User talk:Ningauble


Alireza Salehi NejadEdit

Hi Ningauble, I have received your message. It's a bit confusing to me. Could you provide me with a guidance, or kindly take a moment that we address the issues on email. (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (GMT) —This unsigned comment is by Arashtitan (talkcontribs) 15:04, 12 January 2015‎.

See Wikipedia's general guideline for determining notability. If you want to discuss it, please do so on-wiki rather than using email. Unless confidentiality is strictly necessary, it is best to hold discussions where other users can review and comment on the matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk) 15:38, 12 January 2015 (GMT) —This unsigned comment is by Arashtitan (talkcontribs) 15:38, 12 January 2015‎.


He's the same vandal, should be indef-blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hannah RothschildEdit

All right, Ningauble, for me there is no problem if you want delete the article, really there is not this article in wikipedia. --Wiki Wisdom (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


It has been brought up that we need a local Check-user. Based on your fairly steady participation and lack of excessive drama - and the fact that you're not a 'crat, so there should be no concerns about an excessive concentration of user rights - I would like to nominate you for that position. What say you? BD2412 T 04:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ningauble, I'd support you, but we'd need a minimum of two per site. And we'd need to get 25 local support votes. Per m:Checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
(I am well aware of the global policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
  • I appreciate the expression of confidence, but I am not sure about this. It has been brought up before, but I was reluctant to involve myself in the personally identifying information of bad actors.[1] I am also not very desirous of making myself the go-to guy for drama queens.[2]

    I am frankly finding it difficult to see any point in having local checkusers when we have no clear local policy about using multiple accounts [3] (and little prospect for developing one) and where, e.g., a clear case of puppet vote stacking[4] is speedily excused[5] before people who avoid excessive drama even get a chance to sift through mass quantities of hysteria and obfuscation or to, here's a thought, look for evidence to be developed.

    I would be reluctant to undertake this unless (a) there is clear consensus in the community about policies for using checkuser tools, and (b) there is clear consensus in the community about policies for the activities that the tools are used to investigate, and (c) there will be a quorum of at least three regularly active checkusers to evaluate evidence and interpret policy together.

    Even if these were the case, I am not entirely sure it would be worth my while because I am very disillusioned by directions the Wikiquote community has lately been drifting. I might be persuaded that it would not be entirely futile and would achieve more than what the Stewards already provide, but I am not seeing it right now. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    I'll accept the nom if you will, and if we can find a third editor likely to pass the nomination process. I do wonder, however, if we can get 25 local editors to vote in anything at all. I also agree that we need a sockpuppetry policy. BD2412 T 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD: removal of introductory contentEdit


I noticed that you reverted my edit to Australia where I added unsourced attributions from the talk page back to the article. I didn't realise that this was against Wikiquote policy, and now I do. Keep up the good work. :) Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


[9]. At first, I had no idea how I managed to mangle that. I've been archiving pages for many years, never did that before. However, with some thought, this was it: I've also done a lot of research, and seeing in history when and where an archived page went can be very useful. Further, someone may disagree with an archiving, so I prefer to archive one discussion at a time. It's very easy if the close templates are inside the subject section. It is then a single edit to take it to archive, and the section title is in the edit history. If they are placed above the section header, as some do, editing that section leaves them out. So I separately restored them, and, obviously, I misplaced them. Thanks for catching it. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. I agree that placing the closing statement above the section heading can be confusing. It is common practice here in order to include the heading within the visually highlighted area of the closed discussion, which does indeed cause a double-take if one clicks the section edit button. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The way I think of it is that what is within the section is templated to close. The section is still there. Having the archive template above the section wreaks havoc on editing it (including archiving). It takes many more clicks or more complex editing. --Abd (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


Eaglestorm has removed the quotes from The Simpsons Season 3 Page. Can you sort him out? -- 11:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@  If Eaglestorm has neglected to point out the reason for removing excess quotes, you may want to read Wikiquote:Limits on quotations which explains it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

