is more like an index of quotes about a topic. Adding software to support indexing in addition categorizing has been discussed at Wikipedia occasionally, but there has never been much support for the idea (in part, because the search engine already provides a comprehensive word index). ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided any policy references pointing to a prohibition on mixing person and theme categories. I have also reviewed Wikiquote's Policies and Guidelines and your edit seems to be the expression of personal preference not an agreed upon policy. Further, in the absence of the indexing you mention it just makes sense to use categories eclectically so that users can more readily find the quotes they are looking for. I have reverted your edit. --Mox La Push (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)--Mox La Push (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Rick PerryEdit

I was trying to find a policy/guideline that indicates that quotes should be listed chronologically in articles, but haven't found such. Can you provide a link? --Buddpaul (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Chronological ordering is described at Wikiquote:Templates#Formatting guidelines. Appropriate section types are identified at Wikiquote:Guide to layout#Sections (people). One of the principle reasons for this longstanding practice is to avoid the appearance of expressing editorial opinions about the subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

importing templatesEdit

Hi Ningauble. Please check the recent additions. It's possible I copied something superfluous, which you may want to delete. For example, in Template:Listen perhaps there is no need to have Category:Articles with hAudio microformats, as we almost don't use them. Thanks, DanielTom (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you refer specifically to Template:Listen and its components Template:Listen/core and Template:Main other. (Reference to recent additions is rather broad, and is time sensitive.) About that template:
  1. I don't have any interest in the type of media files to which the template pertains, and have not attempted to play them over my rather slow internet connection.
  2. I do not have an opinion on the usefulness of categorizing articles that contain this type of media.
  3. It appears that Template:Side box is not working as intended (or being used as intended): rather than a discrete box on the side of the page, it is displaying a wide banner across the page, breaking up the layout. (Checking a few other invocations of {{Side box}}, this appears to be a consistent problem.)
In short, though I don't feel a pressing need to delete any of this, I don't like it and would certainly never use it myself. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
If I were American, I would tell you, "Your [sic] missing out!" ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Though my eclectic interests are broad and diverse, there is much that does not interest me and I do not miss it. I really dislike the overblown banner style of the template you have implemented, but not enough to nominate it for deletion at this time. I may decide differently if too many articles become cluttered by it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but I don't think the banner is overblown, it extends only as far as the text goes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it should be a banner, it breaks up the page. The corresponding template at Wikipedia is implemented as a sidebar. I see no reason for using a display much wider than, or positioned differently than, a conventional image thumbnail. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you copy that WP "listen" example, it doesn't appear a "wide banner across the page", because the description text is small. But I take your point, that it should be like a picture to the right, though I don't understand why it doesn't work as in WP considering how the template codes are the same. DanielTom (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the weird wonderful world of template editing. Many Wikipedia templates are not directly usable at Wikiquote because they employ site-specific custom CSS, which is not editable by mere mortals. "Importing" a template often requires substantial translation from the local dialect of the source. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

protectionEdit

I already left this message before. Can you or another admin please protect my talk page. It is being met with vandalism again and I don't want to consistently revert the gibberish. - Zarbon (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Contact usEdit

Contact Wikiquote volunteers confidentially at info-en@wikiquote.org

As no "Wikiquote volunteer" reads that email, shouldn't this be changed to something less deceptive to our readers? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask at the talk page. Sorry if I take too much of your time with questions, and please take it the right way, i.e. that you are one of the most valuable assets/human capital Wikiquote has. I hope you're doing well AFK, despite your recent relative inactivity, and that you'll have time to enjoy the match between Lee Sedol [whom I predict will be the winner] and Gu Li that is coming up (if you bother at all with recent Go events). Anyway, take care, DanielTom (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Eden AhbezEdit

Could you undo my recent move? Apparently it's not possible to have uncapitalized first words as article titles on WQ. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done --~~Goldenburg111 19:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
(Hm. Don't know what gave me the idea only admins could do it.) DanielTom (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian proverbsEdit

