User talk:Ningauble/Archive 7

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ningauble in topic Marston Morse

This is an archive of past discussions on User talk:Ningauble from Jul–Dec 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.

We have another problem edit

We have yet another vandal on the loose. His/her name is User:Cars 2:I'm back!‎, and he continues to vandalize numerous pages. Somebody stop him! WikiLubber 03:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply] quotes edit


As far as the science quote is concerned, i think is an excellent one, but recently coined, so I'll just jot it down privately. No constest there.

The other quote, however, (the one by dandelion in Programming languages) is quite widespread, as a google search shows, making it part of hacker culture (see or The fact that this was launched on usenet (and not in a "chatroom") is in line with that pedegree. After all, quotes can be notable in their own right, eventhough the person is not.

Regards, Kleuske 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the verse formatting! edit

Thanks for formatting and leaving me a note about it! :) Jodi.a.schneider 14:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced on Elbert Hubbard edit

Hi, Ningauble !

Thanks for editing the Elbert Hubbard article.

I've done some work in Wikipedia, and i'm totally new here in Wikiquote. So, please don't be upset with my not following the policies here: it is not disrespect, but only ignorance.

Concerning the quotation i've found and inserted at Unsourced, you've removed it on the grounds of being already in the safe, sourced area.

Could you please be as kind as to tell me what phrase is equivalent, or similar to it ?


All the best,
--Hgfernan 18:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed some quotes from the article because they were not sourced, not because they were already sourced. I noted that a couple of them are already listed at Talk:Elbert Hubbard as unsourced quotes needing to be researched.

The policy that quotations must be sourced is not really different at Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Wikipedia:Verifiability says, in the second paragraph, "This policy requires that all quotations ... be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." [emphasis added] Due to past practices, some Wikiquote articles have an "Unsourced" section, but these are being phased out as described at Wikiquote:Sourced and Unsourced sections and at Wikiquote:Sourcing. ~ Ningauble 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Ningauble.
Nice to meet you. Thanks for highlighting me the policy. I used to think that it would be interesting to make more people visit Wiquote, even if to see some unsourced quotations.
But the policy states, quite correctly on 2nd thought, that it's better to have pages that ate more reliable, than to have more visitors to pages still to be developed.
I stand corrected.
All the best,
--Hgfernan 17:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have yet another problem... edit

I hate to disturb you again, Ningauble, but we have a short-tempered user on the loose, warring over The Rescuers. Actually, an IP address. Every time I make an edit, he has to revert it back to the way he wanted it without explanation, and adding an attitudinal edit summary. WikiLubber 00:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Socrates, as quoted in Lives of Eminent Philosophers, by Diogenes Laertius edit

Dear Ningauble,

Please take a look in my addition to the ignorance quotation. Could you please tell me if it's OK ?

All the best,
--Hgfernan 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears to be a duplicate/variant of the third one below it, which is cited to Diogenes Laërtius, Socrates, xiv (where "Socrates" is a main division of Lives of Eminent Philosophers). For a work as large as Lives, chapter/section citations are very helpful. It would be even better to cite the source of translation – there are a lot of them, which is why there are so many variants. I know, the Socrates article has an incomplete citation ... just saying. ~ Ningauble 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External Links question edit

The other day when I was editing Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo, I had an issue decided what external link was appropriate. At the time the external link that I had there was to their official website but this website is mostly used to sell clothing for their dancewear line called "nappytabs" so I wasn't sure if it was appropriate. Before coming here I went to Wikiquote:External links but that has little guidance since it's a work in progress. The guide on people pages wasn't helpful either. So what I did was put a link to their YouTube channel instead. Is that okay? Are social networking pages okay? I was thinking of putting a link to IMDb but they have separate IMDb pages which is odd because they always (literally) work together. Please advise. // Gbern3 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I don't think this sort of link adds value for a compendium of quotations. The most important external link is the link to Wikipedia, where readers can turn to find additional non-quote related information about the subject. Have you considered adding this link to the Wikipedia article? ~ Ningauble 13:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I have. It's actually already in the article on Wikipedia I just haven't updated the new page name yet (the wikiquote page used to be titled just "Napoleon D'umo" so the link in Wikipedia still reflects the old page name; I have some updating to do on the Wikipedia article so I will change the link soon to reflect the page name along with the other items I need to fix/update/add). //Gbern3 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging Chinese dragon to Dragons edit