sourcing questionEdit

Here, Canto I, stanza 2, lines ?? — which ones should I count, those within the stanza (lines 7–8) or the whole poem (lines 15–16)? Thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And another thing: should one write "Canto I, stanza 2, lines 7–8", or simply "Canto I, stanza 2, line 7"? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
A: I would use a hierarchical schema, numbering stanzas within canto and lines within stanza, just as "chapter and verse" Bible citations use chapter within book and verse within chapter (unless one is using a widely recognized linear numbering standard, like Bekker numbering for the works of Aristotle). In situations where it is best to use line number within poem (e.g. where different editions use different stanza breaks, which can happen with poets who do not use formally structured meter) one should probably omit reference to stanzas altogether.
B: Some authors cite only the beginning of a quoted passage, so it is not wrong; but I generally cite a range when when referring to multiple lines that do not comprise a whole stanza, (even though it can be complicated when the passage begins in the middle of one stanza and continues into the next). ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. One more question, if I may: which do you prefer, writing (e.g.) "lines 45–47", or "lines 45–7"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Please use both digits. Potential confusion from dropping the most significant digits outweighs the amount of ink saved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hakan LuciusEdit

Good edit.  That said, I worry the issue with that page runs deeper than its insufficient source.  See my note on the talk page.  Suffice it to say, I worry the page may be delete-worthy.  allixpeeke (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the page since we last edited it until today, and I now see that has edited the sole quote, substituting "a bank's" in place of "your," rendering it a quote found nowhere else online.  It all seems rather fishy.  Just wanted to bring this to your attention.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it looks a bit dodgy for someone to post a second version without citing the source, even after a published source was requested. If you want to {{prod}} it for "no verifiable source" and give the user a {{prodwarning}} then go right ahead. (I also agree with your reservations about originality. These are minor variations on PR consulting buzz that has been circulating for years.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Science and ReligionEdit

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations by Subject (= to the Oxford Treasury of Sayings and Quotations) uses "Science and Religion". Should I write to Susan Ratcliffe and tell her she used "improper" capitalization? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

About Chile and template of deletionEdit

Hello. Hey I've found a source but this wiki rejected the source. How can I add sources and more information without problems?. Have a nice day. Good bye.--Je7roi (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi Ningauble, can you rename my account to other name? --Wiki Wisdom (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Wisdom, I do not have that ability. Requests for renaming may be made at m:Steward requests/Username changes or at w:WP:RENAME, where a steward or global renamer can help you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Kenji GotoEdit

Would you please give a look? It has only one quote, then unsourced, now sourced. I am not ready to provide more quotes, but it'll be able someday, hopefully. --Aphaia (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Usually I do not like to cite a tweet without secondary sources, because there are millions of tweets every day and most are not notable. I notice that Wikipedia has this quote and cites a ".org" that I am not familiar with, so I looked for more secondary sources:

I found an AP story carried by The Guardian and The Telegraph, which shows it is a notable quote in the mainstream press. – Notice that the translation is a little different in meaningful ways.

I suggest adding a mainstream secondary citation to the article, as described at my essay Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as evidence that the tweet is definitely notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your research, I'll give a second look, and consider if I can improve the current translation. --Aphaia (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, did you mean "brothers" vs. "brothers and sisters"? Then the original word 兄弟 means only male brothers (both elder and younger) for the first. In Japanese it can embrace female siblings, but it's a possible implication no one can determine out of context. It may be English mainstream media adjustment. The rest part is not significantly different from my eyes, but if you disagree, please point out. I'm willing to provide my opinion as a native Japanese speaker. --Aphaia (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah - another difference I've just noticed: who gets mad, perhaps? It depends. I prefer to use "we" or "one" in translation, but it's just my interpretation: the original Japanese sentence provided here no subject (Japanese sentences require a subject not every time). It's pretty up to the reader. --Aphaia (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, the difference that struck me was in the beginning of the quote. The version in the article and at uses the imperative mood in the second person and the collective "we" in the subjunctive mood. The AP version uses the first person singular in a very personal statement. The tone of the two versions looks very different, and the AP version is more intensely poignant in English. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure AP folks did so. The beginning is actually not in the imperative mood in the Japanese original, though it can connote an order. It was said as "lesson", so translation into the imperative would be within translators' license. I guess AP translator on the other hand wanted to keep the calm tone of this tweet allover, not using the imperative. I tried to provide the literal translation, which still has some addition for English grammar. --Aphaia (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The article looks good now, with a cited translation and a variant. (I don't have any Japanese myself, but I do appreciate that mood and nuance are expressed very differently than in English.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Good faith gestureEdit

Puss in Boots (2011 film)Edit

Hola.  After I added Puss in Boots to Category:Shrek, you removed itI urge you to reconsider.  The Wikipedia article on Puss in Boots has the film categorised in Category:Shrek films, which is in turn categorised under Category:Shrek.  I believe Wikipedia is correct in choosing to place all films/shows/video games from the Shrek franchise in the Shrek category, and I think we here at Wikiquote ought to do the same.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I had not noticed that this film, in which Shrek does not appear, is considered part of the same franchise because the character was "borrowed" from a totally unrelated story for a supporting part in the franchise of films that are about Shrek, which this film is not. (Shame on DreamWorks.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


Should it be used here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think tagging articles with this sort of badge-of-shame is in very poor taste, unless criminality is a principal reason the person is notable in the first place; but it seems to be standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. Go figure.