Can you please move the page Ukranian proverbs to Ukrainian proverbs? Also, since you are that guy who tracks down quote origins, could you take a look at the quote "If you don't design your own life plan, chances are you'll fall into someone else's plan. And guess what they have planned for you? Not much.". It is attributed to Jim Rohn on sites such as Goodreads, but I have not been able to verify it myself. If you could help me with this, it would mean a lot to me. --Spannerjam (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The page has already been moved. FYI, you can do this yourself: in the "default skin", the move option is in the drop-down menu (at the little downward-pointing triangle, immediately to the left of the search box). If you don't see this, set me know which skin you are using.

Regarding the quote attributed to Jim Rohn: I don't know where it came from, and I am not very interested in his sort of motivationalism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

PermissionEdit

Is it okay if I add meta:User:Goldenburg111/Reports/Wikiquote Vandalism Statics to into your userpage here? --~~Goldenburg111 22:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. I don't know what might have given you the impression that my user profile page is a place for posting problem reports, but it is not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotes from the bookEdit

Hello, you keep deleting the quotes from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Struggle_Da_Preacher, they has been first published on the artist's official blog and there is a published book please do not delete them —This unsigned comment is by Tru Word (talkcontribs) 17:12, 3 February 2014‎.

Where exactly was it published? I have searched for it without success. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of quotes from the talk pageEdit

"please do not use talk pages to archive material found unsuitable for the article" ...

Excuse me, but when is this standard practice to remove other user's archived material from the talk page?

If I recall, standard practice on Wikiquote actually IS to move quotes to the talkpage, for example, moving quotes for discussion at the talk page, and/or moving unsourced quotes to the talk page for further research.

There is simply no reason for this.

-- Cirt (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

For example, you yourself have moved quotes "unsuitable" for the quote page to the talk page, here: "moving unsourced attributions to talk page". -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what makes me so confused why you would want to censor my research, or even censor my attempt to archive my research, as I'd seen you yourself move quotes to the talk page as recently as December 2013, and not simply outright deleting them. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Cirt, the practice of moving quotes to the Talk page has been used to place unsourced quotes there, pending sourcing. To use this process to place quotes that have been deemed unacceptable for the mainspace page is what I believe Ningauble is complaining about. This gives the impression that these quotes may at some future point be deemed acceptable and moved back to the main page. I agree that this is an inappropriate use of the Talk page. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, UDScott (talk · contributions), pending further discussion I will self-revert. But it feels like censorship of my research and inability to discuss specific quotes on the talk page! -- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - but just one more point. Were you truly placing quotes on the Talk page to discuss the appropriateness of keeping them, it might be a different matter. In this case, it appeared more that you were just putting them there to preserve them so that they would be archived. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
My intent has always been both! I always wish for people to please discuss specific quotes, individually, with me, instead of vague annoying complaints that are nonspecific. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not seeing the dual purpose: there was no rationale offered for adding them back to the article, only an express intent to archive them. I find it very perplexing that an administrator of long standing here would give the appearance of subverting the purpose of article talk pages. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I am just as surprised at the embrace of censorship. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Mickle read DrydenEdit

From Book I of his translation of the Lusiads,

Nor shall the godlike Albuquerque restrain
The Muse's fury; o'er the purpled plain
The Muse shall lead him in his thund’ring car
Amidst his glorious brothers of the war,
Whose fame in arms resounds from sky to sky,
And bids their deeds the power of death defy.