Seeing you having proposing merging Chinese dragon to Dragons, I am against it as English Wikipedia has separate articles for w:Dragon, mainly for Western evil one, from benevolent w:Chinese dragon, thus making mixing the quotes "culturally less desirable". My cultural mind has Chinese dragon, but never Western dragon that I never bother with. If you still want to propose the merger, I would like to advise getting more opinions. Thanks.--Jusjih 10:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Jusjih. What we need are more quotes on Chinese dragons, which serve a very different purpose culturally. BD2412 T 16:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, it was just a suggestion. I agree that the European POV on dragons is a distinctly different, darkly Manichean one. My fondest recollection of Chinese dragons was collecting "the three wise men" at Mahjong. (Table rules required melding all three dragons and a wind, with a pair of honors, and awarded double-limit.) I have replaced the merge tag with see also links. ~ Ningauble 19:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for understanding the cultural difference of Chinese dragon and the Western ones. Likewise, I would consider merging the quotes about Chinese chess into (international) chess unwise.--Jusjih 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jusjih, might you scare up some more quotes about Chinese dragons? I made a quick search but doubt my ability to evaluate quoteworthiness in another language. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question edit

Would you mind commenting on the discussion I am currently having with a new user regarding a page with inadequate sources? It is here. Thanks. ~ UDScott 00:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that this has already been taken to VfD, which is where it belongs. I was going to nominate it yesterday when the {{prod}} was contested, but when I saw the contributor working at building a case I decided to wait a while before researching it. ~ Ningauble 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Folks, I know this is all extremely well intentioned and everything is appreciated. I cant imagine a world without wikipedia and wikiquote - and this is all thanks to you. Your hard volunteer work helps to bring out the highest quality content on the Internet for free. Yet, for these same reasons, I ask you to reconsider your votes. As you know, a second source has been found, and this time it is a newly printed book - Funniest Thing You Never Said 2 [Paperback] Rosemarie Jarski (Author) Section Philosophy - Page 512. I apologize for not understanding the rules, and arguing when I did not have proper sources. The newly found source may not meet your high standards either. However, I know you will do the right thing - whatever it is. As for me, I find Vishnepolsky's quotes precious. I have been following him on facebook and twitter. He is also quite notable, using the word that is key ... Search for him on Internet yields rims and rims of pages, similarly on google books... Thank you for listening and all your great work. Zvezda1111 21:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should really be discussed at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Oleg Vishnepolsky, where the community at large can consider it. ~ Ningauble 18:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great job... edit

...knocking out all those Wickedictionary quotes. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grātia grātiam parit. Sadly, when theme pages are wallpapered with a non-notable quipster, it is almost invariably someone who doesn't quite seem to grasp the distinction between irony and sarcasm, between a cynic and a smart-aleck , or, as Josh Billings put it, between lightning and a lightning bug. Somebody has to sweep out the dead bugs. ~ Ningauble 13:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bye Bye Birdie edit

If the article about Bye Bye Birdie is only about the musical, as you claim, why is there a reference to imdb, and why is there a reference to the Dutch article about Bye Bye Birdie (the Dutch article is an article about the movie, not the musical). I think the movie is also well known, so it could be included in the article. And if not, change the title to Bye Bye Birdie (musical). 13:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The musical play is the original work of that title, and the 1963 film is a derivative work. I do not know whether the derivative work contains quoteworthy original material, but if so then it should be in a separate article. In any event, it appears that at least some of the lines attributed to the film in the current article revision are actually from the original work, and should not be attributed to the derivative. ~ Ningauble 13:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of lyrics were changed for the movie version, and there was a new song written for the movie version. The plot was different as well, so I think it could be in the same article or in a seperate article. A lot of people, who have seen the movie-version remastered on DVD, were not born when the musical-version was around, so yes, I think the movie deserves to get mentioned. 13:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lock user page for edits edit

Hello, can you lock my user page User:Sasan Geranmehr for bad edits like this and only I can edit my user page. thank you. Sasan Geranmehr 12:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically, there is no way to restrict the page to just one user. I will "semi-protect" it so that it can only be edited by registered accounts. (If I "fully-protect" it then you would not be able to update it yourself.) ~ Ningauble 14:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiquote & K-PAX edit

