User talk:Ningauble


Hello Ningauble. You haven't edited in a while, so I hope you're doing well. You were 100% right about CensoredScribe. Could you please review his activity again and if necessary block him (at least for a limited time – e.g. 1 year)? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to leave, but I checked a few pages on Recent changes before doing so, and noted this. Though I have not been taking extensive note of his activities, I can agree that CensoredScribe sometimes adds too extensive and sometimes rather irrelevant or only trivially relevant quotes to pages, but some of his contributions seem worthy of keeping, and certainly believe blocking him for more than a day or so at this point AFTER a clear and cogent warning and rational for doing so is unwarranted. The very longest block I see warranted at this point, AFTER a warning and reason for considering it, with specific examples cited, would be a week. I don’t have time to stick around right now and comment much more, as I will be leaving soon, and might not be active here till sometime tomorrow. ~ Kalki·· 23:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Can't you delete this yourself?Edit

Deng XiaopingEdit

I disagree with your reversion – it's a memorable story, and the reply is quotable in its context. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Senhor Tome. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Ningauble's reversion. While the story itself is interesting and perhaps even memorable, the single line of "He was lying" is not in any way quotable. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps one could start a separate project called WikiAnecdote. I somehow doubt the Wikimedia foundation would be interested in hosting it, but there are plenty of other services willing to host just about anything. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you being serious or facetious/sarcastic? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
My intent was to underline UDSCott's point about interesting stories by emphasizing that it really does not fit within the mission here. I accept full responsibility for any confusion that may result from being serious and attempting humor at the same time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I myself have added such quotes before, though I am no authority – but I will say The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and other editions disagree with you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Neither of the above citations quotes the remark in question, which does not exhibit the sort of wordplay found there.~ Ningauble (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't have to be wordplay. Consider: "Yes, I believe in God." reply to gunman – quote reported in the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations (2007), p. 191. If you can't see that context (in this case, last words) can sometimes make "commonplace expressions" notable and quotable, you are very... imperceptive (let's call it that). ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The removed quote actually was longer than the one in the OED. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

[1] Are you going to remove Margaret Thatcher's "no, no, no" next? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


You say that the reason we can't quote Shrek-4D is because of the fact that it's realistic to quote, yet there are many quotes on this wiki from real life people.--Trisha Gaurav (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I said nothing about realism in my proposal to delete the article, which reads: "This material from an amusement park attraction lack any quotability." (You should also be aware that the characters portrayed are not actually real life people, though this has nothing to do with the reason for deletion.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and ApologiesEdit

I realize the recent Zootopia dispute probably wasn't fun to deal with. It was not in my interest to start any edit warring, and I did attempt to solve the dispute by other methods. So I'll apologize for that dispute. In the same area, I'll thank you for helping clear up some of the quotation rules regarding the limitations. I'll be honest and say I'm still trying to get used to it, and is nice to have a reference point. Cheers man. -SM (sorry I still don't know how to do the signature)

Could I get your opinion as to whether my citation fixes are "subtle vandalism" or if it is rather Daniel Tom's uncivil and disruptive behavior that warrants correction?Edit

[2] I have a very long and sorted history with Daniel Tom, and although they normally have some basis for their reverts, this is a very clear cut matter of whether my recent citation fixes are correct or not, which I believe they are as every single style guide suggests ending citations with a period and my other grammatical fixes such as italicizing titles and using commas between entries (or periods in the case of the APA) are also near universally implemented. I've been copying their language substituting meat back for incompetent as I assume all editors are made out of meat, while incompetence is in fact a legal term.

Sorry for bothering you with this mess, I thought being a wiki gnome was welcomed, but I guess not. I wouldhave at least liked knowing what I did wrong from DT, but I guess I don't deserve that as "the most incompetent editor ever". CensoredScribe (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe:  I notice that after posting this query/complaint at the Village Pump you immediately broadcast it to no less than ten users' talk pages. Please stop being a pest. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiquote, Beer no citation providedEdit

Hello Ningauble, Thanks for helping to edit the page -, I see that you have reverted my edits with the comments stating that "no Citation provided" - would a request for citation for the quotes helped better to improve the content and gather the source and citation by other editors or me - rather than wipe and revert all the edits ? Please let know your thoughts - Thank you again! -03:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)—This unsigned comment is by Karthik sripal (talkcontribs) .

