User talk:Ningauble

Return to "Ningauble" page.


Please see my latest request. Thanks and sorry for the impatience. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Not quite as I suggested, but I think the template is better now. Cheers. DanielTom (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
New request (probably "idiotic", I would test it without asking, but only admins can edit it). (Not sure if you have it on your watchlist.) Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Since you say it is probably idiotic, I should probably ignore it accordingly; but instead I will explain on the template talk page why the space is there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Both templates seem to be working properly now. I was actually thinking of the IP template, don't know why I confused to two. From memory, we had to use "{{anon}}~ ~~~~" with no space between the template and the signature so as to not mess up the format. Looks like you fixed that now, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


Just dropped you an email. EVula // talk // // 05:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Replied via email. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Most viewed articles"Edit

Why is it stuck at April 2013? Do you know? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. It may be broken in some way, or it might not be fully automatic. (It may have been purely coincidental that it was current when we enquired about it a couple months ago.) Henrik would be the one to ask. ~ Ningauble (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, I can't really contact Henrik on Wikipedia anymore without breaking a few rules, as you know, but I can try leaving him a message on other wikis.
Another (unrelated) question, if I may. Is this correct syntax? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
N-no, I would not capitalize the middle of a stutter like that; only the first letter of the sentence. However, if that is the orthography used in the source then it would be appropriate here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I-i'm thankful for your help. (Hmm, that doesn't look right.) Alas, the words in the source are all capitalized (as is common in manga), so I cannot tell from there. Thanks for your advice, though. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
("I'm" should always be capitalized, the first person singular subject pronoun is a special case. It and the "royal We" are the only pronouns that are capitalized like proper names.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
(Actually, that's not right. When any pronoun refers to the monotheistic deity it is also capitalized like a proper name.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Tricksy little exceptionses. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, well. Pronouns are also capitalized when used in formal address, e.g. "Her Majesty", "Your Honor", & "My Lord". The first person singular subject pronoun is the only one that is always capitalized ... except in cases of poetic license like e. e. cummings. Rules would have little meaning without exceptions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Now the link doesn't even work. R.I.P. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Not cool.Edit

At all. -- 04:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


FYI [1] Mdd (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary to notify me of postings on the Anministrators' noticeboard: it's on my watchlist. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I am just wondering, if you could give me your feedback on my latest suggestion to you on the Administrators' noticeboard? -- Mdd (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I assume you refer to this question. I will reply there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


Need your suggestion/help here:- Justicejayant (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have found a few quotes here, that were very misleading or copied from some dead/rumor site. Like one of this page of Jawaharlal Nehru, i removed, it's link was dead and originally came from some troll source like "book is banned by government", lol. Agreed with you on Little Richard talk page, but there are somethings, like "self admission" or even a single essence that would lead a person to believe on the given quote. I will let update on this page soon. Justicejayant (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me...Edit

Suddenly, when I type ":", or "~", etc., on Wikiquote, the format starts to mess up, and such characters appear in a small version (ː ̃ ̴ ); I don't know why, as in other wikis I don't have the same problem. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And when I type "+", it appears like this: ̟ ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not seeing it. Is your language preverence set to English? Do you have any custom CSS? Have you tweaked the keyboard map on your computer? Consider rebooting. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Your hint at a language preference made me try Ctrl+M, and it worked. (It was not my computer's problem, because I wasn't having this problem on other wikis.) Anyway, problem solved, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Beast WarsEdit

The Beast Wars page under Dialogue[2] is becoming to long, there's too much dialogue. IP address user[3] shows no signs of stopping. Isn't there some kind of rule of putting too much on these pages here? 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is some kind of rule at Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. Note also at Wikiquote:Guide to layout#Television that the quotes and dialog should be sourced and organized by episode. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


for your help at Meta. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

(unrelated) Does Wikiquote have a template similar to {{od}} on other wikis? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent}} ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. (Thanks again.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Roll on, roll off.Edit

In the long run, you're better off ignoring it. BD2412 T 23:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the wisdom of not feeding trolls in the hope that they will get bored and go away. A continuing pattern of incivility from someone who is not going away is a different situation. In the near term he may learn to conduct himself in a collegial manner, without ad hominem characterizations and accusations, or he may not. The long term will take care of itself accordingly. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(Careful, he might hear you. Ah, so nice to call others "trolls" and then complain about ad hominem! Where would the World be without double standards?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Could you take a look at some of the quotes there?

