User talk:Ningauble/Archive 6

Archive

This is an archive of past discussions on User talk:Ningauble from Jan–Jun 2011.
Do not edit this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.

Wikiquote talk:Deletion review

I posted a process question here - your thoughts? ~ UDScott 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

Hello, I am mindful of your advice to me from Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Joran van der Sloot. I was curious about whether this would apply to Jared Lee Loughner or if you think is a different situation altogether. KimChee 22:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I was already thinking about commenting on this new page, but I have only skimmed it and I am not going to get to it today. ~ Ningauble 22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:AnankeBot#D.C3.A9j.C3.A0_vu

I've replied there. --Nemo 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev

Would you care to weigh in on the current edit war occurring at this page? Thanks. ~ UDScott 19:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented at WQ:AN#Nikita Khrushchev. ~ Ningauble 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In passing :)

I love the Nasreddin page :) nice work. I am a fan and I must go look because there is one I love that isn't there. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my pleasure. I discovered Nasrudin years ago in the collections of Idries Shah, and continue madly repeating the old tales to this day. As remarked at talk:Fictional characters, I didn't want to draw too heavily on a single source; and researching other versions was a lot of fun. I think the resulting diversity of voices adds value to the article. I also tried to limit myself (mostly) to some of the most widely retold tales, rather than include a hundred or so that this fool, yours truly, happens to like. ~ Ningauble 17:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as "discovery" mine was years ago and the same route too! I'll reflect before I add anything I assure you - must get myself into the en wq mindset I guess! There is just something so simple and appealing about the Nasreddin philosophy I guess. (The one I had in mind was looking for a key lost in the house in the street because there was more light there...). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A version of that one appears in Shah, The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nasrudin (1972), p. 26. It is reminiscent of the more widely told modern joke, often told in relation to poor application of the scientific method, about looking for one's keys under a lamppost. If the story is not a modern invention (as I suspect), he was presumably looking in the daytime. ~ Ningauble 18:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice

May I ask your advice? A coupe of years ago I worked on what became a featured article on Wikipedia: w:Millennium '73. Though marketed as the most important event in human history, the festival didn't quite live up to that billing. However it was covered by a lot of reporters, many of whom wrote feature articles about it, and it was the pivotal event in what was, up to that point, the fastest growing new religious movement in the US.

In the process of writing it I compiled a list of many of the comments made during or about the event which were reported in one or more reliable sources. User:Will Beback/Sandbox. I meant to make it into a Wikiquote page but never got around to it. Most Wikiquote pages seem to have individuals or fictional works as their topic. I can't find other event-oriented pages.

Obviously, the draft page is only half done and would require re-reorganization and cleanup. And note that there's already a very long page on the event's protagonist, Prem Rawat. (Most of its length is due to one editor who is now banned on Wikipedia.)

Anyway, do you think it's viable as a Wikiquote page? Is it an appropriate topic?   Will Beback  talk  08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several things to consider about this idea. I will reply with some specifics in a little while, just as soon as the '70s millenarianism flashbacks stop. ~ Ningauble 11:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No rush.   Will Beback  talk  18:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted it at Millennium '73. I don't see many other pages devoted to unscripted events that aren't films or TV shows. There are many quotable lines from the Woodstock music festival, for example. Plus famous trials, debates, etc. We record reams of quotations from forgettable sitcoms. Non-scripted events seem like a rich vein of more serious material. In the meantime, if you can suggest any categories or other improvements I'd be grateful.   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for putting off my response to your enquiry so long. Thanks for just being bold. A discussion has already started at Talk:Millennium '73, which is now the best place to continue the conversation. This is a good opportunity to learn about Wikiquote's distinctive style. Please bear with us, and don't be put off by any contentiousness in the discussion. ~ Ningauble 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: merging simple WQ

I have answered on meta:User talk:SPQRobin. Regards, SPQRobin 15:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Reports of a persistent vandal!

Boss, we have a problem. User:209.50.138.253 is constantly making incredibly insulting remarks to other users (including IP addresses), and messing around in numerous articles. Please help us! WikiLubber 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And hurry! He's getting faster than ever! WikiLubber 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yecch. After finishing the cleanup I am feeling cranky, and need a nice nap. ~ Ningauble 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

I hope you will see following reliable sources and make changes accordingly:

• He was founder of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam only.[1] MFI was founded by Younas not gohar shahi.
• Gohar Shahi was born on 25-11-1941 and died on 25-11-2001. [2]

Thanks

John Reed (novelist)

Hi. I placed John Reed (novelist) on the articles for deletion page. Please see if you can bring some input to it.Jeff5102 11:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

a question regarding an (old) page deletion

Hi. Around eight months ago (June 27, 2010), you deleted a page I created, using (what seemed like) a standard template to inform me of the removal and justify it. I apologize for the long time in between, and I understand if you don't remember, but I was hoping you could tell me what specifically the reason was that it failed the criteria for inclusion. The page subject was for comic books about the second Star Trek series, and the letter you sent me is on my talk page.