In Wikiquote's earliest days it was considered ok to include unsourced quotes pending further research. It did not work out well, because it led to a great deal of false information and outright nonsense (such as the Abraham Lincoln item you added, which is completely bogus: see Abraham Lincoln#Misattributed). The community decided several years ago that all unsourced attributions should be promptly removed from articles. Just like the policy at Wikipedia, all quotations must cite a reliable, published source.
As I often say: "If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote."(You can quote me on that.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiquote's credibilityEdit

Any thoughts on this? I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg. Illegitimate Barrister has polluted probably hundreds of articles with "quotes" by anonymous Internet users taken directly from message boards (or Blogger/WordPress, and their comment sections), often with extremely deceiving citations and links to Wikipedia pages that don't actually exist. While Illegitimate Barrister has done good work in many pages, the damage he has done to Wikiquote's reliability and trustworthiness by such additions (which are arguably worse than vandalism) is equally very great. I believe Illegitimate Barrister should be given a formal warning, at the very least. (I'm asking you because you are already aware of some of the problems with this user's editing, and to avoid escalation, but if you prefer I can bring it up at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with your assessment, both in terms of the quality of such contributions and their impact on Wikiquote's standing. However, I confess that I am not at all sure of the best way to deal with it.

In the absence of any clear consensus disallowing unremarkable (unremarked) internet chatter, I am not sure action at the AN against an administrator could be sustained on that basis. Given that this is not the only prolific contributor whose conception of notability and quotability of random things found on the interestnet is at variance with what seems (to you and me anyway) a common-sense understanding of Wikiquote's mission, it seems to me that a discussion of principles at the VP or policy/guideline pages, rather than discussing an individual's actions, may be the more fundamental need. Alas, consensus on such matters has proved to be very elusive.

The matter of misleading citations and links may be more directly actionable on grounds of outright bogosity. I regard this as a grave matter, and quite appalling when it comes from a certified administrator. However, it almost feels like nit-picking when it concerns citing things that should never have been included in the first place – sort of like ticketing a car-bomber for stopping in a no-parking zone.

Perhaps comparing this to car-bombing is a bit hyperbolic, but I can think of few more effective ways of reducing Wikiquote to a pile of rubble than to treat it as a mirror site for internet chatrooms. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

On the plus side, we could then change Wikiquote's name to Wikilitter® (trademark pending). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

My interventionEdit

So you're implying I cannot express my opinion, which incidentally is not like yours? I'm a long-time it.wp and WD admin, btw. Nice to meet you.

I was discussing with Superchilum about Wikidata stuff, and he mentioned me this talk - not even linked me the talk, just told me. I came here by my decision, if that's what's troubling you, no canvassing or such. I just felt to defend his position, and to defend the work of other Wikidata users. We're all working for the same reason here, and nobody, nobody, wanted to offend Gilldragon or hint at an alleged breaking of the rules.

Anyway, if you wish I can help draw a guideline about Wikidata. Sannita (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No Sannita, I am not implying that you cannot express an opinion. I was just wondering how this user's page became a venue for discussing Wikidata. It was not my intention to deprecate the project, but to intercede where a contributor received what looked very much like a level-1 user warning without cause. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Uncharted 4: A Thief's End (AmericanLemming)Edit

Hello, there. I'm AmericanLemming, and since you marked Uncharted 4: A Thief's End as needing to have its copyright status checked, I've removed the trailer quotes, as they almost certainly exceed fair use. I feel that the number of quotes on the page is reasonable now. Of course, Wikiquote doesn't have a formal policy or recommendation for the number of quotes for electronic game articles (see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations#Types of articles), so what's considered a reasonable number of quotes varies from person to person.

Anyway, I was wondering if you still think that the article has too many quotes; I'm willing to reduce the number of quotes further, but I'd like to have a rough guideline of how many quotes I should have. (Note that the article currently has 34 quotes, and a movie of all the game's cutscenes put together is about four hours--search for "Uncharted 4 movie" on YouTube, for example). I only started editing Wikiquote this summer (though I've been on Wikipedia for 3 years now), and by the looks of it you've been here since 2008, so I'd greatly appreciate any advice you have for me. Thank you. —This unsigned comment is by AmericanLemming (talkcontribs) 02:37, 18 August 2016‎.