To be clear, I am not defending D'Souza. I have no sympathy for his brand of politics and polemics: there must be a special place in Hell for people with his level of intellectual dishonesty; but that is evidently not what is meant by this sort of categorization, whatever really is meant by it.

Someone looking for quotations from a criminal perspective (like Willie Sutton's reported explanation of why he robbed banks) would hardly benefit from having this article recommended; but that does not seem to be the purpose of such categories, which I regard as pointlessly pointed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your well thought-out response. I agree w/ you, but don't know if I can keep removing the category, if it is added back. BTW, I too used to find D'Souza's "intellectual dishonesty" very disturbing, so much so that some years ago (before he made his movies and became really famous) I even sent him an email detailing what I considered to be his many distortions and errors in his debates on the existence of God (and, guess what, he replied back). Still, I regard his books as useful resources, mainly for high-school students (e.g. his Letters to a Young Conservative), or for people living in a bubble who've never heard arguments from the "other side". And I agree with his defense of the spirit of 1776, as opposed to what he calls "the spirit of 1968". D'Souza is not so much an original thinker (exception?) as a popularizer. He is IMO good at finding and compiling arguments for and against any given position. Perhaps a certain degree of "intellectual dishonesty" is required in this enterprise, if you want to sell books (cf. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

word orderEdit

  • The Destruction of Troy (1656), Preface
  • Preface to The Destruction of Troy (1656)

Which of these do you prefer? (Should I treat "Preface" the same way I would a page number?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My own preference is to treat it like a chapter if it is a preface by the author of the main work, but if it is one author's preface to another's work then I would write "preface to..." followed by a full citation to the work, including it's author. Note that prefatory materials often vary between editions, so identifying the precise edition is helpful. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Misattributed/Disputed endEdit

Hi, Ningauble, I found your misattributed/disputed begin/end templates useful so that I imported them to the Japanese Wikiquote. But oddly they don't work as same. Rather the first == title appears just as same as wikitext, the second next works properly though. For example, ja:孔子. I copied them and changed not at all. Could you please give a look and find the way they work well? Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-solved! Not the template but the line followed was wrong. There was something different from SPC placed perhaps. So there is no problem ... I expect ... --Aphaia (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you found them useful, even if it took a couple tries. The formatting was originally suggested by BD2412 at Wikiquote:Village pump archive 31#Color coordination for misattribution sections. As discussed there, it took a couple tries to get the template implementation working. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes it did. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the category clarificationEdit

The lines are not always distinct as you yourself have noted, but thanks for the clarification regarding categories, I'm not deliberately trying to give you things to revert. I've noticed you've kept the interpersonal relationship categorization, anatomy seems to cover eating and drinking right now which seems a bit off. Again the only ones I would actually contest that you are wrong about are the ones about art; discourse is a vague term which you've helped clarify for me a bit; not as vague as art though. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ben CarsonEdit

What do you think of this About section: Ben_Carson#Quotes_about_Carson?

It seems very biased to me. And I'm not even a Carson supporter. (His position on evolution reminds me of Ron Paul, another doctor who—many people don't know this—also doesn't "accept" the "theory" of evolution...)

But when I see unknown nobodies—who don't even have a Wikipedia page—insulting and attacking Dr. Carson ("mindblowing irrational thinking", "batsh*t crazy Bible-thumper", "ignorant, offensive, and downright stupid", "lacks [integrity] entirely", etc.), I wonder: should we even have quotes from people who are not even notable enough to have a Wikipedia page themselves? (In my opinion, no, we shouldn't—especially in politicians' pages, for obvious reasons.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think "about" sections should be held to the highest standards for quotability. I also think candidates for high political office should be held to the highest standards for intellectual integrity. What I think has little influence in these areas. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ningauble".