Thank you. —This unsigned comment is by Pixiechild (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 March 2011.

I proposed the deletion 27 June 2010, giving the reason "Unmemorable quotes having no significance taken out of context." The article was then deleted by UDScott on 5 July. ~ Ningauble 13:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Would it be within the rules if I has included something like *to his cell, the night before the attack* before Picard's speach, or would that still be falling under no significance out of context? (Sorry if I'm missing the point, it's just not only do I happen to really love the two particular quotes, but I would like to make sure I understand to avoid making the same mistake in the future.) --Pixiechild 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't get it. Lots of people have said the same sort of things, and this way of saying them seems completely unremarkable. If this particular bit of dialog happens to be famous for some reason, can you show that it is widely quoted? ~ Ningauble 16:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Allen West (politician)

"Alternative media" sources can be difficult to judge. Regarding the unsourced quote, besides an editorial at frontpagemag, the only citations I seem to be finding for the entire quote are the original YouTube video, which has over 600,000 views to date, and blogs which picked up on it afterwards. Would it be acceptable to link to the video? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, some citation would be better than no citation. FrontPage Magazine might be considered an acceptable source even if it is a POV webzine. Does it identify when and where the remark was originally made? (By "the original YouTube video," you didn't mean it was published there by the congressman himself, did you?) Yootoob is ok as a supplementary link, but I don't like treating user-contribution sites as the primary citation. ~ Ningauble 16:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like West said this at the Hudson Institute's "Reclaim American Liberty Conference". West is listed as having been a speaker at this event, and while the Hudson institute didn't provide its own transcripts, it hosts the entire video segment whereas the YouTube video shows only West's remarks. I'll cite Hudson as the source. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Radhanath Swami

Thanks for letting me know. I've replied on the talk page. Shruti14 13:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Portal

I undid your redoing of Sceptre's "copyright" revision to Portal. What Sceptre did was to restore a very old revision of the page, overwriting grammar fixes and links to translated pages added in the meantime. To fix copyright issues, please edit down the newest revision so that not all this work is lost. – 80.212.189.2 11:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please lock the Portal page? I've tried to contact Sceptre via his talk page, but he continues to restore outdated revisions. Although I agree that the page has copyvio issues, it's impossible to resolve them in a constructive way when Sceptre's overwriting everything. – 80.212.185.42 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I undid your Portal revisions, again. Please see Talk:Portal (game) and reply before changing it. – Vpsilon 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason why I reverted to an "outdated version": the long version is a near-complete transcript. It violates Valve's copyright. There is no fair use defence for the long version. End of. Will ^(talk) 22:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely that the long version is indefensible. What I disagree with is restoring an old revision to fix it. The long version should be shortened by editing out less interesting quotes, so that the best quotes remain. – Vpsilon 08:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

help with crackdown

Jfdstfg (talk · contributions) has been on the roll, editwarring on several articles and even pulling off shit on my userpages. Can you intervene and stop this guy? Kalki and I are already on the case reverting his contributions but our patience can run dangerously thin. --Eaglestorm 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi, i have created a page on the Konkani novelist V.J.P. Saldanha. I would like to reproduce the entire italicized text in the link to the article, but am not sure whether it is appropriate or not.

• http://books.google.com.bh/books?id=aAli0XqprNMC&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false

Does it fall under fair use? Would i be committing a copyright violation if i go ahead and add it? I am looking forward to your response. Thanks! Joyson Noel 09:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The above link is dead. GoogleBooks has suppressed the preview of that page due to copyright. ~ Ningauble 12:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I can view it. The chapter title is "Random Notes". It's a reproduction of a letter. Please let me know if i can reproduce it here as a quote under fair use terms. Thanks. Joyson Noel 08:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The link is working now. (Google can be a bit inconsistent in their preview selections.) Now that I can see what you are referring to, and you have added it to the page, I think it is too much. Wikiquote is for brief, "quotable" remarks, not reproductions of entire documents. Please consider replacing this with some particularly eloquent, poignant, or famous statements of more appropriate length. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

But how exactly is it that I vandalized my own page?

