User talk:Ningauble/Archive 10

Latest comment: 10 years ago by DanielTom in topic Your thinking

This is an archive of past discussions on User talk:Ningauble from Jan–Jun 2013.
Do not edit this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.

Merci Beaucoup pour votre travail extraordinaire sur Wikiquote edit

Ningauble, Thanks for making Wq library way' be'ta. "I think the health of our civilization, the depth of our awareness about the underpinnings of our culture and our concern for the future can all be tested by how well we support our libraries." ~ Carl Sagan Greentopia (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be interested on commenting this, whether on bugzilla or the linked mw: page. --Nemo 08:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugzilla ticket is about bulk mail delivery, and the MW Echo feature is for system triggered notifications. I don't think these are at all closely related, apart from the matter of how to notify a user that they have new mail.

On the bulk mail front, referred to as "global message delivery", I don't care much about how it is implemented. I do care about the distinction between "global delivery of messages" (wherever the recipients are) and "delivery of global messages" (to all wikis). This is not really under consideration at Bugzilla, but I commented there anyway.

For the MW Echo feature, "public announcements" are expressly out of scope, so this does not relate to the communications issues we were discussing at the Village Pump recently. It appears to be mainly for new users who are unfamiliar with, or old users who do not like, watchlists and page histories. (For those of us with low bandwidth, I am afraid these interactive features will only slow performance and/or crash browsers like the ill-fated LiquidThreads experiment. Unlike LiquidThreads however, users will be able to turn Echo off with user preferences.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:John Daker edit

Thanks - I stepped out for a few minutes while this user continued to vandalize. One note, the same User name was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and vandalism on WP (see here). Assuming this is the same user, we should keep an eye on things once your block expires. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In hindsight, and seeing that it is a unified account, I might just as well have used an indefinite block. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ron Kaufman edit

Hi Ningauble, Can you take a look at Ron Kaufman/Temp? User:Collingwood says it looks much better and I would like to get your opinion as well. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my opinion about appropriate quantities posted earlier at Talk:Ron Kaufman#Draft in temporary subpage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, does that mean you've looked again since my later edits? I've cut it down considerably since you last commented on the Discussion page.HtownCat (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I meant above is that I meant what I said before, about one quote per ten pages being more than enough, and about less being better. Yes, I reviewed the current draft before responding: in my opinion there is no qualitative difference between too much and much too much.

I encourage you to focus on identifying a handful of the most strikingly original and memorable examples. If you are associated with the subject, as appears to be indicated on the article talk page, then subjective assessments like this can be difficult, and it may be best to stick with passages that are widely quoted by independent sources. You may also want to consider disclosing the nature of your relationship with the subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knowledge edit

Hi Ningauble, thanks for fixing the quoted source I missed. -- Mdd (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some stylized forms of reference, such as conventional bible verse citations, are so succinct that they can easily appear to be incomplete or obscure. They are obscure if one is not familiar with them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Cite quote edit

Forgive me, but I can't recall the last time this was discussed, but hasn't the use of such a template been previously considered and rejected? I marked a page containing it for cleanup, but I just don't remember the discussion on using something like this. Do you recall? ~ UDScott (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I see other newly introduced templates by the same user - do we need any of these? ~ UDScott (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to, and still will, comment on these. {{Cite quote}} is clearly not consistent with current format guidelines, but the others (inline sister links) may be more debatable preferences. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is being discussed at WQ:VP#Quote citation template. Starcartographer is looking for a resolution[1] but despite a lot of verbiage (mea culpa) only two users have responded to the proposal, so your input would be welcome. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orwell page edit

Do you agree with what Macspaunday did to the page? 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are referring to the edit which you reverted here, yes, what Macspaunday did is consistent with Wikiquote's Image use policy. Per that policy, the images should not be re-added without obtaining consensus on the talk page first.~ Ningauble (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A stupid hick! edit

Do you know the fool and the brutish person you are! Stupid! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2013

sourced quotes? edit

Any idea where i can find them? I also asked another admin/user. Thank you. --7exkd (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mind edit

For this, the sorce is in the page Thomas Dewar, 1st Baron Dewar. It's no ok? --Spinoziano (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is better to include the citation at the point of quotation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question ("Misattributed" section) edit

Hello Ningauble, can you help me with a question? Shouldn't a red box appear in the "Misattributed" section? I am curious as to why that doesn't happen in the page José Saramago. Am I missing something? Thanks. Daniel Tomé (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"It's Supposed To Be Automatic But Actually You Have To Press This Button."John Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar.
Place a {{Misattributed begin}} before the section heading, and a {{Misattributed end}} at the end of the section. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha, thanks. It worked. Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talkback edit

I replied at Wikiquote:Bots#RileyBot :) -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 00:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quotes on cases edit

Can i make pages regarding the rape cases?