Hi AmericanLemming, please pardon the lateness of my reply. In the absence of a guideline it is a not easy to answer your question.

The Limits on Quotations guideline (draft) formerly recommend three quotes per game; but this was removed a year ago because it was very contentious. Some argued for twice as much, which would be six quotes, but as it stands now there is no codified rule of thumb – one just has to use one's judgment, which does indeed vary from person to person and can lead to contention.

My own opinion, since you ask, as remarked in multiple threads on the guideline discussion page, is that there should be greater focus on the quality of Wikiquote:Quotability rather than the quantity that may be permissible – a focus on showcasing a handful of brilliant and famous quotations in an uncluttered format, rather than cramming in as much material as can be justified under the fair use doctrine.

I am aware that game reviewers have praised the quality of dialogues in this game, but I am not seeing that quality exemplified in the present article. What we have here are mostly commonplace clichés, not memorably original expressions of "particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant" prose.

My advice is to use the following procedure: (1) try to find the three very best quotes as if that were a fixed limit, and then (2) consider adding a few more of comparable quality that will not diminish the spotlight on what is most brilliant. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The article as it stands contains what I consider to be the most memorable and thought-provoking quotes from the game. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're memorable or thought-provoking enough to merit inclusion on Wikiquote. I was also trying to include the quotes that were most important for understanding the plot, but clearly Wikiquote is not the place for that. (So that all my hard work compiling quotes doesn't go to waste, I may add some of the deleted Uncharted 4 quotes to IMDB, which is probably a more appropriate place for recreating large chucks of dialogue.)
Anyway, in light of your advice I've trimmed the article further; it now has only nine lines of dialogue. I suppose there might still be some clichés, but I think the ones that remain are at least thought-provoking clichés. Additionally, the remaining quotes are more accessible to the general reader, as they don't require familiarity with the game. Let me know what you think; I plan on creating Wikiquote articles for Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3 with about 6-10 quotes apiece, so getting more feedback on what kinds of quotes I should include would be most useful. Thank you again for taking the time to write me a thoughtful reply, which I hope will help me to constructively contribute to Wikiquote in the future. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

too verbose?Edit

  • Sub tegmine fagi.
    • In the shade of a beech tree.
    • Book I, line 1. Also found in the last line of the Georgics (IV, 566).

I don't like how this reference is worded. Is there a way to convey the same information in fewer words? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's overly verbose; but I would prefer "Repeated in..." (which is one word shorter) because it indicates the author repeating himself rather than the commentator finding it (and conveys the also-ness of it at the same time). "Also found in" is a common enough idiom; but it is one of my pet peeves that a reviewer or commentator ought not unnecessarily inject himself (I found it!) into the review or commentary. It is also common to ameliorate this drawback by using a passive voice as "May also be found in", but this really is unduly verbose, and a bit ridiculous because the reader's ability or permission(!) to find it is hardly at issue.

I do think it is worthwhile, and not superfluous verbosity, to note it is the last line of Georgics in addition to citing book and line number. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the suggestion and explanation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:‎Rupert loupEdit

This user claims that my mere undoing of its excessive linking to some words (most of which were completely irrelevant to the respective story) in articles is vandalism. That is not possible, seeing as most articles here on Wikiquote are okay without any links. WikiLubber (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If you would like me to help mediate a dispute, please provide links the ongoing discussion(s) and/or diffs showing the contested edits. I don't need a great deal of detail to get started, but I do need to know what is being disputed, and where – the locus of dispute. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not disputing anything (now). While I understand this user's edits were meaningful, referring to my undoing of those edits as vandalism (when in reality, they are good faith edits) is beyond reprehensible. WikiLubber (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Greek proverbEdit

Thanks! It is Greek proverb . In Greece almost say every day . It need source(s) ? But why; It is a daily Greek phrase .--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes Ρητά και παροιμίες, every quotation needs a citation. This is a basic requirement: see Wikiquote:Sourcing. Regarding proverbs in particular: since they are widely repeated by definition, it should be easy to find citations where they are repeated. However, as noted in the section at WQ:SOURCE#Proverbs, it is best to cite the earliest and/or most authoritative source that can be found, in order to help readers understand the origin.