Thank you

Thank you for the help regarding sourced info that was removed from a page by user MLKLewis (talk · contributions). This user is a Single Purpose Account, as you can see from his contribs at en.wikipedia, and also here locally. Unfortunately, it is likely he will come back to the same page here at Wikiquote, to remove sourced and cited material and add promotional material. I would most appreciate it if you could continue to monitor this user's inappropriate behavior. Thank you so much for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just doing my routine patrol. When someone removes citations from quotes without justification it obviously ain't right. One of the side-effects of including "documentary" quotes here, rather than just those that are particularly "witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant," is that content disputes spill over from Wikipedia. ~ Ningauble 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, it was quite clear that Kalki was restricted to use of one account, and was supposed to come forward and identify his socks that he had been maintaining in the 200+ sockfarm cross-multiple-WMF-projects. Here are some sample diffs from multiple admins on the matter:

• FloNight: "The simplest solution is for Kalki to edit from one account, the rest be blocked and tagged as Kalki's alternative accounts."
• Lar: "Kalki, maintenance of dozens or hundreds of undisclosed accounts like this is not an acceptable practice on most wikis. It is unseemly for an admin and bureaucrat to be doing this and you need to discontinue it."
• BD2412: "Would it not suffice for him to agree to disclose all accounts"
• Aphaia: "We have been tolerant for Kalki, hoping our persuasion may work on him finally. But we might be wrong. It's the third time his sock farm is discovered, and I agree with Cirt that a executable method, not only by words, is required to stop him."

These are but a sampling of the relevant diffs. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume the foregoing is in response to my enquiry at User talk:Kalki#Removal of IP block exempt: "Please link to the discussion in which a requirement for disclosure was enacted."[3] I am aware that Kalki was restricted to use of one account (4 November 2010), but my question was about the specific reason given for revoking user rights,[4] "Kalki refused to disclose all sock accounts, in violation of User:Kalki/Restrictions" [emphasis added].

Regarding the four diffs listed:

1. FloNight (11 November 2009) makes no mention of disclosure.
2. Lar (9 November 2009), expressly giving "an outsider's view," refers to maintaining undisclosed accounts but does not specifically discuss mandating disclosure of abandoned accounts. His recommendation was to desysop and block all accounts.
3. BD2412 (11 November 2009) was specifically suggesting Kalki be allowed to continue using the accounts provided they are disclosed, a position that was rejected in the consensus of 4 November 2010. I do not believe BD has ever called for requiring disclosure of abandoned accounts.
4. Aphaia (14 October 2010) makes no mention of disclosure.

I appreciate your opinion that Kalki ought to disclose accounts used in the past, but this has never been mandated in a formal community sanction. I do not believe a consensus has been expressed in the discussions you cite, or elsewhere on this wiki, that nondisclosure of past activity should be grounds for blocking Kalki or blocking the IP addresses used to access the Kalki account. Kalki has agreed to stop using multiple accounts as mandated in the 4 November 2010 decision, and I am not aware of any evidence that he has violated that restriction.

You may want to open an RfC concerning Kalki's past and current activities, but for the time being I respectfully request that you reverse your rescission of the IP exemption. Thank you. ~ Ningauble 15:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ningauble, If Kalki agrees to name any as of yet all undisclosed sock accounts, — and agrees to be limited to the one account Kalki — I will gladly do so. -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

Thanks I'm much more of a Wikipedian, where that would have been appropriate. If that's how things are done here, that is reasonable. Koavf 07:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for fixing my errors - I had not closed one of those before and realized after the fact that I had neglected the subpage - then compounded my error by forgetting to go back and fix things. Thanks! ~ UDScott 14:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If I had a nickel for every mistake I made, I might invest in developing a user manual. ~ Ningauble 14:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

RFB

Sorry about the confusion with the placement of my RFB. I overlooked that stray "s" when attempting to move it back. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. One of the reasons non-confirmed users are not allowed to move pages is because, even for the best of us, it can be difficult to fix a bad move without making matters worse. ~ Ningauble 18:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor

Quick question, what are the policy on pictures and captions? On the Eleventh Doctor's page, there are pictures, which I have never seen on another wikiquote page. I'd ignore them but they have captions, which appears to me to be a way to circumvent limits rather than just to make the page look more pleasing. Is there any thing about this or am I just being paranoid? Teyrn of Highever 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Very many articles have pictures and captions, but there is no codified policy for their use: it is governed by common sense, or not, according to editor discretion. There is strong precedent that quotes in captions should be selected from among those listed in the body of the article, not additional quotes. Some of the captions at Eleventh Doctor are not following this precedent, but this may be due to the article currently being in a state of flux with quotes being added and removed out of synch with image captions. ~ Ningauble 19:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. While we are talking about limits, over the last day there has been a bit of an issue about the limits on quotations. If you know anything about the site's rules on copyright or fair use, could you stop by Kalki's talk page and the Eleventh Doctor's talk page. There wouldn't be a constant flux if we could have someone who understands the rules just end the debate. Teyrn of Highever 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As I remarked in a recent discussion at Wikipedia, "guidelines and policies do not settle disputes, disputants do." Kalki is well aware of Wikiquote:Limits on quotations, and is its most outspoken critic.