I mean, there was recently one, in which many politicians/popular ones had expressed there view. So a page can be made? On such event?

Justicejayant (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would such quotes not just go in Rape? BD2412 T 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem edit

I didn't know this, but I presume you I wouldn't recreate a deleted page again. I'm so sorry for what I did to this page. After all, it's one of my favorite movies, the one that 2010 classified it as "This year's coolest animated comedy" and "This year's funniest animated comedy".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2013

I don't know why they often delete that page I create (Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem) no matter how many information I put on it. I promise for this page not to be deleted ever again if you ask me: What is the minimum number of bytes for a page on this website?—This unsigned comment is by Voltlds (talkcontribs) 18:12, 18 March 2013‎.

The reason for deletion, given at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem, has nothing to do with the number of bytes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2013 edit

Why did you delete the page about the 5 questions you need to answer? Why? Why? Why? It was a competition? You should have particapated in it? The question is: Why did you delete it?-- 14:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiquote is for quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listen Ningauble, I left a note on my IP's talk page and told him why he was blocked! If he vandalize wikiquote again, I will let you know that way you can block him for 72 hours because that is not good! And I actually explained to him about what he did wrong. Should I let you know if he vandalizes wikiquote that way you can block him again for 72 hours? How's that? --Starship9000 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have replied on your talk page about acting like two people and using an IP to vandalize Wikimedia projects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, I can confirm via Checkuser that the IP and Starship9000 are one and the same. Reblocking the IP to tweak the settings. EVula // talk // // 04:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any famous quotes that DOES NOT have a article? I will be more happy to create them! --Starship9000 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abraxas edit

Hello Ningauble, sorry to bother you, but could you please clarify something for me?
Why did you write at User:Abraxas "Please refer to confession for evidence", and in the edit summary "confirmed"?
In my opinion, that was not fair at all.
Kalki did admit that the account was his, but that is not "sock puppetry", at least to my understanding of the term. A Wikiquote sock puppet is another account belonging to a user, used for causing trouble, vandalism or as a way to get around Wikiquote's policies. So, how was what he said a "confession" of that? Did you read his statement carefully? Kalki wrote: "I continue to assert was the rampage of IMPROPER account blocking and page defacement based upon many FALSE ASSUMPTIONS and accusations of misuse or abuse of my accounts." As you can see, what he said was the exact opposite of a "confession" of sock puppetry. Why put words in his mouth? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What has been confirmed is that, as previously suspected, this was indeed one of Kalki's accounts.

There is a general consensus, elucidated in numerous extensive community discussions, that Kalki's use of hundreds of accounts does, in fact, cause trouble. An admission of the act falls within the meaning of the term "confession" even when accompanied with protestation that the act or intention was harmless. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I looked at those records, and it seems to me that many people just enjoy provoking Kalki. And I think that your comment "arrogant misappropriation" was also clearly meant to incite a response. In any case, you tend to be right, so I guess I have some more thinking to do. It's certainly not my place to speak for Kalki, and I will stop here. Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rawls, John edit