Thanks for your help. You must have shaken your head in amazement at my removal of the sister link template: I failed to spot what it does - Duh! (roddr 23:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Not really. If you are new to Wikimedia it can be quite baffling. Don't worry, with a little practice it becomes very easy. ~ Ningauble 13:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About WikiLubber edit

I really don't like his/her behavior. Is there some way to stop that content? Pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssse?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2011

1. Sign your comments.
2. I am only trying to fix these articles. Too much excessive information is unnecessary. WikiLubber 01:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And to Ningauble, I have reason to suspect that user is a sockpuppet of the following IP addresses:
...given his/her habit of using edit summaries with capitalized letters and attitude towards me. WikiLubber 01:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He/she continues to start a dispute over the same pages. May I request that all pages he/she had been editing be protected? WikiLubber 04:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Ningauble to have this conversation here. I have protected some of the pages involved. But note that I don't necessarily disagree with all changes this user has made. I just want to stop the pointless edit warring. ~ UDScott 16:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page protection is fine for the time being. What is really needed is for both editors to practice the art of discussing their disagreements with each other politely. It takes practice because it is not always easy. Either that or they should join Congress, where people are not expected to work together. ~ Ningauble 14:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Mergeto/Template:Mergefrom edit

I've noticed that these templates is causing problems in the Last Chance to See and The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul sections of our page on Douglas Adams - the merge arrow icon is appearing in the wrong place and obscuring the text. Would you be able to fix this ? I can't edit them as they are protected. --A Divine 16:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure why this happened - it still needs to be looked into - but I've gone ahead and made the requested merges. ~ UDScott 16:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the arrow icon from the template until we've worked out what's causing it to render badly ? --A Divine 17:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will look into it later today. I can't promise I will be able to fix it, but if I can identify what is happening I may file a report at Bugzilla:. ~ Ningauble 17:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right now I am not seeing this problem when viewing old versions of the page, or other pages that use these templates. We do sometimes have problems with the display of banner templates when they are adjacent to images, but the problem is intermittent. My general impression is that it has to do with page elements rendering in the wrong order due to latency issues when the servers are under a heavy load. It may also be related to a deep bug (long outstanding, browser dependent) in the handling of "floating" elements.

Wikipedia does not seem to have the same problem, and I suspect it may be because their "mbox" templates enclose the banner in a <table> rather than a plain <div>, and use separate columns for image and text rather than floating the image next to the text. Their more rigidly structured approach might prevent things from appearing in the wrong place.

I am hesitant to hack on it extensively since the intermittent nature of the problem makes it difficult to tell what impact any changes may have (and because my past suggestion to standardize message boxes met with resistance in the community). Is anyone seeing this problem right now? Has anyone noticed it happening a lot, over an extended period of time? ~ Ningauble 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Persia & Category:Iran edit

Hi, these are the same. (see: w:Persia) --Z 00:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps Category:Persia and Category:Iran should be merged, as well as the pre-existing Category:Persians and Category:Iranians. I confess that I really do not know the best way to handle this because I have an uneasy feeling it might be somewhat like merging Category:Romans with Category:Italians. It might be good to raise the question at the Village pump.

The reason I re-categorized the Persian people article is because Wikiquote's fundamental categories distinguish between articles about a general theme in Category:Themes and articles about individual persons in Category:People. ~ Ningauble 17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need help edit

I saw that you had been a pushing force in the deletion of the page Victor R. Ramirez. It seems as though he is now self-promoting on his user page. Is this against the rules on wikiquote? Deezy D 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have provided a thorough response to this editor's identical query on my talk page. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eazy E edit

I added this article to wikiquote for being notable yet I am not sure of any quotes for them is there any way I can get help for it not to be deleted? Thanks for your help,Deezy D

I do not know of any quotes by this person, so I cannot help. I do not know that he is notable, so I would not know where to find any quotes. Wikiquote is for quotes so I would suggest beginning a page after you have found some quotes, rather than the other way around. ~ Ningauble 16:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!!~ Deezy D 16:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help!! edit

