User talk:Ningauble/Archive 16

Latest comment: 7 years ago by DanielTom in topic Deng Xiaoping

This is an archive of past discussions on User talk:Ningauble from Jan–Aug 2016.
Do not edit this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.

CensoredScribe edit

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)Reply[reply]

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) + tweaksReply[reply]

Can't you delete this yourself? edit ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deng Xiaoping edit

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)Reply[reply]

I agree with Senhor Tome. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Are you being serious or facetious/sarcastic? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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

realism edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks and Apologies edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Wikiquote, Beer no citation provided edit

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)Reply[reply]

Wikiquote's credibility edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

My intervention edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

User:‎Rupert loup edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "Ningauble/Archive 16".