From Book IV:

—————————————the bloody doom
That dy'd with slaughter Cannae's purple field

There might be other occurrences, but this is as far as I've read. He also mentions the "dye of Tyre" in Book II. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't you seeEdit

Don't you see that MLKLewis (talk · contributions) is trying to censor and whitewash from the Internet any slightest mention of Scientology in relation to Werner Erhard and Landmark Forum, and any slightest mention of Werner Erhard and Landmark Forum in relation to Scientology? -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What I see is that you appear to be trying to use Wikiquote to document any slightest mention of relationships between these persons and organizations or, in the case of the quote we have been discussing at Talk:Scientology#Quotes Not Related to Topic of Page, to document an instance where they are mentioned in the same paragraph among examples of something broader. Documenting any slightest mention is not what Wikiquote is for.

You and MLKLewis may have conflicting interests or agendas, but it is Wikiquote's agenda that matters here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is Wikiquote's agenda we should focus on. But this agenda of Wikiquote should not enable sycophants to engage in censorship on the Internet to rewrite history according to the view of a particular guru, wouldn't you agree? -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
If I may, my view in this situation is that certainly were someone actually trying to censor what we place on a page on Wikiquote, there would be a problem. But I do not see that trying to ensure that a given quote is worthy of inclusion (and in so doing removing extraneous material that is not quotable) sinks to the level of censorship or of trying to "rewrite history." Your characterization of a user you happen to disagree with as a sycophant engaged in censorship is not warranted in my opinion and is uncalled for. I have often found that users tend to try to include quotes on a page simply if they happen to mention the subject of said page - regardless of whether or not the quote is memorable, pithy, or otherwise quotable. To me this is not the aim of this project and your insistence in trying the same on the cited pages is unfortunate. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not characterize any user that way. I said Wikiquote should not be in the practice of enabling users IFF users were acting that way. -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done, I've made a good faith attempt at compromise and trimmed the quote, per above recommendation by UDScott, please see diff, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Linkin Park: Live In TexasEdit

Its not copyright violation, I've listen to the audio and made sure I've got all the words right, the lyrics in the song is copyright but I've put the words down on paper first then type them up or out, I've changed some of the words in the lyrics due to having the right words in the songs, the DVD/CD is censored but I've figured out what they said, usually the studio version songs are the only one that gets lyrics but the world don't get to see the live version of these songs and read or see these speeches between each songs so I've wanted to put this out for the world to see, what the band said on that DVD, I'll remake the lyrics on what the band say during the break between each song like speeches. (Mike: ...) and (Chester: ...) like that to make it more clear on they said between songs and during songs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.1 Jibbz (talkcontribs) 18:14, 24 February 2014‎ (UTC)

A line or two from a few songs would be acceptable within the limits of "fair use" of copyrighted materials, but not complete lyrics or performances. Transcribing from a DVD into text is a derivative work subject to the limitations on fair use of the original. For some quantitative guidance on fair use at Wikiquote, see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How would one startEdit

How would one start to contribute collaboratively to selecting the Main Page Quote of the Day, if one wished to do so in advance of its selection?

Does the process provide for inclusive collaboration, or is it built on this website to only allow for one (1) individual to control this process?

Please help advise on where one goes to contribute collaboratively in a way where the input will actually be heard and used?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. I see this page here at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March.
  2. Where does the process go next, from voting on quotes, to actual formatting of the Quote of the Day Page ?
  3. Where is the next stage of collaboration for what those quote pages will look like?
  4. Or is Wikiquote truly only set up to have one (1) individual controlling the final format of those pages?
  5. I wish to contribute to discussions about this in a collaborative manner, I'm just not sure where that actually occurs, if it does, at all, before quotes appear on the Main Page in the final formatted version.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume there are rhetorical questions, because I believe you are fully aware of how the process has been working. If you have a concrete proposal, please feel free to raise it in an appropriate community forum. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Ningauble, these are not rhetorical questions. I honestly am not fully familiar with the Main Page Quote of the Day process. I am asking you, in good faith, where these layout pages are discussed, before they appear on the Main Page? -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It is quite evident that you are fully aware of exactly what has been going on. I am not amused by an administrator of several years standing play-acting at being an ingénue. If you have a concrete proposal, please feel free to raise it in an appropriate community forum rather than baiting me on my talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Ningauble, please, I am not baiting you! Please understand, I don't have much familiarity with this Main Page Quote of the Day process! I see you have voted before and participated in this process in the past -- I haven't yet participated in that part of it. I really don't quite yet know fully how it works. I would really appreciate your help understanding how quotes and layout get from the voting part to the layout part and then to the Main Page? -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Q at MetaEdit