Hi, could you advice me what to do with the PROD of this redirect? I am under the impression that there are a lot of those redirects (for example Miller, William) and those redirects help to search for names, when you use the search function. That is at least were I encountered them the first time, and I find them very useful. -- Mdd (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found some conformation, that there are indeed a lot of these redirects. Since Jan 2008 BD2412 alone created over 700 of these "last-name-first redirect". -- Mdd (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that redirects from last name first are very useful. Anyone can contest a {{prod}} by simply removing the template with an explanation. You could leave an edit summary like "de-PROD: last name first redirects are useful and common, use Wikiquote:Votes for deletion if you disagree". You could elaborate further on the talk page if you prefer, but it doesn't seem necessary. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I followed your advice here. Could you also give your opinion on the PROD of the Spiritual Intelligence redirect? I wonder if they are common around here? Or even exist more often? I have no clue how I could check, since redirects don't seem to be listed in any category here. I recall from earlier discussion elsewhere, that "last-name-first redirect" are also useful because they create extra (google) search engine entry, but "double-capital redirects" don't. They can easily be avoided in articles by making link-corrections (such as here). -- Mdd (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect-from-alternate-capitalization is not nearly as useful, because the search tool is case insensitive. There may be some situations where alternate forms are so common that the "piped linking" to which you refer becomes onerous, but none come to mind at the moment. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again, now I found the Wikipedia Category:Redirects from other capitalisations. There are much more of them on the English Wikipedia then I could have imagined (379,812), but I guess that is no reason to continue that same practice here. -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People can sometimes become quite obsessed about capitalization: see for a humorous observation on the phenomenon at Wikipedia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tadaram Maradas edit

Help with deleting a page edit

Mr. Ninguable ;-) I tried to nominate the page "Prep" for deletion, but was not able to successfully add it to the deletion log page. Would you be able to do that correctly for me? Thank you. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Y Done.[2][3] (Inconsistent capitalization breaks links.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin Quotations edit

Do you think it would be possible to create an article for Latin phrases (not proverbs)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not keen on the idea of using Wikiquote as a phrasebook, in Latin or otherwise. It would be a useful resource, but I think Wikiquote is a different type of resource. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify: I said "phrases" because that is what the the book I use calls them ("frases", in Portuguese), but you could call them quotes.
I thought of adding some of them to the Latin proverbs page, but they are not really "proverbs"; of course, I could add said quotes to the article of each individual author, yet I figured it would be a better idea to compile them (the most famous Latin expressions) into a single article (at least the ones that have a clear source).
Still no? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure what type of quotations you have in mind. If by "famous expressions" you mean what are sometimes called "proverbial expressions", then that is what I mean by material better suited for a phrasebook. If you mean quotations in general, that happen to originate in the Latin language, then I think it would be too broad: one could devote an entire wiki to them. I would much prefer that quotations be organized by People, Works, and Themes rather than by language of origin. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that link. Very interesting. (Except that it's dead.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found this. :) DanielTom (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
et cetera in infinitum, nisi singulis secundum speciem suam. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dudeism edit

In response to your inquiry on my page — and so that you don't have to put up with downloading it, I am posting my response there here:

I believe that "Religious parodies and satires" could be an appropriate category for both that and any pages having to do with Discordians — but I so wish to emphasize that I sincerely believe they would both still belong as genuine religions and philosophies — as I believe they are genuine religious traditions which religiously satirize the taking of many things too seriously. As to the size of the page — and download times on dial-up — I can accept that IS a SERIOUS issue, and sympathize, and sorrow at that situation. It does not make me inclined to use graphics much less — for graphics are far more extensively used elsewhere, but I would suggest using an alternate browser with ALL imaging turned off for visiting pages or sites with many unwanted graphics. Such was a strategy I once used when download speeds were much more of a problem than they are now, for me and most people. I actually used to keep several browsers open at once, years ago, but now seldom have more than two open — usually either Safari or Firefox — although there are occasional explorations with others just to test their "feel" and the appearances of things with them, I really find no actual need to use more than those two. There are several with good reputations for speed which you could check out, and I believe the top ones probably all have some options to not display ANY images — though I haven't used such options myself in quite some time. For your sake and those of a few others who do not like images much, for various reasons — it might be a good idea to suggest an option to the software developers of turning off images in the wiki-preferences — and not simply reducing the size of their display to 120px — that would be an ideal solution for you perhaps. I have been stripping out the previous 144px specs I had used on most pages, and I hope that can be of some help to you. I do not know how hard or difficult it might be for programmers to do a more complete exclusion option, or when they might get around to it — but I hope it is an one they might be able to take care of in coming versions of the software.