Why are citations needed for things that are purportedly well known, like proverbs? We need a verifiable source every time because contributors are sometimes mistaken, or even making it up. Readers must be able to check the source and see for themselves that it is true.

Speaking of mistakes, this translation is very poor: the English grammar makes no sense. For translations in the English Wikiquote it is best to cite reliable sources of translation.

The same proverb (or very close, guessing at the meaning of the broken grammar above) can be found in English as "they stumble that run fast", from William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (1597), Act II, scene 3, line 94. If you can find the same thing in English translation of a Greek writer from antiquity, or at least earlier than the 16th century, it would be a very valuable contribution to Wikiquote. (It might even tell us where Shakespeare got it!) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually! It has many similarities. I found a source (of the twenty-first century!)--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

While it may indeed be a popular expression in Greece today, I am not sure Greek Gateway is a reliable source. In general, collections on the internet that do not cite their sources are not very useful resources for Wikiquote.

It would be very interesting to discover whether modern Greeks actually got the expression from a translation of Shakespeare's popular play, or whether Shakespeare (or his contemporaries) actually got it from reading classical Greek literature. (The earliest sources I could find on Google Books [3] do not shed much light on the question, at least to me.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Shakespeare probably knew no Greek. I don't know if he knew Latin, but "they stumble that run fast" is reminiscent of Seneca's Quod evenit in labyrintho properantibus; ipsa illos velocitas inplicat ("This is what happens when you hurry through a maze; the faster you go, the worse you are entangled"). If I had to guess, I'd say Shakespeare came to it the same way I did, through Montaigne's Essays (popular at the time), specifically the 10th chapter of the third book, where he writes: "la hastiveté se donne elle mesme la jambe" (9th chapter in this English translation: "Haste trips up its own heels"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I found the source to google books Greek and English Proverbs. Who hurries Stumbles. Sfirikse to Whoever hurry,Stumbles! . If said first Shakespeare or an ancient Greek i don't know.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the book Greek and English Proverbs by Panos Karagiōrgos appears to be a citable source. (The Sfirikse to blog is not.) This is a good find Ρητά και παροιμίες.

Interestingly, the same Karagiōrgos has a recent book, Anglo-Hellenic Cultural Relations (2015), that may have clues to a possible Shakespeare connection. Chapter 4 reviews the first translation of Shakespeare into Greek in 1819. Evidently Greece under the Ottoman Empire had been unaware of Shakespeare's existence! Chapter 5 discusses the influence of Shakespeare on modern Greek literature thereafter, first flourishing mid 19th century. This is precisely the same age as the earliest mention of the Greek proverb that I was able to find in Google Books.

To support or debunk speculation that the Greek proverb came from Shakespeare, it would be very interesting to learn (1) whether Greek translations of the above line from Romeo and Juliet closely match the proverb, and (2) whether any uses of the proverb can be found that predate those translations.

This is interesting to me because, in the words of WQ:SOURCE#Evaluating sources, "One of the purposes of a compendium of quotations like Wikiquote is to assist users, whether students, scholars, or just curious people, in understanding the origin of a quotation." ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) (revised 14:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC), Ningauble (talk))

Joseph MascletEdit

I sent a request to the BnF asking referencing this letter with the quote. This quote is really important for the related Wikipedia article. It neatly shows why Masclet was important on the subject of Lafayette. Genium (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If evidence that he gave an address about Lafayette is needed in the Wikipedia article, then add a footnote to that article. It is not Wikiquote's purpose to provide footnotes for Wikipedia, but to collect notably quotable quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 Y Done. Added another one. Genium (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Civilization IV deletionEdit

Even though the page on Civilization IV does not use original quotes, it tells the precise origin of each one and separates those which are dubtious and misattributed. It would be helpful to people who played the game and want to know the veracity and provenience of the quotes without the need of visiting many different pages. As I understood, the originality guideline you cited only says that the quotes must be attributed to the actual person who said them, and that's not a problem in the article I've created. So why delete it? - Alumnum (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Alumnum, there are about a zillion people and works that quote famous quotations; it is what makes them famous quotations. We do not quote those people and works quoting others; we quote people and works that say something famously quotable themselves, in their own words. It may indeed be helpful to people who are interested in people and works that quote others, but it is not Wikiquote's purpose to catalogue who quoted what. "The Wikiquote community prefers to use sources which are as close to the original author or speaker as possible". ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Irving FiskeEdit