Asked you a question at Meta re. template formatting. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Charles Saxby‎Edit

Shouldn't you notify User:ILVI of the VfD? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to do so if you like. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

grammar QEdit

Which one is correct: "Oh salty sea, how much of your salt / is tears from Portugal!", or, "Oh salty sea, how much of your salt / are tears from Portugal!" ? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"How much is", because subject and predicate should agree in number, and the question is "how much" rather than "how many" because "salt" is a mass noun. "Is" is only nominally symmetric, not strictly, and it is ok for subject and object to disagree in number. In the poem, tears are what much of the salt is. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood; last question, if I may: re. presentation of verses, which one do you consider correct, "Oh salty sea, how much of your salt/is tears of Portugal!", or, "... how much of your salt/ is tears of Portugal!", or even, "... how much of your salt / is tears of Portugal!" ? Thanks again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume the slash represents a line break in the original poem. A line break would be correct, except when quoting inline as in your original question above. When using a slash for this purpose I would separate it from adjacent words with spaces, but when using it to form a compound like "either/or" I would not.

Unless there is a good reason not to, it would generally be safe to use the same convention as the translation you are citing for the quotaton. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Going back to the initial question, I just noticed, that as a matter translation, which should be accurate, & faithful, to the original, "are" is appropriate. Pessoa writes, "quanto do teu sal / São lágrimas", and even if it is an error to use "são" [plural] instead of "é [singular] lágrimas", the translation should still reflect this. (Just explaining why I changed it back.) Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Nabokov suggests, in Problems of Translation (1955), that "the clumsiest literal translation is a thousand times more useful than the prettiest paraphrase." However, whatever the translator has done, I think the best practice is to use the actual wording of the cited translation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
"Useful" to whom? Literal translations are most desirable to students, and in prose. But in poetry, they are a crime to the original author, and poems translated in a word-by-word fashion are (correctly, in my view) despised by the public. No one can tolerate a long poem, written without fire, and without rhymes. On the contrary, the best translations in your own language, Dryden's Aeneid, and Pope's Iliad, are those where the translators are themselves poets, and their translations are the greatest, and most sublime, when they take poetic license, while still expressing the true sense of the original. There is, of course, a thin line between a poetic translation, and a paraphrase. Longfellow calls, very justly, Mickle's "translation" of the Lusiads a rifacimento, and yet, in Mickle's Introduction to the Portuguese epic, he himself admits, that his purpose was "to give a poem that might live in the English language." And, he adds, "the original is in the hands of the world." Cheers. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I merely quoted Nabokov in support of using fractured English to represent fractured Portuguese. I certainly do not take it as Gospel. Give it a rest. My more important point is in the second sentence of the post above. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

punctuation QEdit

If I take the first two names that spring to my mind of French philosophers, Montesquieu and Voltaire, and go to their pages on French Wikiquote, I see things like—

L'amour de la république, dans une démocratie, est celui de la démocratie ; l'amour de la démocratie est celui de l'égalité.

and other such punctuation (in their Voltaire page alone, semicolons are used as above 20 times).