I truly hope a satisfactory strategy on handling of graphics can be developed for you soon. Blessings ~ Kalki·· 14:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS : I also think we should probably create a category page for Humanism for I believe that Dudeism and other philosophies would probably relate well to such a category. ~ Kalki·· 14:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding "Religious parodies and satires":  It could be a subcategory within both Religion and Philosophy. (There is a great deal of overlap between the two modes of thought.) It was not my intention to suggest that parody and satire are not serious or that these are in any sense not genuine forms of religious or philosophical expression, but I think it useful to distinguish them from other schools of thought that are associated with, for want of a better word, orthodoxies.
Regarding page size:  Wikimedia developers have long declined to do anything about rich media overload because, as you note, browsers have an option for omitting image files. However, rather than further handicapping my browser, I prefer to generally avoid pages that are too bloated to be useful to me. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respectfully will defer to your judgment edit

Dear Ningauble,

I am being, ahem, repeatedly queried on my user talk page by a user, DanielTom (talk · contributions), that is perhaps still holding on to a bit of lingering emotional states and exhibiting some of that in this ongoing behavior pattern, due to an unrelated issue from English Wikipedia where I had filed a sockpuppet investigation involving him and Kalki (talk · contributions).

I am glad that you have chimed in with this astute comment at the admin noticeboard about this particular issue.

Because of this ongoing potential prior vested interest by DanielTom (talk · contributions) against me, I feel it would be best for you to take the lead on what to do from here with regards to the BarkingFish issue.

I respectfully will defer to your judgment about what should next be done about how to resolve this matter with this sleeper sockfarm on Wikiquote.

Perhaps you could help to close this issue for now with regards to Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#BarkingFish_and_sockpuppets?

Thank you for your wise input,

-- Cirt (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cirt, why did you just cite a comment made by Beyond My Ken which was retracted by himself just 3 minutes after it was posted? That shows extremely bad faith on your part, and is outrageously rude. Need I remind you that you apologized to me for that case, which was clearly motivated by your Kalki-bashing agenda? You don't learn, do you? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have an expression for what you're doing in Portuguese: esconder-se por detrás das saias da mamã (something like "Hiding behind your mama's skirt", where Ningauble will apparently be taking the maternal role). Everyone can see that you bringing up this old dispute (shamefully initiated by yourself) is just one more of your really quite pathetic attempts to evade taking responsibility for your own actions. Please, do grow up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gentlemen, the policy question is of some interest and is an appropriate issue for WQ:AN. Bickering about each other's motivations and rhetoric is of no interest to me whatsoever, and I tend to ignore it unless it rises to a level of disrupting the wiki that forces matters.

Regarding closing the AN discussion: I gave opinions there and several active admins have not, so I do not think it would be necessary or appropriate for me to close discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ningauble, I agree with everything you have said above. Regarding the policy discussion, I will respectfully defer to your judgment about what should be done about that. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, mentioned you in a thread edit

Please see this comment, I've mentioned you in a discussion thread. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you closed the discussion, but I should clarify one thing. I don't really care how many months it took someone to become an admin. The only thing I care about is what they do after becoming admins. (Do they use their new power to help Wikiquote, or to pursue their own agendas?) Unlike what you said, I don't have any "particular" interest in sock puppetry. Cirt has (I wonder why, right?). In case you haven't noticed, it was he who accused me of being a sock puppet, with zero evidence, and ignoring the hundreds of edits I had made in Portuguese. Did Cirt think that Kalki had somehow learnt to write Portuguese like a native? No. He was just lazy, didn't bother looking at my contributions, and, as ever, just couldn't resist one more opportunity to try to bash Kalki. Yes, I accepted his apologies, but I don't forget how he just assumed that I was lying about being who I am, and so lightly accused me of sock puppetry. And you may also have noticed how he continually and shamelessly harassed Kalki since 2009; personally, when I read the relevant archived discussions where Cirt participated, I feel completely disgusted with his conduct. People like him shouldn't be handling sock puppetry cases at all, and that is indeed perfectly "obvious" to me, even though it may not be to you or others. Sincerely, ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello edit