"Modern day Portugal has been an integral member of the European Union (EU) and is a strong proponent of European integration."
"Portugal is a close and valued ally."
"Portugal and the United States have been partners for more than 200 years, and allies for more than 60 years."

How are those even remotely notable or quoteworthy? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from questioning the contributions of someone whose actions you are enjoined from contesting. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... no. Article quality is more important than my being blocked for 30 days. I thought you of all people would understand this. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiquote has over 20,000 pages, and probably hundreds of thousands of quotes. I have a hunch that it would be very easy to find and address a multitude of quotes that are far more deleterious to the compendium than what you are pursuing. BD2412 T 21:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
All articles are equal, but some articles are more equal than others. Different editors care about different articles, depending on their background and preferences, and will edit the ones that give them the most pleasure, or those which they deem most important. We cannot all do everything. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced quotesEdit

Hello ǃ

I was wondering what I should do when I encounter unsourced quotes. I notice that they've been moved to the talk on some pages. Is this current practice or should I just leave them on the main page until someone's found a source for all of them ? Thanks. --Aphorist (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is current practice to remove unsourced attributions from articles as described at WQ:SOURCE and more specifically at WQ:SAU. The practice began about five years ago, but there are still quite a few of unsourced bits remaining to be cleaned up. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ːːOkay, I'll do so from now on then ǃ Again, thanks. --Aphorist (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


==Homestar Runner==

A page that you have been involved in editing, Homestar Runner, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Homestar Runner. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you.


"Extremists"? I invite you to reconsider your characterization of those with whom you disagree. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You assume too much, and you mischaracterize my words, I am not saying anyone is, I am saying there is no need for anyone to be so, and I hope you would agree with me that moderation is best. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ningauble, I think we've both done this in the past with each other, perhaps by mistake.

I was not calling anyone an extremist.

But I was saying that it is not a good idea for anyone to be so, in the future.

I think that in the case of this discussion, it is a good idea to try to show gestures of good faith and attempt to come to a compromise solution.

I hope in the future we can both extend more good faith to each other, and assume less negative impressions, and assume more kind positive ones! :)

I hope you are doing well, Ningauble.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that you believe "characterization of those with whom you disagree" was a mischaracterization of your words. I am at a loss to understand how, in the context of that discussion,[4] your remark, "no need for extremists", could be construed to refer to the matter under discussion rather than parties to the discussion; however, I recognize it is your opinion that I mischaracterized the plain meaning of your words in a manner that displays bad faith, and I certainly believe that for me to do so would be a serious breach of the norms of conduct that administrators are expected to uphold.

Therefore, pursuant to my previous commitment to submit questions about improper conduct on my part to WQ:AN for review by uninvolved administrators, I have initiated a discussion there about my alleged mischaracterization of what you wrote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll read that there, thank you for the notification about it here. -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the recent kerfuffleEdit

Ningauble, I am deeply sorry to you about the recent kerfuffle.

It does seem that both of us in the past have had problems with mischaracterizing each others's comments and misconstruing what was meant by the other party.

For this reason and also for reasons of those mentioned by others in related threads, I will take much greater care in the future to comport myself of a much higher degree of politeness, kindness, and civility both with you and with all others here on this site.