Not to abuse your patience too much, but perhaps you know, & can tell me, whether the use of semicolon (or other punctuation marks) preceded (and followed) by a space, is correct in the French (or in any other) language? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Spacing before a semicolon is not current usage in any language I know, but it was very common a couple hundred years ago. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

ParableEdit

Please see my explanation on the discussion page with regard to the citation tags which you have introduced in this article, and clarify so that I can make changes accordingly.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Kalki's editsEdit

Can you please speak to editor Kalki regarding his tone for instance atL http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=George_H._W._Bush&oldid=1706793. Calling people he disagrees with 'asinine' and making other disparaging remarks does not help the project. My edit simply was to remove a link to a personal website as a citation. The Wikipedia project removed this same link because its not a WP:RS and there already is a third party citation here. Thank you, 128.229.4.2 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RevdelEdit

Shouldn't this be revdeld? Special:Diff/1717479. It works (I tried :O). --Glaisher (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OS'd --Glaisher (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, fine. I just applied a quick, one-click solution without much thought. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Closure of Votes for deletion/Sumit ChowdhuryEdit

This was a difficult one; the fact that it was over a week past its close date suggests that other people were reluctant to come to a decision. I made the closure in good faith, but I am very happy to have the matter referred to a deletion review for further discussion.--Abramsky (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I realize it can be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of "vote". I think it needs to be reconsidered, and have listed it at WQ:DRV. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Narendra ModiEdit

Hi Ningauble, I commented on the recent developments at talk:Narendra Modi and your feedback there will be much appreciated. -- Mdd (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I replied there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very muchEdit

Thank you for your category help at the new page I've created, Adrianne Wadewitz.

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sudhir RupareliaEdit

Thx but when I see what you have done to this article, I feel like a deflated balloon. It makes me want to stop editing on Wikiquote. You say that those quotes are unsourced but if you take time to read all the sources provided, you will find that each of the quotes I had compiled are actually from one of them. It would be too monotonous for me to repeat the sources everywhere. I know the policy that's why I did not get from unsourced text except for only one of the quotes about Sudhir: I added it from a voice recording of someone talking at a function. Have you read the sources provided and cross checked meticulously like I did? You have literally ruined the article I tried to share! Thanks for keeping an eye but that was so demoralising! Hop u recheck each quote! • Aikolugbara (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is frustrating to you, but each quote needs to identify a specific source where the quote is published. For example:
  • Citations like "Interview with Forbes" should identify the author (interviewer), the title of the article, and the issue of the magazine (publication date and/or volume and issue number).
  • Citations like "Speech at Victoria University", or "During the Launch of...", or "Spoken on Friday..." need to identify where the texts or recordings are published.
  • If there are multiple quotations from a single source, they each need to be identified (after the first full citation, subsequent ones may be abbreviated by, e.g., repeating just the title); or they can be grouped together under one section heading.
If you are not sure how to format this, you can use the article talk page to give information about the sources and someone may be able to help you include it in the article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted but you did the right thing. To be honest, your edit made the article neater, I have to appreciate that. I must confess my summarising skills aren't the best and I need people like you to polish me up. I'm also sorry for reacting too fast, I had just woken up and my first reaction was sleepy eyed. Trust me, I shouldn't have even protested your edits! YOU DID THE RIGHT THING, thanks! I won't stop contributing, just need to follow the rules! • Aikolugbara (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

prodEdit

By "prodding" so many articles all at the same time, you are making it impossible for anyone to rescue them. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not really so many. UDScott prodded more than that in one day last month, and some of them were rescued. There are not such a large number of currently proposed deletions that the one week provided is insufficient to investigate them. There have occasionally been more than fifty in the backlog, which does get unwieldy. You can always request hanging on to something you are actively researching, or you can request undeletion when your research bears fruit. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Omnia Vanitas (All Is Vanity)Edit

Either/OrEdit

Hi Ningauble, since you interested in copyright concerns, could you give your feedback here, thank you. Mdd (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replied there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Spam filtersEdit

I have a couple of spam filters at meta that I apply globally (as a stewards' filter) and at enWS. As enWQ is not on the global abuse filter, I can see the spambots getting through that these filters are capturing elsewhere. They have been running well for extended period and have an extremely low rate of false positives. Do you mind if I add them in? (please ping me when you reply). Thanks. sDrewth 13:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer sDrewth, this might be helpful. Which couple filters do you have in mind, and what patterns of abuse do they target?