How do I find historical quotations? I have off course tried Googling with varying degrees of success.--Spannerjam (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is hard to answer. Read a lot of historical books? Don't believe everything you read on the internet? Personally, I use GoogleBooks a lot, where I ignore most things published less than 20 years ago, and I disregard attributions in self-help and instructional books. Sorry if this is not much help.
I think the main thing is to acquire a broad familiarity with the sort of general literature that is studied in a "liberal arts" education. One can spend a lifetime doing it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One possible source is to look at established quotation collections (such as Bartlett's) - this can be found online here. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many other freely available dictionaries of quotations on Google Books (e.g., Handbook of Familiar Quotations). ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
For your fantastic work as an administrator, I hereby award you the Admin's Barnstar.
You will always be the admin in my book. :) DanielTom (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also appreciate your sense of humor, as you know. ;-) DanielTom (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page view statistics edit

How come Wikisource and many other projects have "Page view statistics", but Wikiquote does not? How do we go about implementing it? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I should ask at Meta? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The answer to your first question, "how come?", is that these are ad hoc tools, external to Wikimedia, that interested people developed for things that interest them. Meta is the "logical" place to enquire about taking them global, and might be worth a try, but folks there are often indifferent to Wikiquote. For your second question, I would suggest contacting people who are involved with the tools.

I assume you are referring to the external "Page view statistics" tool on Wikipedia history pages that links to There is contact information about the tool here, but I don't know whether it is current.

In February a Wikipedia Signpost article described other tools that use the same underlying data dumps. It identifies people involved in the section captioned "Data details and alternative perspectives". There is a MediaWiki page about the popular Wikistats package. Though it has aggregated rather than page specific data, folks there may know who to contact.

At Meta, the Research team might have information about uses of Pageview statistics. You might also consider pinging the Wikimedia Analytics Team about this.

Unfortunately, you are enquiring about ad hoc tools that are even more unorganized than the characteristically "grass roots" wiki way of muddling through, because they are not on-wiki collaborations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for the pointers, much appreciated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked Henrik and he said this:

If you'd like it linked in the same place as enwp (under the history tab on all pages), have an admin edit and add something like
 <span style="white-space:nowrap;">[{{FULLPAGENAMEE}} Page view statistics]</span>

Not sure if it works (I think it just links to WP stats...), could you try it? ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was also under the impression, from coverage at the Signpost and elsewhere, that the dataset only covered Wikipedias. It is great news that Wikiquote and other "sister projects" are also included. (example)

Unfortunately, though the resulting report includes Wikiquote statistics, several components of the report (title, link to article, interactive selector) are hard-coded for Wikipedia only, so I have some reservations about adding it to our interface in its present state. I have enquired at Henrik's talk page about enhancing the report to work better for sister projects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, yes, the title fooled me, but it seems to work! The details you mention (title, link to article, etc.) should be easy to fix. Thanks again ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed now :) DanielTom (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Y OK. I have added this to the "Revision history" screen, with other tweaks, and anounced the change at the Village Pump. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, this is very good news. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"removing unsourced attributions" edit

Any reason to just remove unsourced quotes ([4], [5]), instead of moving them to the articles' talk pages? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had not given it much thought, and confess that I have been inconsistent in that I also sometimes move things to the talk page without much thought when there may have been little likelihood, or point, for anyone to research them. In following the practice described at WQ:SAU, I do not generally invest much effort in assessing or researching whether the items are commonly cited. It is a snap judgment on a decision I regard as secondary to the main issue, which is simply to get the unsourced attributions out of the article because, as I often say,
"If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote."(You can quote me on that.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[6] Similar to quanto in Portuguese (a Latin language). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Premchand edit

You've messages at my talk page. Rahul Bott (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kedar Joshi edit

Hello! I am quite new on Wikiquote and also do not plan to be a regular editor here. Through various links on various WikiProjects, i came in here today to clean quotes of this person Kedar Joshi. After i removed his quotes from 6 articles, they were instantly reverted by User:RogDel without any edit summary. Looking at this user's page i understand that he was also creator of the article Kedar Shinde over here which was later deleted per Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Kedar Joshi based on notability issues. I suppose that if the writer is not considered notable enough, his quotes should also not be placed in other articles. I dont know how Wikiquote works and instead of warring with editors i thought it better to bring this issue to your notice. Also as you are admin here i trust you would take care of the issue for now and also keep check in future. Just for your info, texts written by Joshi have been deleted from Wikiversity also for lack of notability. Dharmadhyaksha (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your thinking edit