My page is being vandalized by this user can you block him or something? thanks. Deezy D 15:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted the edits and warned the editor. If vandalism persists then the account will be blocked. ~ Ningauble 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting an entire sourced subsection with zero discussion whatsoever edit

Please, do not delete an entire sourced subsection of a page with zero discussion whatsoever, as you did at the page My Life in Orange. This type of behavior is inappropriate. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. I provided a relatively lengthy edit summary to explain my rationale. You are welcome to discuss the editorial decision on its merits, in the manner suggested at WP:BRD.
  2. Do not talk to me about inappropriate behavior unless you are intending to seek community sanctions.
~ Ningauble 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to use the command form of grammar with me, I am trying to be polite with you and using please and thank you. I appreciate your consideration in our kind communications in this manner. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You yourself address me in the imperative mood saying "do not delete...", and there is nothing wrong with using the grammar to say what you mean. I thought my meaning was clear, but let me spell it out with different grammatical mood: You displease to accuse misconduct, and 'twere well you refrain. ~ Ningauble 17:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would have taken you all of thirty seconds to at least try to engage politely in discussion on the talk page, first, before massively removing sourced material. Please, I respectfully suggest you consider modifying this behavior pattern in the future, accordingly. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not the first time I have boldly removed content with an edit summary containing what seemed a reasonable and sufficient explanation, and it will not be the last. I spent significantly more than thirty seconds composing the explanation—the brevity was not achieved hastily. (I participated in a policy discussion at Wikipedia on the very issue of the sufficiency of edit summaries in this type of situation, where you may find the thoughtful analysis by TenOfAllTrades, who mentions my input, particularly informative.)

This is not the first time I have been boldly reverted, and it will not be the last. I don't mind at all, really. But I strongly prefer that reversion be accompanied by an explanation of why the stated rationale is thought to be incorrect. (I expect newbies to be unaware of explanations in edit summaries, but not seasoned editors.)

This is the first time I have been accused of misconduct by any regular contributor other than Kalki, who tends to rhetorical excess. I consider it as baseless as Kalki's occasional denunciations, and I mind it very much.

I appreciate that you are displeased with my edit, but I do not believe there is any justification for lashing out with denunciations and demands on my talk page. If you would like to modify the Wikiquote:Civility policy draft along the lines of the failed Wikipedia policy proposal linked above, then it may be appropriate to seek input in a community forum. I do not think there is anything to be gained by pursuing the matter further on my talk page. ~ Ningauble 16:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ningauble, I appreciate all of your constructive criticism for me, and I do not disagree with any of it. :) All I am asking in return is a little more politeness from you in the future, going forwards. Hopefully we can both meet in the middle and come to a meaningful compromise to both be more kind and polite with each other. I would very much like that indeed. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To speak of inappropriate behavior in the manner you have done is a very grave matter, and I have responded very gravely. No amount of "please and thank you" can change the substance of what such words mean. In responding to an accusation of misconduct firmly, pointedly, and in no uncertain terms, I do not believe I have exceeded the bound of propriety, as would be the case had I responded in kind. If you would be pleased to retract the denunciation then I would thank you for it.

Requesting advance notice before editing articles that you have worked on is not really a matter of politeness, it is more like article ownership. I understand that large edits to one's work can be disconcerting, having been on the receiving end of such transactions more than a few times myself. But we are both big boys who know how to revert and discuss in a collegial manner, without dismissing anyone's explanation as "zero discussion".

You and I have sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed in the past, and will do so in the future. It is my hope that we will continue to do so in a respectful manner. Your continued insistence that I am being insufficiently polite does not accord with my understanding of the substance of what has been said and done. If I strive to be civil in responding to fighting words firmly, it is not in return for appreciation, it is because it is the right thing to do. ~ Ningauble 17:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ningauble, both of our responses may have been too brusque in this particular interaction, and I am sorry for that. I do feel that when deleting an entire subsection from a page, it is courteous to try to attempt to bring it up for discussion. I also do indeed feel that we both could have communicated better with each other, and I very much hope we will both strive to be more civil with each other in the future. I apologize to you if you were hurt by the nature of my communication. I will take your words and constructive criticism to heart. Thank you for that. I hope you can try to do the same. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for recognizing the error of your denunciation. I am sorry that my initial response was too curt. It was, and I should have realized I would not be understood. In the future I will bear in mind that further explanation is needed when responding in such situations.