If there are no published sources, why not accept unpublished ones? I'll send your copy of the tape of Irvimg Fisjes talks Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It is frustrating as he was well known and respected and he repeated these quotes many times. Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ladybelle Fiske, more pertinent than how often he repeated himself, for Wikiquote's purposes, is how often other people quoted him. Unless his words are widely quoted by persons not related to him, obscure memorabilia preserved by friends and family is not a useful resource for Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Many people quoted Irving. I have to dig up all the references, but there are many —This unsigned comment is by Ladybelle Fiske (talkcontribs) 11:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC).

Pacatus DrepaniusEdit

Are enough these references? which is common are wrote in Spanish, but you can search it with the word "Pacato" in the search of your browser. Thanks for your time. [ ] [4] --Vvven (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Vvven, it is better to cite a high quality translation of the original source. The only known surviving work by Pacatus Drepanius is a speech in honor of Emperor Theodosius I, preserved in the Panegyrici Latini. A good translation (with extensive notes and commentary) may be found here with the pertinent passage on page 452. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope to find material in that source, soon i will be reviewing. Thanks so much. --Vvven (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok but if you can when you have time, could help me with the translation, because is the best i can do :/. I have not idea how make better --Vvven (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I will work on including this in the article tomorrow (I am busy now). If you do not have much English then it may be difficult for you to contribute to the English Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 Y Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I could help with my time, to find references, If you could tell me how you found these original references on Pacatus that really help me, not only for wikiquotes but the rest of wikis--Vvven (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Google Books™ is your friend. After reviewing the English Wikipedia article on Pacatus Drepanius and the linked article on Panegyrici Latini I determined that, if the quote is genuine, this could be the only possible source. Then I searched Google Books for an authoritative translation, and searched within their online copy for key phrases to locate the quote. It helps that I have years of practice doing this kind of research. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

too verbose? (II)Edit

I'm still experimenting, but here: "Opening lines, 1–5 (1–4 in the Greek text)" seems to be, besides condescending to the reader (they can count to 5), probably too verbose, especially as it is repeated later ("Lines 21–24 (15–17 in the Greek text)", etc.). Can you suggest a better way? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems okay to me, particularly in the second instance. Quoting the Greek is a Good Thing™. Citing where it is in the Greek is not a bad thing. One could omit the word "text", as I did in the previous two sentences. It is grammatically odd to elide the noun, but very common practice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I'm overthinking it. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Here, I'm thinking of adding an explanatory note: "Medea contemplating suicide, and deciding against it". Is it good English? Maybe you can think of a better description. (Or maybe it's not necessary to add a note at all.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    The English is fine, but this seems more annotation than necessary. It may be helpful to indicate the passage is from Medea's point of view and, to a lesser extent, that the subject matter concerns suicide; however, it seems quite unnecessary to annotate a development, "and deciding against it", that is explicit in the text. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

An Essay Against VerbosityEdit

There is much to be said for brevity. (You can quote me on that.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Urgent messageEdit

Numerous IP addresses continuously make unnecessary edits (and vandalism edits to boot) on the following pages:

Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Toy Story 3
Monsters, Inc.
Monsters University
The Incredibles name but a few, and they refuse to cease and desist, nor even explain their edits. I request that all those IP addresses be blocked for the maximum time allowed, and that all pages on which they have edited be protected for at least six months. WikiLubber (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Need your opinion again: is this picture acceptable (or is it too anachronistic)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection. At least the image is directly relevant to the quote. In this instance anachronism may be a virtue: it demonstrates that the quote has stood the test of time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

TOC limitEdit

Why doesn't it work here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: That template is completely nonfunctional because it depends on undefined CSS classes. A longer answer here describes why this sort of thing happens. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You can add sourceEdit