(Interestingly, it looks like meta:Global AbuseFilter is a "proposal" that went live without adopting a formal policy. I guess it can be rightly considered something within the discretion of stewards & global sysops, which would be why it is only enabled on "small wikis" and special cases. I would hesitate to opt in as long as it is not transparent to local sysops.)

By the way, I am thinking about disabling filter #15 (among others) because the pattern has abated for some time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have reused 15 with one filter, and added 18, though have set 18 to warn/tag just in case the practices of your users is very different. I will consider them under your control, and will update them if prodded. With regard to the global filters, the stewards had been consulting with central wikis and adding them after consultation. The small wikis were added without consultation with stewards, and while some (aaaaah, ummmm) discussion took after the fact about the process, it was left as is. To note that only stewards can add or edit global filters. Re transparency, any filter hit logs locally, so you will see results, though not the filter. I am pondering and have been pondering for a while that we look to add an abusefilter editor right to meta and your point is a valid point (though it would only allow the view of a global filter, not an edit right). Thanks for the permission and the feedback. sDrewth 00:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Urk, shows that morning is not my best time to multitask when cleaning up spambots and interpreting all the way to the end of the paragraph. You asked what they were, not straight to permission. Both are user space, NTSAMR is the replacement filter, and dubious homepage/blog/social media site is the second. There is a little documentation within the filters. And pinging me here is sufficient, I have my alerts turned on. sDrewth 03:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry if the paragraph was TL;DR sDrewth. Please bear with me, as this post is even longer.)

Note that we already have a filter for Ntsamr, #16, as listed at m:NTSAMR#Filters. Some edits of that nature do slip through, but it is our busiest filter, with more hits since it was set up last October than the ever-popular #8 (page blanking). #16 could be improved by adding new trigger phrases that are seen more than a couple times in posts that slip through.

I notice that there is considerable overlap: the new #15 is substantially a duplicate of #16, with only three differences. (It omits to check whether there are any links, it does not apply to namespace 3, and it adds one phrase to check.) The two new filters already have four hits in the very short time since you set them up, but all of those edits also tripped the existing filter #16. (One user tripped all three filters with a single post.[1]) I appreciate your effort to help, but this appears to be redundant.~ Ningauble (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

wantEdit

I was thinking of adding the quote:

I want not honest studies for my prime,
Nor long experience, since to mix withal;
I want not wit (such as in this you see),
Three things which rarely in conjunction be.

to the Camões article, but I'm afraid (and almost sure) that it will be misunderstood.

So, is there a template similar to Wikisource's Template:SIC that would help make the meaning of certain words in context clearer?

For example, for the word "want" in the above example, or in "Onely I want acceptance in your eye" – how do I make it clear that it means lack? (Should I write a note?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"[sic]" is for annotating errors in the source, and would not be appropriate here because this is perfectly legitimate usage. It is doubtless true that some readers will misunderstand practically anything; but reasonably well read people can be expected to be familiar with this usage, and the parenthetical in the third line resolves potential ambiguity between the senses of lack and desire. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course "[sic]" would be wrong, I said similar, i.e. I was thinking of something similar to the WS template that would also underline the word, and produce a pop-up, in this case clarifying the meaning of the word. (But I guess there is no such template.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sumit ChowdhuryEdit