Thank you for your help in all this, and your polite demeanor,

-- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Travels With CharleyEdit

Hello Ningauble, I was reading this[5] and noticed that it has spelling errors, no page numbers, and fails to specify the edition used (rumor has it that the 1962 printing has been 'improved' in various ways since Steinbeck died). Are you interested in seeing that section improved? — 14:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in improving it, and have a good edition at hand, please be bold. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Have to visit the library, but I doubt they have all editions. I'm working with somebody over at the Travels With Charley wikipedia article, I'll ask on the talkpage to see who has what editions. As for right now, I'm going to make a couple edits from memory slash googling. Somebody put "sill" instead of silly, and methinks used the wrong adjective later in the quote. There are a couple other obvious clerking-errors, which I might massage a little, or simply tag as {{dubious}}. Thanks 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourced EverythingEdit

Thanks for letting me know, but now you must have a look at Vedic science. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


Sorry, maybe a stupid Question, but what does 2010s deaths mean exactly? Best regards, 22:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

2010s deaths identifies the decade in which the person passed away. It serves to distinguish deceased persons from living ones, and to place them in a rough historical context. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Lock this pageEdit

Muhammad. A guy uselessly removing the sourced quotes that he don't like, he seems to be adamant too. 14:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, semi-protected for three months. Any other administrators, please feel free to modify, -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop deleting my Zach braff quotes.Edit

It has come to my attention you had been deleting my Quotes about Zach Braff. I want you to know that those quotes are verified and trusted from unknown sources, therefore I ask you to stop playing with your Banhammer and quit reediting the Zach Braff Quotes page. Everything said by him is a treasure so lets as Wikipedos forge an allience where everyone upholds the truth like in in wikileaks and not delete any more invaaluable content from this site. Now, if you don't believe me, you can ask Zach Braff himself and he OF COURSE will be more happy to share those ideas with your, and im not kidding when I say he will be happy.

Anyway, I hope you take this the good way, listen to my reason and forget about my Quotes, which by the way i'll be uploading it until He just run out of steam, if you catch my drift.

I thank you for your collaboration and i hope we could be friends.

Sincerely, the guy who quote Zach Braff.

Page needs to be lockedEdit

Here Bhagavad Gita a user keeps adding a primary source, unproved quote of Einstein, and quote of some no namer. Kindly lock the page. 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This page should be really locked, it's Vandalized by a highly obsessional edit warrior, who is only there for promoting bad translation(of one quote) as well as for promoting unreliable(basically troll links), more info here [6] Justicejayant (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
What you mean I'm only there for promoting bad translation and all that? Don't you know how heavily I've contributed to the article? And there is absolutely no problem in translating Varna as caste, since that's what the definition of cast is. When the English word came into use is irrelevant. — 03:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a period of three months due to "Edit warring / Content dispute". Contributors are welcome to use the article talk page for a collegial discussion of specific ways to improve article content. (E.g., user Kalki has already made constructive recommendations there regarding variant translations.) Because the disagreements have become rather heated, please take special care to be objective and polite when discussing the matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Quote investigatorEdit

Hiǃ The Quote investigator has information that might be useful for your work here on Wikiquote. It is okay if you make use of his material, as long as he is given rightful credit. --Spannerjam (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Quote Investigator by Garson O’Toole does good work, and is already cited in several articles. One of these days he may publish a book. In the meanwhile, the website is worthy of citing because it is well researched and meticulously cited. When QI credits another researcher, such as Ralph Keyes, The Quote Verifier for its conclusion, credit should go to the prior research. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (movies)Edit

Good edit, I think. I copied it, see The Hobbit (movies). Best, DanielTom (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should be a redirect, or the two might be merged under a more encompassing title, in order to avoid the two pages getting out of sync (e.g., your new page omits the 1978 film and my old page omits the 2013 film). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. If you can think of a clever way that works, go ahead. There is just one more film missing, which will come out next year, so I don't think it will be that hard to keep the pages synchronized. (I liked the 1978 film, BTW. Pity they didn't make the other parts. My favorite LOTR interpretation is the 1981 BBC radio dramatization, for which I may create a WQ page, when I have the time.) DanielTom (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Spam" filterEdit

Please remove Twitter from the filter to avoid things like this from happening. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have referred your request to WQ:AN#Blacklisted social networking sites in order to give more visibility to the WikiRetweet issue. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. DanielTom (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2013 (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)


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

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)


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, 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)


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 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, 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


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)
Last modified on 21 April 2014, at 18:12