This is Just A Regular New Yorker's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Just A Regular New Yorker.





Hello, Just A Regular New Yorker, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! ~ UDScott (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nicolas Steno


Welcome - one thing you'll need to be sure to include with quotes are their sources. Without sources, the page will likely be deleted. Also, take a look at the changes I made to the Christina Stead page for other suggestions. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tips Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

David Dinkins


I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article David Dinkins, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ UDScott (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Problem solved Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jarny.


Hey, Jarny. Nice job on the page. Love the quotes. —This unsigned comment is by coyotedomino (talkcontribs) 15:10, 1 December 2017‎.

We are not calling me Jarny. Get that out of your head. I am Just A Regular New Yorker Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
You know, it's kinda growing on me. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Haiku poets


Hejssan Bara En Vanlig Karl Från Ny Jorvik! (the city of York was first named by Danish vikings). Yoel Hoffmann writes in his book Japanese Death Poems, that "Haiku death poems as such have not been gathered until now. Most sources are from the biographical dictionary Shinsen Haikai Nempyo edited by Hirabayashi Hoji and Onishi Kazuto." If needed, I'll write more about sources. --Risto hot sir (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Since many users disagree with me, I'll leave this topic alone. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply



Hello! I'd like to add the category People from Prague, but what could the main category be? Kafka, for example, was not a Czech.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’m not really good at these things. Try asking Kalki or UDScott. In my experience, UDScott is very helpful and he tends to respond promptly. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Remove boldface from most "Last words"


Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply



Wikipedia says that he moved to Idaho as youth. "People from..." means not only the birth place. In Obama's case both Hawaii and Chicago are mentioned.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Generally “People from...” tells you where the person is from. If you can find a policy page that says otherwise, than please notify me about it. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I asked UDScott if "People from..." should mean the place of birth, but haven't got an answer. And some person born in Oklahoma was reverted by Ningauble, 'cause the career was done elsewhere. People from Oregon includes many these kind of cases.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Unless, there is an official policy otherwise, I’m going to continue to govern my edits with logic. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
This should be discussed. President Paasikivi was born in Koski, during a journey, but had no other connections to that town. I think some important places should be there, let's say someone is a governor (like Big Arnold)--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
The purpose of adding categories is to help sort the articles. If you feel that more information is needed than you may add it to the introduction. Nothing is to be gained from adding misleading information to an article. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 23:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
It isn't misleading. Some people may be important in various states. Ask UDScott and Ningauble!--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
The word "from" implies that the subject is from the place that is mentioned after the word "from". If you disagree, you may look up the word "from" in a dictionary. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
We surely need other people's opinions. In human life the birth place is not as important as the raising place.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
This has nothing to do with presenting information about the person. The purpose of categories is to sort the articles. Unless, I am wrong about the definition of the word "from", I see no reason to present false information about a person. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let's see what the other editors think.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikiquote:Village pump#People from... - J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Request for comment on User:MonsterHunter32's massive censorship of sourced quotes without discussion


I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the deleted quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each deleted quote as was asked by multiple users many, many times? You can read more about it at the link above, and at the other discussions linked in that discussion. Thank you. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The user User:Jedi3 keeps falsely blaming me of censorship and keeps edit-warring. He is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source. He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that wasn't about him.

Or making up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

He falsely keeps saying I'm censoring him when all I've done is remove those quotes which aren't notable in any manner. Not those which are notable and i've preserved many of the quotes he has added. also removed the subsection of my complaint here. He himself censors me here and here in the past.

I've warned him several times including here, here and here. He doesn't listen and has removed my comments several times from his talk page.

Not to mention this person has also insulted me by terming me annoying after another user called me so, besides also calling me a vandal, when he himself can be indicted for edit-warring and vandalism. please block this user. I've been trying to cooperate with him, but it is clear he only wants his ideology imposed here. Their is no bar on any person of any ideology, even though Wikiquote is about neutrality but he doesn't care about anything and is being unprofessional.  and it is clear he doesn't care what he does to get his edits here at all costs.

Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revert is a revert whether partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. I would first like to check all his quotes and then discuss them one by one.

I am discussing even right now all quotes one by one who Jedi3 says must not be removed, has is not cooperating. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first of your points is a content dispute, the place to discuss these is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes). These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles.
When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you. --Jedi3 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Aurangzeb. But like other articles you stop discussing. You have been repeatedly edit-warring. I haven't opposed discussion. It is you who is refusing to cooperate. Let's discuss it one after another. I don't want to discuss everything at once as that will cause huge amount of time wastage and confusion. And you don't even move beyond a single quote for long.
You keep repeatedly making false claims. Oh and I have not said I will never discuss. It is you who is refusing cooperation by making false claims again and again. It is you who has added or removed quotes under false reasons. Removal of quotes is censorship. Didn't you first realise those quotes will be removed? Anyone can. Add that to your already made false claims regarding quotes, it is clear you are only interested in disruptive edits with malafide content.
While you claim I censored you, I have already said i am not removing anything because of your views but simply because your quotes are not memorable and in some cases added under false claims. I added the quotes at Talk:Aurangzeb and you picked one from Will Durant. We are discussing it. If you refuse to continue discussion, then that is your fault.
Also please note that User:Jedi3 has tried to wriggle out of any attempts at discussion by demanding an interaction ban. I can understand a block. But it is clear this person is making all attempts to stifle discussion so he gets what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have taken note of this argument before, but I feel that I am too inexperienced to participate. Perhaps, after I have done more research, I will express my opinion. From what I have seen so far, it appears that neither person is generally right or wrong. In some instances one was right, while other times the other was right. Like I said, I should probably do more research. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I’ve just taken part in the conversation on the administrators’ noticeboard. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
J.A.R.N.Y, thank you for your comments on the admin noticeboard. At this stage, comments from other users about the deleted quotes are really needed. Please see here Talk:India#Summary_table. Since MH32 as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him, it is not likely that a consensus can be achieved without comments and views from others. Thanks. --Jedi3 (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Except those comments are based on poor to little knowledge of WQ:Q, WQ:WQ and Template:Fame. So the JARNY's cannot be considered. There is nothing that allows to do anything one wants in guise of claiming "consensus" or status quo. Consensus is only for actual disputes, not made-up claims.

User:Jedi3 knows the rules on multiple pages and shouldn't use consensus or status quo as an excuse to circumvent them and do what he wishes. Jedi3 is only blaming me of censoring after he failed to prove in any way how many of his quotes are not notable and started lying. That is the only reason why I removed them. Jedi3 is himself censoring actions that are against his useless and irrelevant quotes.

I could have continued removing Jedi3's quotes. Regardless, as I said I quit after admins didn't take action against his actions. He should stop needlessly pushing it. As already said by others, we should avoid each other. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Clarification on reverted edits


Hi, Just A Regular New Yorker. I took recent note of reverted edits I made on the Top Gear Wikiquote page last month (specifically Series 10.1) and would like some clarification on that. My assumption is the number of quotes I added on the one segment, but I'd like to hear from your perspective so I can understand what's going on here. Thanks! Mitcho2001 (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC) EDIT: I have also posted this on the talk page for the article to wait for a response there.Reply

I have been removing quotes to trim down what we can all agree is a much too long article. If you insist on keeping particular quotes, than fine. You may want to consider removing some quotes as well. The article is not improved when truly unique or funny excerpts from the show are separated by a ton of bad and unnoteworthy quotes. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 11:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply



I understand about the limit of quotes and the copyright, but I thought that felt like a good one. A good monologue. Ggianoli

@Ggianoli. I don’t agree, but if this bothers you that much, put it back. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 02:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