Hi Ningauble, What do you think about the [[Category:Suspected Wikiquote sockpuppets of DanielTom]], and about this user page, both created by Cirt? Also, let me know what you think about this edit. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want my opinion, I honestly don't understand (well, I do, but let's pretend Cirt is not a troll) why someone would create an account on Wikiquote for a user who had made no edits here (why not create that account on Italian Wikipedia instead? Or on Wikinews? Or Meta? It makes no sense). So both pages that Cirt created should be deleted. They are obviously only attack pages. I have no comments to make on this edit, it just made me laugh. Any thoughts? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. DanielTom (talk · contributions) was recently blocked on en.wikipedia for socking, email abuse, and personal attacks. [7]
  2. These blocks were carried out by multiple other admins. [8]
  3. His socks are now also being globally locked. [9]
  4. This isn't just about "Cirt", this is Checkusers and Admins on multiple sites cracking down on multiple forms of abuse crosswiki.
  5. Thank you for your time.

-- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are no socks, and the steward who locked my brother's account admitted that it was improper of him to so, and he just reverted it (his account is now globally unlocked). ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So because I was blocked on Wikipedia (independent, separate project), you are free to attack me here? I have no "socks", but even if I did, why do you create their pages here just to enjoy yourself? You can't do that, go troll somewhere else, Cirt. Don't you have some articles to edit? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ningauble, if you examine the problems you will see this has become a crosswiki issue, including crosswiki email abuse, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, irrelevant. Unless I "abuse" something on Wikiquote, you should not bring such (alleged) "problems" here. You are only disrupting this Wiki. Indeed, that is all you ever do, Cirt. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if you remember, Cirt, but your previous account was also blocked (several times) on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what Cirt is trying to accomplish here. If Cirt is allowed to get his way, my motivation to edit Wikiquote will be essentially zero, and I doubt that's desirable. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In reply to DanielTom's original posts

In general: (1) I think I understand Cirt's agenda, even though I do not always agree. (2) I do not think I understand your agenda at all.

In particular: I think the history of analysis and administration of your Wikipedia account suggests that, whatever you are trying to accomplish, you are not handling it well.

Very specifically regarding the hypothetical "If you want my opinion": I do not. Your opinion that you do not understand may be correct, but there is no reason to speculate about why the accountholder visited Wikiquote in the first place. Your insinuation that the account was created by Cirt is completely unsupportable.

Finally, although I can understand how you might consider it provocative to flag the association of your account with one which has now been globally locked by a steward, for you to accuse anyone of trolling is a bit like, to use an English idiom, the pot calling the kettle black. My thinking, to reiterate what I tried to make clear in multiple threads above, is that I think very little of this bickering.
~ Ningauble (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding subsequent discussion above

@Cirt: I already researched the cross-wiki situation before you posted. I was slow to reply because I have other, arguably better, things to do with my time.
@DanielTom: Cross-wiki activities of an SUL unified account are not inherently irrelevant, and I am certainly seeing a common pattern of argumentum ad hominem in your posts here and at Wikipedia. If you want the above-linked pages to be deleted, and I can see why you might want that, the established procedures do not involve whining about other users on my talk page.
@Anyone who cares: My talk page is not a proxy for some sort of Wikiproject:Personality conflict debating society.
~ Ningauble (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are wrong, Ningauble. Cirt did create the page User:Diogotome here. I may submit it to votes for deletion, as I consider it just an attack user page, with no edits here. I also note your failure to comment on this edit, and your general antipathy towards me, which is understandable, as I also hate myself sometimes. :-)~ DanielTom (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. (28 July) The account is now globally unlocked, and the steward admitted that it was improper of him to have locked it in the first place. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You wrote "why someone would create an account on Wikiquote". I know how: by logging into the preexisting SUL account and visiting this site. I do not know or care why. Cirt did indeed create the page, but if you want it to be deleted it really does not matter who created it.