Hi Ningauble, could you give your feedback on the update of the article and comment I placed at Wikiquote:Deletion review#Sumit Chowdhury. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdd. Can you clarify one point before I comment there again: did you verify the quotation associated with his new book is actual text from the book rather than a synopsis about the book? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well to clarify, the problem from the start was that those quotes were not verifiable, and they still are not. If the book was online available and verifiable, I wouldn't have trimmed down the quotes from "Rules of the Game" (such as done here). To stipulate the fact that the text is from a prepublication, the attribution " Prepublications at rulesofthegame.in, 2014" was added (see here). If you think this is still not acceptable, you could improve it or (temporarily) move the quote back to the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that it has not been verified. I will think about composing a comment for the deletion review, to address this and other changes subsequent to the nomination, but I don't know if I will get to it today... ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ningauble, if you are not going to comment anymore, I will close the Deletion review. -- Mdd (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Please wait, I am drafting it now. Also, as the principal contributor of content in the current article revision, I would suggest you leave the decision to someone more independent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"maximum of one quote for an 11 minute short feature"Edit

I spent 3 days transcribing quotes and you deleted my entire first page? Where does this rule you quote come from, did you just make it up? TotesNeato (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has deleted Xavier: Renegade Angel, or any other page that you edited.

I placed a {{checkcopyright}} notice on the article talk page because there seemed to be a lot of dialog transcribed for such a short format show, more than recommended at the draft Limits on quotations. I think the article could be improved by some judicious trimming, to showcase the most strikingly quotable bits. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

RomaineCorbouldEdit

I see you have blocked that user, but I think you should also leave a note on his/her talk page. OccultZone (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's just a spambot, the one known as NTSAMR. Attempts to communicate with them are futile. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow.. OccultZone (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

interwikiEdit

Aren't interwiki links handled automatically now by Wikidata? Or is this still necessary? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to enter the links here if they are entered at Wikidata, but it's not fully automatic: they have to be entered somewhere. I don't hang out at Wikidata, but I presume folks there prefer links be entered there, and there are bots that can sort them out. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

hypocritical of youEdit

to criticize Kalki for having driven a valuable editor away, when you yourself are doing the same now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This complaint is too nonspecific to address. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Should read: have done, rather than are doing, unfortunately. Here's a nice quote: "every Wiki has those non-productive quality controllers who think the Wiki should be protected against the people who actually build it." But hey, at least it made you happy. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I can only guess what you are referring to, and will not do so.

I am quite willing to address any grievances you may wish to present about specific conduct on my part (please cite diffs). Otherwise, this sort of generalized expression of disaffection is unproductive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for all the "italic title" formatting additions which you have been adding to the pages — I had intended to do much the same thing once I found out how they worked, but simply have not had the time to do many, as yet. ~ Kalki·· 18:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Little by little.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

PhoenixEdit

Thanks for fixing that issue for me. This is my first visit to Wikiquote (won't be me last), and I was wondering about the anonymous quotes. I understand now not to do that. Question: I think I understand you moving the other quotes to the talk page, they are attributed, but don't have a citation, correct? Or is there another issue with them? Any help/advice is greatly appreciated. (btw, love your own quote about what a quote is... and I will quote you on that) Onel5969 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, welcome to Wikiquote. Yes, that is why I moved the unsourced attributions to the talk page. See the guideline at WQ:SAU. I removed the anonymous remarks without copying them to the talk page for a couple reasons: firstly, without even an attribution there is not much basis for trying to research them, and if they are just things heard on the street then there may be little prospect of ever finding them in print; and secondly, when we have had uncourced anonymousities in our articles, it has tended to enourage people to start adding things they just made up themselves. That said, some anonymous sayings are widely repeated in print. They can be included by citing noteworthy sources that attest to their fame. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page due to 'unoriginal quote'Edit

What if a quote is original? —This unsigned comment is by Bifs100andone (talkcontribs) 12:50, 15 August 2014.

Citing the original source of a famous quote is a good thing. See WQ:Q.