Rather than debate the wisdom of the rule with Kalki individually, or scatter discussion across numerous Doctor Who articles and other test cases, I think the best current venue is the community discussion Kalki initiated at Wikiquote:Village pump#VOTES on major issues. That discussion may ultimately generate some specific proposals for reforming policies.

I plan, in a day or two, to post a little background on the history of the "rules" (loosely speaking) in question, which may not be as neutral as I will try to make it, but it may help newcomers understand the current situation. I will also be posting some opinions on the questions that have been raised. (Aren't you glad you asked?) ~ Ningauble 16:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that Kalki is very against the quotation limits and have read his reasoning. I was wondering if there was a legal aspect that needed to be considered. The first line of the Limits of quotations page mentions "[reducing] the potential for copyright violation". There is always going to be a debate over quality, but copyright laws are something that users can't change. Having said that, I do agree that this debate is better moved elsewhere, I just wanted to make sure that copyright laws wouldn't make the debate meaningless. Teyrn of Highever 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! I am an intellectual property attorney and a substantial participant in the drafting and discussion of our copyright-based limitations. Basically, any work that has been published within the past ninety years is almost certain to be under copyright today. There is an exception to copyright protection called "fair use", which allows non-copyright owners to use limited amounts of material from copyrighted works for limited purposes. There is no strict line demarcating what constitutes "too much" material, but there have been a number of court cases holding that specific incidences constituted too much. A good barometer for our project, however, is Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, in which a Seinfeld trivia book was found to exceed what could be claimed as fair use for containing 640 items of information analogous to quotes from 84 episodes, adding up to over 7.6 items per 30-minute episode. Our project may have a little more leeway than that because we are not making a profit off of our work, but we should still not venture too far beyond those bounds if we want to be sure that copyright claimants cannot prevail against Wikiquotians in court. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But this is an American case. While this is helpful for other shows, the show in question is Doctor Who. Do you know if there have been any British cases that can provide a guideline or are we just going to follow the American standard? Teyrn of Highever 21:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is incorporated in the U.S., and would most likely be sued in this country under American law (which, by treaty, gives the same protection to British works as it would to U.S. works). My impression is that UK fair use law is not much different from U.S. fair use law, in any case. BD2412 T 22:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that would be the case. So considering the laws that need to be considered, the issue is in my opinion: "Can the limits on quotations be relaxed without being in violation of copyright?" Many have already made the case that the limits should be relaxed, the only issue left is legal. And considering the fact that I have 2 years of undergrad work and 3 years of law school ahead of me before even getting my J.D., I will leave this aspect up to you and the other legal experts. Thanks for your help. Teyrn of Highever 00:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who to have look at this -

[5] I saw this edit and it sure looks like vandalism. I couldn't figure out if there is a place to ask for help so I'm leaning here. If you're not sure can you point me in the direction? I only have added material recently so want to stay off other people's toes as it were. —This unsigned comment is by Guinan (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 June 2011.

Thanks for pointing it out. I undid those edits based on the cited source,[6] and based on neutral point of view.[7] You can fix things like this yourself, just check the facts and show your reasons in the edit summary. ~ Ningauble 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the categories.

I've been pumping out a lot of new pages from the Hoyt's index, and although I do mean to categorize all of them (sooner or later, preferably sooner), I have messed up more than once. Thanks for catching and categorizing those pages! BD2412 T 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help, but perfection is never attained. The more new pages are added, the farther behind we get. It's a Good Thing™. ~ Ningauble 13:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hunter S. Thompson

I'd like to have a go at cleaning up the Hunter S. Thompson page. In your edit comment when adding the cleanup tag to it you said "need to eliminate topic headings"... Do you mean the "On Politics" and "On Nixon" headings, other headings or something else? Should those quotes be moved into the appropriate sections under "Sourced"? Oktal 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Quotes should be listed in chronological order. Where there are several quotes from the same work, they may be grouped in a section on the work. Those sections should be listed in chronological order, and quotes within the sections should be listed in the order of appearance in the work.

This convention is arbitrary, but it is better than having users create arbitrary subject headings because, among other problems, these tend to be subjective. ~ Ningauble 20:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

---