I actually appreciate the good work you have done on many Wikiquote content pages. It is not antipathy toward you, but apathy toward all this personal acrimony. Pathos bores me. When it is thown in my face it annoys me. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Ammended 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC), Ningauble (talk)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your compliment ("good work"). As to ad hominem, you are right. Unfortunately, on the Internet people cannot see your eyes, smile, nor body language, so when dealing with abusive admins I sometimes need to use a word or two that I wouldn't use in real life (although I never swear, I admit that some of my comments here and on Wikipedia may come across as insulting, even though I only make them in reaction to some perceived abuse, not randomly). I don't take pleasure in that — except, perhaps, when I quote from literature —, so I will certainly try to change that and be better. As to my work here, I have a huge to-do list, and I plan to expand and work on many other pages, and also to try to make some articles here more popular (for example, I plan to add to the William Shakespeare page 2-3 of the most famous lines from each of his works, with the "main" template to direct readers to the specific articles, as you advised in the Bertrand Russell article). Depending on how things unfold this week, I may start doing that soon (or not: I have 5 exams coming up this week and the next, so I am a bit busy now). Once again, sorry to highjack your Talk page, hopefully there won't be more problems in the future. Okay, DanielTom (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem: Cirt protected the user page so I can't tag it for deletion. Could you help? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you create an incomplete nomination then someone will come along and add the tag. Be patient. (In your nomination, bear in mind that the page stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of who edited it.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strange. The Wikiquote:Votes for deletion page is also protected, so I can't edit it. Could you fix it for me? I'm going to bed now, I trust you will use the template when you can. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defer to your judgment edit

Ningauble, I'll defer to your judgment or that of any other admin.

There's plenty of evidence of crosswiki socking, global lock on him for socking, email abuse, and more. If that's not enough for blocking of socks as part of crosswiki sock coordination, I don't know what is.

Good luck with your judgment in this matter, I'll respect whatever you want to do with this disturbing issue. -- Cirt (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I respond? I don't think you want me to respond, Cirt. There is zero evidence of socking. There is evidence that my brother has the same IP as me, as we edit from the same house, and live in the same house. You know this, and yet you lie through your teeth. Your corruption and dishonesty is what's "disturbing" here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You guys do NOT need to keep bringing it up. Let me be as clear as I can about this:  Any further attempts, by either of you, to use my talk page as a stalking ground will be reviewed at the Administrators' noticeboard for possible sanction by an uninvolved administrator. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies from me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ningauble, understood, no further actions from me. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lucio Dalla edit

No, not my article. I did a bit of clean-up, but I won't contest the PROD.--Abramsky (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine. I was just giving notice on the off-chance the article might be rescued. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much edit

Thanks very much for adding those specific citation details to the new cite added at Freedom of speech.

Now readers and editors can confirm it much easier!

Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mystery edit

I'm probably missing something obvious but... shouldn't a table of "Contents" appear in the Camões article? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By default, a table of contents is only displayed when there are more than three section headings on the page. There are ways to override the default with wikimarkup and in your user preferences. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, makes sense, thx. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another question: who are the "Wikiquote volunteers" that read, exactly? (I don't expect them to get any emails, but I'm curious.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a mailbox for the OTRS volunteers: experienced Wikipedians who have offered to answer mail on behalf of the community. Though they are generally not very familiar with Wikiquote, they do the best they can on the rare occasions when someone enquires about this project. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought so. That's not good. Per this list, calling them "Wikiquote volunteers" sounds pretty deceiving. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re labeling good faith edits as vandalism edit

Regarding your recent post at User talk:King jakob c 2: that was not vandalism, it was an editorial judgment explained both in the edit summary and concurrently on the talk page. It is a judgment which everyone who has commented on the talk page agrees about except you. Please reconsider whether it is appropriate for a Wikiquote administrator to be so loose with the term "vandalism". ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit page blanked an entire subsection from the quote page, leaving precisely zero quotes in the section. Removing an entire subsection is disruptive. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vandalism is intentionally damaging the project. This was clearly a good faith attempt to improve the article. It was not vandalism when I did the very same thing myself a year and a half ago, and it is not vandalism now. I believe it is very important for administrators to use this sort of terminology correctly if they are to maintain the confidence of the community. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I believe it is very important for administrators such as yourself to not engage in section blanking of entire sourced sections and instead try to work constructively with others and come to compromises, especially when compromises are offered by one party involved. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleting an entire section, or even an entire article, is not inherently improper. It depends entirely on the nature of the content. Where there are differing opinions about the nature of the content, it is appropriate to seek a consensus by discussing it. The recent removal of the section in question is consistent with the apparent consensus of discussion on the article talk page, which has only one dissenter. Even in the absence of total unanimity, the size of the deletion does not make it vandalism or disruption. My point above is that administrators who are in a position to enact sanctions against vandalism and disruption ought to conscientiously refrain from using these terms where they do not apply.