Note that the principal reason your contribution was deleted[2] is because the quoted person/source does not appear to be notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nerds articleEdit

I had read your reply on UDScott, although we had enough conversation there so I thought of bringing it here. I have created User:OccultZone/Nerd, you can check it. There are many quotes that are related with this particular word, I got about 12 but I am finding reliable sources. At least for now, 3 quotes might be enough for a article? OccultZone (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This looks like the right sort of quotations generally but, if I may be a bit of a quotation nerd, the attribution to Bill Gates is not a reliable source. According to Snopes[3] and Hoax-Slayer[4] the actual author is Charles J. Sykes, and Wikipedia's article about Nerds mentions that the attribution to Gates is incorrect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You are correct about Gates, please check the page again. OccultZone (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nigel BlackwellEdit

TY for the improvements, still learning, but puzzled as to why I'm redlinked on this page. Do I need to make a WQ acct or something, on top of my WP acct? All help welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a redlink because you have not created a userpage at Wikiquote. (Confused? You have a single unified login for all Wikimedia wikis, but at each wiki you effectively have a different account with its own "local" userpage.) If you want to avoid the redlink but do not want to author and maintain multiple userpages, then you could create a redirect by placing template {{interwiki redirect|Wikipedia:User:Narky Blert}} on your Wikiquote userpage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Meonian LyreEdit

That Alexander shall in you respire,
Without envying the
Meonian Lyre.

What does Meonian mean? (Homer's?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Meonia was the Homeric name for Lydia (or a people of that region whom scholars argue about). Homer himself is referred to as the Meonian Bard or the Blind Meonian. Poetic references to the Meonian Lyre indicate the epic renown of being sung by the great bard. Not envying the Meonian Lyre then means being worthy of praise by Homer himself. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. As to whether Alexander envied the fame of Achilles et al., I leave the vanity of world-conquerors to the contemplation of poets. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Camoens was referring to himself: he would surpass Homer by singing the young King's expedition to North Africa, if successful. Unfortunately, urging King Sebastian to war (or crusade) against the Moors proved unwise: the King died (without heirs), and most of the Portuguese nobility was massacred, in the battle of Alcácer Quibir. (Portugal lost its independence, and was under Spanish rule for 60 years.) What's interesting is that Sebastian did choose two Portuguese poets to accompany him to Alcácer Quibir (to sing and immortalize his campaign), but Camoens was not one of them. The King preferred the rather mediocre poets, Diogo Bernardes and Luís Pereira Brandão. (I don't know how Camoens felt about this.) The two poets were captured in battle, but wrote while in prison. Brandão's poem (published 1588) is now completely forgotten; I tried reading some of it, but although it has 18 Cantos, it is very hard to find any true poetry in it (despite the rhymes, it reads like prose). Just one or two stanzas of Camoens are worth more than Brandão's entire poem. One can only imagine what majestic monument Camoens' imagination, knowledge, and enthusiasm would have produced, had he been chosen to be the Homer of the new Achilles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
(I was not going to comment on the vanity of poets.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there was no true vanity in Camoens at all (in his epic, he calls himself a "worm o'th'Earth" [I.106], and says he "speak[s] in rude and humble rhyme" [X.154], etc.) – but I have noticed, as you might have as well, that the "vanity of poets" seems to have increased over time: Homer invokes the Muse right at the start, in the Iliad: "Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, &c.", and in the Odyssey: "Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero, &c."—Milton does the same: "Of Man's first disobedience, &c., Sing Heav'nly Muse", but then occasionally introduces personal comments in the poem; Virgil makes a less perfect invocation: he only asks the Muse to remind him of the causes, and the motive why the Queen of Heaven, Juno, "persecute[d] so brave, so just a man"; Camoens' is even less perfect: he sings the "Arms and the heroes", and only feels the need to invoke a Muse in the second Canto. Mickle (the translator of the Lusiads) makes apologies for, and even cuts out(!) of the poem, some of Camoens' digressions and personal observations, presumably for considering them inappropriate in an epic(!), but in so doing he leaves out of his translation some the noblest parts of the poem. In any case, of all these, I personally like Camoens the best. (Richard Francis Burton seems to have been of the same opinion.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)