Hello Ningauble, You added a tag to African proverbs about adding source. I would have improve the article by adding source but i don"t know how to add source to the page. You can improve the article by adding source to it or you teach me how to add source to the article.--Reekado (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Reekado, if you are not sure how to place your sources in the article, take a look at the French proverbs article for a good example to follow. For information on sourcing generally, see Wikiquote:Sourcing. Note in particular the sections on Evaluating sources and Proverbs in that guideline. I cannot add sources for these quotes myself, because I do not know where you found them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I understand you clearly. But those proverbs which i added was writing on my own knowledge of African Proverb.--Reekado (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Enemy of the StateEdit

Now that is the importance of clear edit summaries. Yours made sense. Eaglestorm's didn't. LeQui (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit RevertEdit

Good day Ningauble, Why was the edit i made to List of television shows reverted. I added youtube to the External links below because youtube is among the category of TV. I need your explanation, you might be correct.--Yung miraboi mark (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yung miraboi mark, the purpose of Wikiquote list pages is to help people find Wikiquote articles: Wikiquote is not an internet directory. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Good explanation thanks, I now understand.--Yung miraboi mark (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Virgil (2)Edit

Is quoting this remark by Enoch Powell too "political" (even though it's a famous, if controversial, reference)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pardon the lateness of my reply. I have been preoccupied.

My view on this sort of "cf." or "compare" annotation is asymmetrical. It is appropriate on a page like Enoch Powell to identify his allusion to the Aeneid because it clarifies what he was talking about, but it is not appropriate on a page like Virgil to mention any of the myriad people who have alluded to or quoted from his works. I would make an exception for an otherwise obscure source if a secondary reference is needed to demonstrate notability, but such is not the case for Virgil. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. That's an interesting perspective. I'll comment out the references to later works (if not all, at least most of them). Thx. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Are there objective criteria?Edit

I was planning to make a series of additions, but was taken aback when you deleted my quote on Greed from Khaled Hosseini -- a very well cited writer, whose quotes are found on numerous quotation cites. This particular one was taken from a collection of quotes on Greed on Goodreads. Is there any way I can tell if a quote is acceptable or not, so as to avoid guesswork and waste of time? —This unsigned comment is by Asaduzaman (talkcontribs) 17:12, 4 December 2016.

This is certainly a notable book by a notable author, and I would have no objection to adding this quote to the Khaled Hosseini article (with citation to where it appears in the book). The reason I removed the quote from the Greed article is actually subjective: because it is not a short, pithy quote that says something really new about greed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From reading the "about" it seems that there are no set policies -- or these are being incubated -- So I would propose a discussion on this as a policy guideline:

"Quotes should be short, pithy, and say something really new about the subject"

If adopted, it should be displayed prominently, to ensure that all are aware of this guideline. Asaduzaman (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Category deathsEdit

Hi. I do not understand very well this; so Category:1088 deaths remains empty. --Spinoziano (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been using the idea (as briefly discussed a few years ago at Wikiquote:Village pump archive 31#Category:19th century deaths) that small categories do not need to be broken up into multiple smaller categories. Note that Category:11th century deaths, including its subcategories, contains only 23 articles. I do not think it is useful to to have individual year categories, most of which would be empty, to organize these few articles by historical context. (Empty categories will eventually be deleted during routine cleanup.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.--Spinoziano (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


thanks for that move - JarrahTree (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

re suleimanEdit

I happen to have a copy of Mansel, which is quoted in the wikipedia article, and checked the two extracts of the poems - the earlier refs that mansel utilises are to up to 3 other earlier sources, is it ok simply to have mansel as the ref ? I see your dislike for footnotes on your user page - I hope the format of the citation is in order JarrahTree (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

it would be very useful to understand why you dont respond to talk messages JarrahTree (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, and sometimes I get around to it later. Reasons?
  1. This is not a full time job, and the pay is lousy.
  2. The sun is just dawning where I live, and I need another cup of coffee.
  3. I often find it easier to show by example than to write explanations.
  4. Et cetera...
~ Ningauble (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
ahh sheesh, thank you very much for your reply, (as for the coffee, I fully can relate to that and that would have been sufficient in itself to tell me to back off, so to speak) thank you for your showing by examples - it is much appreciated.