One Direction


I am cleaning up One Direction right now. Are you mine? I thought we are never going to be banned off Wikiquote because Wikiquote is tongues and twins! --Laura Bogart (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Laura Bogart:. I added the cleanup tag because the article includes numerous unsourced quotes that have resulted in other articles consisting of those quotes to be prodded for deletion. Additionally, the article is badly formatted. To be frank, the article needs to be cleaned up because of the nonconstructive edits that you have done to it. I can not stress this enough, All quotes must be sourced. As for the rest of your message, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please clarify. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 22:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFA closed as unsuccessful


Unfortunately, your RFA did not draw enough support to surpass the level generally required for such requests. I believe, however, that if you continue your productive efforts here, and take care in the coming months to address concerns that have been raised there, you will have a successful effort in the future. BD2412 T 02:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@BD2412: I would just like to thank you for the time and effort you invested to monitor the RFA and giving me advice on how to procede. I really appreciate it. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 11:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply



Sorry the RfA was not successful this time. If you decide to run again I will certainly vote support again. Chetsford (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the support. I will probably post another RFA in six months as suggested by BD2412 (talk · contributions). - J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 11:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Deleting a user page


Please see Wikiquote:Speedy_deletions#User_pages for speedy deletion reasons. It's fine if someone has something kind of rambly on his userpage or if he points to his personal site. Unless the outgoing link has malware (and I clicked and didn't find any), then it's not really a problem. Since User:Laura Bogart didn't request deletion of that page, then it doesn't fit our speedy deletion criteria for the user space. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: Sorry for the mistake. I was under the impression that external links to sites that are not used as references to quotes are considered vandalism or spam. I'll make sure to remember for the future. Thanks for letting me know. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 00:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC) + tweakReply
No problem--everyone makes mistakes. And if someone's user page was just spam or lead somewhere that would cause harm to the user by clicking on it, I would be on the same page as you. Keep up the good work around here, JARNY. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Include author Salman Aziz's quotes


Author bio:Salman Aziz (born December 19, 1993) is a writer, artist, indie filmmaker, model and entertainer. He is also known as his fan given name as AKA$H which is stylized version of his nickname Akash. In 2008, he started his modelling career in his local fashion house named R.M. fashion in Dhaka city where he modeled for two seasons only. From 2010 to 2017, Akash continued his study on a Bachelor’s of Science in a well-known university and obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and Engineering. He is known for his symbolic short film “Bloody Dark Dream (2014)” and realistic blogs. In 2017, he debuts as an author. His first book is “6th September: A Very Unknown Mysterious Story”. With this book he started his book writing journey. He always tries to do good things and helps the people. He always inspires and motivates the people through his words.

(Biography collected from the internet.)

Famous quotes:

  • “People change just in a blink! You won’t get any explanation for that. They change in front of your eyes or behind of your eyes. Just they change unconditionally.” ― Salman Aziz
  • “Fashion is the thing! The thing you can put on confidently. And at least you can breathe with comfort.” ― Salman Aziz
  • “If you really want to be something then at first try to be at least. But don't try to be at most in the first step.” ― Salman Aziz
  • “Thanks will be a worthless word until a person tells it from heart. When a person thanks someone with full heart then the word will be big and worthy word and will have full meaning to the person. Or else it will remain small and valueless word if a person says it just for saying.” ― Salman Aziz

(Collected from his verified author page on Goodreads and various sources on the internet. Salman Aziz has also IMDb title. Easily people can search his quotes on the internet.)

Famous quotes from his book 6th September: A Very Unknown Mysterious Story:

  • “We live in a time of era where there is no value for innocence. People don’t worth the innocence. And innocent people remain the sufferer and vulnerable to the world.” ― Salman Aziz, 6th September: A Very Unknown Mysterious Story
  • “When a human in happy time, he/she doesn’t understand the reality! He/she doesn’t realize it until he/she is touched by sadness, pain, poverty, refusal, betrayal, hate, abuse and so many things. Until then he/she doesn’t know what the reality is. Cause the reality is very harsh and very hard to accept.” ― Salman Aziz, 6th September: A Very Unknown Mysterious Story
  • “In our life once we lose something that will be lost forever. That thing is never got back. And we consciously or unconsciously lose so many things without holding it.” ― Salman Aziz, 6th September: A Very Unknown Mysterious Story
  • “People see what they want to see. People say what they like to say. People hear what they always try to listen. People always in busy to put you down or break you down. They won’t give you the courage to go ahead. They always after you and try their best to end you. But never give up. Never let yourself down. You should and must keep it in your mind.” ― Salman Aziz, 6th September: A Very Unknown Mysterious Story