Regarding purported compromise offered in that discussion, I must wonder whether you fully appreciate what offering a compromise is generally understood to mean. In that discussion, granting a couple examples that were raised expressly for illustrative purposes is not a meaningful compromise. When responses to a call for broader community input were unanimously against your position, you called for more discussion of details and left it at that, with no details forthcoming ever since. This is not compromise, it is more like stonewalling. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange edit

Strange how earlier above on your user talk page you ignored my pleas for help, and even got angry when I tried to defer to your judgment as another administrator and voluntarily remove myself from the dispute in question.

And yet you seem to have the time to actively try to remove content that I add to this project in other matters.

Why are you then not also available and also have similar amounts of time to devote to requests for assistance, as noted, above?

That seems like a bit of a double standard.

I would love it if I could feel that in the future I could come to you for advice, assistance, and guidance, without you getting angry at me for attempting to do so! :(

-- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your requests for assistance:  I did exercise my judgment, such as it is. You said you would respect whatever I decide to do, and now criticize what I did as ignoring your pleas. You also said you would defer to BD2412's judgment about sock tagging, and when he took action you objected that his judgment was mistaken. If you say you are going to drop it and then do not let go of it, that really undermines confidence that what you say can be taken at face value. I am not angry about this, I am sad.

Regarding removal of article content:  I think that some of the work you have done for Wikiquote is of very good quality, and that some of it is misguided. When I disagree with some things you have done it's not about you, it's about Wikiquote. I urge you to focus on the merits of issues in dispute and not focus on the persons involved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did nothing in the one instance. Over and above doing nothing, you threatened to report me if I chose to try to ask you for any further advice!!!!!!!!!!!! In the other, I did defer to the judgment of BD2412, I did not revert his admin actions. I am still free to express my opinion and criticize it. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite nothing. I have responded at length in some cases, and I have given you specific advice. Regarding your notice of a discussion at WQ:AN (which is quite unnecessary since the page is on my watchlist), other administrators gave adequate responses and you replied that no further action was required. I did not have anything to add there, but I have indeed advised the user about civility on multiple occasions, which is what you requested in that thread.

You do indeed have a right to disagree, I must wonder whether you fully appreciate what deferring to someone's judgment is generally understood to mean. Continuing to object and criticize is not deference as generally understood, and your use of the term in this way makes it difficult to take what you say at face value. I advise that more effective use of language, as other people understand it, will help to avoid misunderstandings. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update, my reply to BD2412 edit

Originally posted on another page: diff.

Comment: @BD2412 (talk · contributions), understood. I will take your advice to heart. I will do my best to not react to the baiting. I will do my best to only engage in a polite and constructive manner from here on out. I am sorry for troubling you with this. I will do my best to rise above this matter. Thank you for your advice and your input. -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies edit

I'm going to try to comport myself better than recent behavior, per advice from BD2412 (talk · contributions).

I am sorry for having bothered you recently with all this.

I hope you are doing well.

Once again, my apologies,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sincerely hope that you will succeed in finding better ways to interact and communicate with colleagues here. I do recognize from personal experience that it can be difficult. Peace be with you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, Ningauble, I particularly appreciate your empathizing with my attempts to improve myself and my behavior here on this site. I'm on a bit of a break at the moment due to traveling out of town with limited Internet access in remote areas, so I'll take some time to reflect with friends and family. Peace also be with you! -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much for your contribution to Fuck edit

Thank you for your helpful contribution to Fuck (film).

And thank you for your interest in such topics related to Freedom of speech, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to the user page of "Ningauble/Archive 10".