I am afraid we have to agree to disagree about whether the edit summary of a BOLD edit is discussion, but I will attempt to make some accommodation along the lines described at WP:BRD for use among experienced wiki-editors.

I know that we look at some things differently, so we will surely have disagreements in the future. I hope to be able to resolve them in a collegial manner. ~ Ningauble 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Ningauble, I agree we should both strive to move forward positively from this in the future in a more collegial manner. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jean-Luc Picard page = improved edit

Jean-Luc Picard

I have worked hard and put in a lot of effort and research to greatly improve the page Jean-Luc Picard. I would greatly appreciate it if you could reconsider your position at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jean-Luc Picard. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crystal Ball? Hardly. edit

Hello, I saw the page I created for the upcoming film 'The Dark Knight Rises' has been deleted and I received a message saying Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for a movie that has not come out yet. The quote I provided was from the 6 minute The Dark Knight Rises prologue which HAS been released this week. —This unsigned comment is by J4Joker (talkcontribs) 00:35, 17 December 2011‎.

Wikiquote does not generally include quotes from marketing campaigns. Although there is an article for famous Advertising slogans, pre-release marketing materials for upcoming films are not what Wikiquote is for. If you would like to request community review of the deletion you can make an appeal at Wikiquote:Deletion review. ~ Ningauble 16:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bolded duplicate voting edit

  1. First bolded "merge" vote
  2. Second bolded "merge" vote

Please remove one of your two bolded duplicate "merge" votes from Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jean-Luc Picard. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a duplicate !vote. There is no possible ambiguity in saying "I have stricken my vote for the time being.... I will wait for further developments, but at this point I lean toward...." You may not agree that the typography lends clarity, but I do not see anything objectionable about it. ~ Ningauble 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said merge, bolded, twice, on the same VFD page. Do you deny that you have done this? -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see how my post immediately above about having done so raises any doubt in that regard. Would you care to clarify the point of your question? ~ Ningauble 02:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see the urgent need for one user to post a bolded "merge" comment, twice, on the same VFD page. Indeed, you added back the duplicate bolding, after it was removed. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for undertaking to clarify your point, because the tone of your question about denying the obvious was very rude and insulting, and because I would never have guessed that "Do you deny that..." meant "I fail to see the urgent need for...." I will attempt to shed light on what you say you fail to see.

I did not intend the typographic effect to convey a sense of urgency but rather, as described at w:Emphasis (typography)#Font styles and variants, I used boldface with the intent "to highlight certain keywords that are important to the subject of the text, for easy visual scanning of text." In particular, in the first post linked at the top of this thread, I used visual emphasis to draw attention to an important option that had not yet been raised in the discussion.

It certainly seems to have caught your attention, but I did not intend it to be so emphatic that it would draw attention away from the rest of the post in which it appears. As I already pointed out in my first response to this thread, I very clearly indicated that I was reserving judgment, in the first sentence of the post and also in the opening clause of the sentence where it appears.

I did indeed revert your modification of my post. As indicated at WP:TPO, editing the comments of others is strongly discouraged, with very few exceptions, because it tends to be irritating. I found it irritating. I find your specious and insulting remarks so irritating that it casts doubt your commitment to the assurances of good will you expressed just a couple days ago in a separate thread above. ~ Ningauble 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverting at VFD to add back duplicate voting edit

diff = what is the purpose of this? What is the extreme urgent need for you to have three bolded votes on the page? -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is discussed in the thread above. ~ Ningauble 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jesse Livermore on Wikiquote edit

The sourced quotes are located at the Edwin Lefèvre article in Wikiquote. I tried to do some kind of redirect, but didn't know how at the time. (Still don' So I agree that the un sourced quotes and that page should vanish. Since they presently exist all sourced at the Edwin L. page.--Oracleofottawa 04:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marston Morse edit

Hi! Thanks for the welcome and caution. I've added the relevant source to the above page and removed the {{prod}} template. Can you have a look at it? TIA. Lovysinghal 07:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I tweaked the format and added categories. ~ Ningauble 18:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teaching with Calvin and Hobbes edit

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your input on this page a couple days ago; it was thoughtful. Cheers --Bookmaven3003 16:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to the user page of "Ningauble/Archive 7".