(Collected from his book 6th September: A Very Unknown Mysterious Story (ISBN: 9781370784707), Goodreads, IMDb profile and various internet resources)

For further inquiries please let me know so that I can provide the resources in here as references. Faithfully --S Kahn (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@S Kahn: I'm sorry, but I don't believe this person is notable enough for inclusion in Wikiquote. This person does not have a Wikipedia article and to quote Wikiquote:Notability; "Generally, if a topic is notable on Wikipedia, then it is notable enough for Wikiquote. Conversely, if an article about the topic has been deleted from Wikipedia on grounds of non-notability, then it is likely to be considered not notable on Wikiquote." Consider first creating a stub on Wikipedia and see if they decide there that the person is notable enough. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 17:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you :@Just A Regular New Yorker: for let me know, but in here I have seen many people who don't have any Wikipedia, but they have their quotes included in here. His quotes from the book are authetic, cause it has the ISBN. If it is possible to add then let me know. --S Kahn (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel comfortable making the page, but you can create it yourself. I suggest reading Help:Starting a new page first. Remember to be bold. It's ok if the page isn't perfect. Once you create it, someone else can fix it up. Good luck! J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 17:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Babe Ruth / Lou Gehrig reverts


Greetings, J.A.R.N.Y. Just your friendly neighborhood revertee, seeking guidance. Just to recap: I notice I've had two good-faith edits—i.e. tweaks made by myself to my own previous edits—reverted, yet have no explanation, and thus no way to reliably avoid incurring further such actions (much less gauge the appropriateness of this one). As it happens, I was just about to introduce a further tweak: specifically, a preferable alternative to the reverted edits' featured link—i.e. directly to the2/29/24 article itself via Google News Archive, rather than to a Google search result list consisting of snippets. However, given this turn of events (and the highly unwelcome prospect of its repetition), your belated edit summary has instantly become must-read material. You have the floor; please proceed. DavidESpeed (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DavidESpeed: Those edits may have been in good faith, but they did not contribute to the page. Simply posting a link to a page of Google results does not constitute sourcing. The follow up edit you intend to replace it with does appear to be a legitimate source, but until you edit it into the article, I stand by my reversions. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 00:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC) (Edit- Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 00:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC))Reply
@Just A Regular New Yorker, J.A.R.N.Y.: To revert, or un-revert, or revert yet again... That is the question. And a hell of a lot too deep a question for the likes of me, that's for sure. For my part, I have added—albeit belatedly—the aforementioned tweak, so hopefully we're good. DavidESpeed (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@DavidESpeed: We are good, although your snarky attitude is not helping. I had originally reverted my reversions because I assumed from your snide post that your edits had actually been helpful and that my reversion was completely out of place. However, later when I had time to review it, I confirmed that my edit had been correct as I was removing a link to a page of google search results that had no place in an article. So, I reverted my reversion of a reversion (say that ten times fast). Yes it's confusing, but to be fair, a lot of confusion can come about when people randomly edit articles with the unspoken intention of fixing the edit later. You can't reasonably expect other editors to read your mind in order not to upset you. (BTW, pinging serves no purpose when posting to that user's talk page, unless they don't get notifications about talk page posts, in which case they obviously don't care about what you have to say either way, ping or no ping) J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 19:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published


19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please come back


Please do come back after a break, it would be devastating to lose you :-(. Wikiquote needs you. Hope you're back soon. -- ~ #SheSaid 11:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply