User talk:BD2412

Status: Active. bd2412 T (e)

Bot flagEdit

I don't have a problem with temporarily granting oneself the bot flag while running a script (==Sourced== → ==Quotes== using AWB), but it does not appear to be working as intended in this instance.

The edits are also marked as minor and for some reason, probably erroneous, the system is only recognizing one flag at a time, the "minor" one. When I select "Hide bots" on RC these edits still show up, but when I select "Hide minor edits" they do not. I suggest using one flag or the other, but not both at once.

I also notice that you made a few unscripted edits while your account was configured with the bot flag (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). These should not have suppressed from RC as bot edits.

Take care. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, couldn't wait. BD2412 T 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


I'm currently going through Francis Fawkes's notes on his The Argonautics of Apollonius Rhodius, and just borrowed the citation/note structure you used in The Iliad of Homer (Alexander Pope) (borrowed, in turn, from John Bartlett – learning from the pros :). There is still some work to be done, but I'd appreciate it if you could add a link from the Wikipedia article Apollonius of Rhodes (external links section) to Wikiquote. It's routine and you have independent reasons to do it, so it doesn't violate any policy. Of course there is no particular hurry. Cheers and thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, cheers! BD2412 T 00:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

'Off-topic' at the v. p.Edit

You have some fucking nerve to enclose my arguments against another user arbitrarily editing *my own posts* as an 'off-topic' section, and additionally doing so in a way that makes it seem that it was I who started the whole issue. ~~~~ —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

I enclosed the section that I enclosed because the last comment before that section was relevant to the bolding discussion. I hatted everything not relevant to the bolding discussion. BD2412 T 21:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You enclosed a comment of mine explaining my being forced to leave the discussion in the middle of it lest the other user continue derailing it, plus a comment of mine regarding implementation of the idea in question. (I reinserted it outside the section already, though.) ~~~~
Good. BD2412 T 22:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
'Convenient' is a better term. ~~~~
Your points on the bolding question are valid. With respect to the signature, why not just conform to the norms of the community you are trying to work with? Better yet, create an account. BD2412 T 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of accuracy of detection of various properties of quotes, I know this has been discussed, but it betrays the need for semantic markup. Again, such as famous quotes being marked up <span class='famous'/> (if not outright by templates, {{famous|They say that...}}, but I imagine that would be a performace issue). In fact, I see that the visual editor still translates ''' to presentational <b> by default. That's wrong -- any visual editor should, of course, solely offer various *senses* of markup, such as 'famous', 'offensive', 'unsourced' et c., instead of forcing users to signify those using the same simple tag. This way there would never be any ambiguity involved with article restructurization as by a bot. ~~~~
I try to avoid using visual editor interfaces as much as possible. I don't think we mark 'offensive' quotes at all. Unsourced quotes should not be included on a page. Any that are there should be moved to the talk page for sourcing. If they are not sourced in a reasonable time, they should then be deleted. BD2412 T 00:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually realized that I used 'visual' to just refer to the button interface, not even WYSIWYG.

That said, my point was generally about information loss. In other words, any valid interpretation of a type of formatting that any user ever thinks of should join a list of qualifiers, for other users to conveniently choose from for new quotes. As soon as a user associates (say) italics with (say) uncertainty, threat, silence, breaking the fourth wall, imagination, title, subtitle, comment, transliteration issue, whatever, those descriptors should be formalized and offered via an interface, so that italics itself is disambiguated more and more, ideally into total disuse (= complete identification/formalization of all possible meanings of it). But this is just tagging. At the end of the day, databases like Wikidata should take over completely, over all Wikimedia projects, and compilation of raw data into user-readable English prose should only be done on the user's own computer as via CSS, so that from knowledge like the proverbial 'country#32-city#8472-x#213-y#843' 'United Kingdom is a country in the northern hemisphere whose capital is...' is neatly generated. Raw continuous text, which is Mediawiki's core datatype, is a grossly flawed format for knowledge. We must learn to unadapt out of it.

But it is this that's getting off-topic. ~~~~

If it were up to me, we would have a separate page for every quote, and categorize them by author, subject, year work, and keywords, but the community does not prefer that approach. BD2412 T 02:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. All databases should be atomized like that. Of course, the present Wikiquote structure can still be considered atomic, in the sense that a parser could (if unreliably and slowly) distinguish one quote from another through just parsing wiki lists and fishing them out, but it's nowhere as robust as a true database if we, for instance, want to run some big statistical comparison of all quotes. Not to mention that ordinary lists of many quotes would be still possible through transclusion. ~~~~
In fact, the slash format (which I hardly see on Wikimedia for some reason) would work so nicely.

* {{John_Doe/Autobiography/on_this}}
* {{John_Doe/Autobiography/on_that}}
* {{John_Smith/My_Debut/on_something_something}}

(And then, my syntax is rusty, but perhaps we could have things like {{compact|John_Doe/on_x}} or {{full|John_Doe/on_x}} or {{qotd|John_Doe/on_x}}, any of which could follow or preface the quote itself with any of its medatada, residing at {{John_Doe/on_x/creation_context}} or {{John_Doe/on_x/collaborations}} for instance. ~~~~)
In short, you're too smart for this shit, fuck Wikiquote and start your own wiki. ~~~~
With patience, my approach will eventually prevail. BD2412 T 03:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I genuinely wish you that. Good day. ~~~~

Hillary Clinton againEdit

I added a couple of images highlighting her vote for the invasion of Iraq and her opposition to gay marriage back when it mattered. Now I'm afraid the page looks a bit unbalanced. I don't really like much of what she says, so it's hard for me to choose what her best quotes are (for example, I like her "Gay rights are human rights" quote, but it sounds [as is] hypocritical). If you could add at least a couple images with more positive quotes, that'd be great. ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, it seems like more than I have time to address right at the moment. I will try to get to that this weekend. BD2412 T 13:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Insofar as the article already has a similar portrait at the top of the page, it would appear that the sole purpose of adding this image is, as stated, to highlight the quote. This is not neutral.

The caption itself is cherry-picked from a context in which she expressly opposed an amendment stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman. When someone says, in effect, "there is something to what you say, but I am opposed", as thoughtful legislators sometimes do, quoting the "something to what you say" out of context, as if it is a statement of support, is dishonest. Even the cited Breitbart article, despite its spin, had the decency to provide more context than singling out the captioned sentence. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the quote in question is Hillary saying "I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman". Why is it dishonest to highlight this? It isn't. It was her position and what she believed in. (Or, more likely, what the polls told her most voters believed in back then.) Her opposition to gay marriage when it was still unpopular is emphatically clear, see this 2002 interview. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
In tonight's debate, she essentially admitted to having made the "you need both a public and a private position" remark. ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I didn't watch it. BD2412 T 04:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "BD2412".