One weird curiosity (and take your time and please, and please ignore if you so wish) - Nikki Haley uses the expression have our back or have the back. I have been only exposed to usage in new york and toronto from first hand experience, (houston texas usage a very long long time ago) - and from an Australian (with English cultural accent) point of view, I havent come across the expression used - is it something that is expected from usual south carolina usage? I can imagine the UN instantaneous translators (I have known only one of them) would be scratching their heads on that phrasing... any clues ? Thanks again, I do hope I am not too much of a problem JarrahTree (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

JarrahTree, this usage is widespread in contemporary American popular culture, as attested in Wikiquote.[5][6] I do not know where or when it originated. I vaguely recall having heard it several decades ago, but judging from GoogleBooks it only started appearing in print with this sense since the 1990s.[7] ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that, and the links - the variant in Australian or english english (sic), would be more to cover your back, or to watch your back - in other words the usage where the lack of a verb other than the possessive is interesting. My children when they were, as Australians often tended to drop either verbs or other usually helpful grammatical necessities for effect in their school days, as adults they are far more grammatically conventional/conservative JarrahTree (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource author-inlineEdit

Hi. Can you import this Wikipedia template into Wikiquote? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The linked template invokes Lua code, about which I know practically nothing. I am not going to touch it because I lack competence. I also note that it uses a Lua module that is in Alpha testing/development. I would not advise anyone to use this unless they are actively engaged in and committed to developing and maintaining the software. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Arrowverse LOQEdit

Hey mate, I just saw your AFD about the Arrowverse crossovers. Can I ask why you think the individual series "press the Limits on quotations for materiel from these shows"? --SuperJew (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, the Arrow article, as it now stands, is completely full up to the limit of five dialog sections per episode. Putting more sections from some of the same episodes in another page would be over the limit. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah I understand your meaning. Yes of course it is at the limit. They used to be over the limit and I culled them down to 5 per episode. But that is the limit so it's fine. I though you meant like slightly over. Cool thanks --SuperJew (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

David S. CecelskiEdit

Hi Ningauble, thanks for your feedback here. Did you check if a new 2nd 2015 edition even exists? For example, the data about the 2015 edition speaks about first 2012 edition. -- Mdd (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes Mdd, there is a 2015 edition listed, without preview, at GoogleBooks.[8] However, I am beginning to have doubts about the contributor's veracity. I looked up a passage you removed with this edit to the Gautama Buddha article, using my own copy of the cited 1935 edition (19th printing, 1954). The first item attributed to that source is a mashup of material from different places in the text, with some wording changes, not a direct quote.

The contributor may be unclear about the difference between a quotation and a rewritten synopsis. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your assessment. Because the actual quotes seem a mashup of the 2012 text, and the info on the 2015 edition don't make clear, that the book is a second edition, I have temporarily removed the quotes again, and replaced them with some more reliable quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Another thing about this situation make me wonder, who should have the burden of proof in situations like this? I assesssed Illegitimate Barrister's first edit, see here, a few days ago. The source seem to be removed from both and, and there is no way to double check this 993 words long quote. What can be done here? -- Mdd (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

PR material for Star Wars and Snow White.Edit

I was wondering if you could clarify what you mean by PR material through example in regards to the quotes on Star Wars (film) and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), for I've not actually seen what you consider a good example of an addition to an about section, only what you consider bad additions. I wonder if it would save us both time just deleting all the about sections for works of fiction. I want to know what standardized metric it is you use to determine notability as several of the quotes on the statue of liberty lack evidence of having been quoted. Thank you for your recent assistance. Forgive me if I restore this post should you delete it, but unless a question is clear cut vandalism with hate speech, blanking a talk page looks unprofessional, which you clearly are not in your editing capabilities. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

By "PR" I mean Public relations. I do not recall using the term in the contexts to which you refer, and have nothing to say about them. I have used the term recently when referring to quotes of people involved in a production (writers, directors, etc.) giving interviews to promote their work.

I have actually created or added to About sections many times myself, including the first article I ever created for Wikiquote[9], the longest article I have created to date[10], and numerous others. In each case I thought the additions had strong qualities of Quotability like this one or at least something strikingly distictive like one of these. In no case did I quote someone pimping their own work. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there anything such as editing in good faith? Such complex rules to follow. Wiki knows only 1 Nepali proverb. I know a 100. But plz I can't. These boring rules.

Return to the user page of "Ningauble".