User talk:Ningauble/Archive 9

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Spannerjam in topic Site maintenance

This is an archive of past discussions on User talk:Ningauble from Jul–Dec 2012.
Do not edit this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.

Frank Herbert edit

Concerning the see also section, I've started a discussion on the talk page. Thanks. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 17:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment brackets edit

Thank you for correcting that bad error with the unclosed comment! I thought I was checking carefully for unclosed comment brackets (I had missed one somewhere else, but immediately corrected it), but obviously I wasn't checking carefully enough. Will triple-check in the future. Thanks again. Macspaunday (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I see I made the same mistake in about five other pages. Will quadruple-check next time. Apologies for putting you to all this trouble!! Macspaunday (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why have I been deleted? edit

I was in the process of adding quotes for a new wikiquote page for Evelyn Underhill which was going perfectly well until I went for a break and came back to find that I had been barred as an editor, accused of being a sock-puppet, and my worthy page had been put up for speedy deletion! Any help in this matter would be greatly welcomed. It appears that there is a rogue bot and or administrator loose....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was no administrator: it was a mindless vandal. I am sorry there was not an administrator around to stop the vandalism sooner. It is nothing personal: when one of these mentally deranged morons goes on a rampage, they sometimes attack anyone who happens to be editing at the time. It is quite random and mindless: forget about it. You are in perfectly good standing with the administrators and the Wikiquote community. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of newly created proverb articles edit

Could you please stop deleting the newly created proverb articles? I will eventually add sourced proverbs to them. --Spannerjam (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the work you are doing on sourcing proverb pages; but it was a mistake to create pages with no quotes in them. First let me clarify a few points about what I did and did not do:
I think that summarizes what happened with these pages recently. Here are some points to bear in mind, and suggestions for moving forward:
  1. Please do not create article pages without any quotes in them. That is not the right place to post discussions or requests for assistance. Article pages without any quotes are routinely deleted.
  2. To request un-deletion you can use the talk page, or to be sure it gets noticed you can post a request on the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. You can also make an appeal at Wikiquote:Deletion review.
  3. Please check whether the article has been deleted before requesting un-deletion. When you start to create an article, the system will warn you if it was previously deleted. If you do not see this warning then there never was an article with that title.
  4. To post remarks about an article, such as "No sources found", please use the article talk page. Discussions about an article, and most kinds of self-reference to the article, do not belong in the article itself.
Again, I do appreciate the research you are doing, and I encourage you to keep at it. It is just that the time to start an article page is after finding a sourced quote to include. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ningauble, and suggest that you create drafts of proverbs pages in user space, and then move them to mainspace when they have a number of fully sourced proverbs for the language in question. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pierre Monteux edit

I have looked on but cannot find any reference to 'interlinear citations' - could you point to the page where this rule is explained? Many thanks. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although the descriptive term "interlinear citation" is not used there, the concept is described at Wikiquote:Guide to layout#Formatting of quotes (people) and illustrated in the template:
   * quote 1
   ** citation 1
   * quote 2
   ** citation 2
The reason for placing the citation immediately after the quote, as is done in virtually all compendia of quotations that cite sources, is simple:  unlike Wikipedia, where citations are supporting information that belongs in footnotes, quotation is the main event here, and citation is integral to it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you edit

Thank you for your category fixing help at We Are Legion, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, keep up the good work edit

Hi Ningauble, I would like to congratulate you for your tireless and usually thankless efforts in trying to keep Wikiquote clean and of amazingly high quality. Your contributions log of deletes and reasoned arguments is truly a monument to tidying up. I try to create a little content and I am impressed by those who spend so much time on constructive improvements and are devoted to deleting the dross. The high quality produced from efforts like these is why I have chosen to visit Wikipedia for a while. Well done! VisitingPhilosopher (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

spambot edit

The account User:CoolSmith361 was a spambot, along with numbers of others with patterns like XxxxxxXxx. We have a lot going around the place currently and for the past six months of so. :-( sDrewth 11:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assumed as much. This is consistent with a general pattern of user-space spam that began last year. Early adopters of the method appear to have given up on it, but there seems to be no lack of new idiots willing to give it a try. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did a CU on CoolSmith361, but it only turned up one other editor. I'll try to keep an eye open for stuff like this, though I'd wager that it's just drive-by stuff. EVula // talk // // 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, blocking has little impact on people who use one-shot account names from variable IP addresses. Most of these fools eventually realize they are wasting their time. When patrolling Recent Changes, I always check newly created user pages for spam. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas the Tank Engine edit

I'm afraid you will indeed have to cancel your PBS subscription. [1]--Collingwood (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't really mean any of them, I meant the collection. The page in question is consistent with a recurring pattern of vandalism that includes falsely attributing random commercial children's shows to PBS. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thousands of pages to improve edit

There's over 9,000 pages on Wikiquote that probably could use some sourcing improvement. Perhaps you could go work on some of those, instead of spending so much time pursuing pages I've created that actually are sourced? Thank you so much, -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is more work to be done than anyone can keep up with. Whining about it doesn't help.
You and I may have different views of what I am doing here, but rest assured that you are not being singled out. When pages are substantially at variance with ordinary Wikiquote norms and conventions, it doesn't really matter to me who "owns" them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree with your assessment, it seems instead like an undue focus on your part. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contrary to the way things may appear from your perspective, the world does not revolve around you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! Nor you! LOL. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Death#Unsourced edit

I don't know if it's intended, but you removed many quotations which are actually sourced... people tend not to note the "Unsourced" headers. --Nemo 06:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. I had just moved the entire section headed "Unsourced" without examining it too closely. (It was a large section.) I will circle back and sort out the ones that were in the wrong section. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved most of them back. Thanks for pointing it out. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do NOT put words in my mouth edit

Do NOT put words in my mouth, as you did here. Do NOT make assumptions about what you think I may or may not think. That is inappropriate and it is also a pet peeve of yours in the past that you have seemed to get very upset about very quickly. It is hypocritical of you, Ningauble, to act that way towards others. Golden rule, please. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said "The article Psychology we would be greatly helped by structuring according to the basis of their authority to address the subject." I asked a question, a pointedly rhetorical one, about what you meant by this. I then characterized your suggestion as "introducing our assessments of the authors' bona fides." This is in no way a mischaracterization of what you actually said. When I pointed out that this would express a non-neutral point of view, I did not say it was your intent, express or implied, to do so: I was trying to explain the consequence of your proposal.

If you do not see that consequence then I am not sure how to explain it any better. If you disagree with my point, it does not justify coming to my talk page with false accusations of misconduct on my part. As I have said to you before, ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations are not welcome on my talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ningauble, you yourself have gotten quite upset in the past over what you thought were mischaracterizations of your prior statements. Then you do the exact same thing to others than yourself. You should be even more sensitive to that inappropriate behavior, not less. I did NOT say we should only have quotes from those with imprimatur on theme pages, just that they can be organized by author's background in subsections on that page, but NOT that others with less imprimatur should not be included. I never said that. I never even implied that. That is a mischaracterization of my words. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As stated above, I did not misrepresent what you said, I asked you what you meant by it. Ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations are not welcome on my talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You somehow drew the conclusion that I said only people with imprimatur should be quoted on a topic, which is completely different from what I did say, which is the page can be organized in subsections based on imprimatur. And that there is your gross and insulting mischaracterization of me. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not draw that conclusion, else I would not have posed the question. Ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations are not welcome on my talk page ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither on mine, and that is not my intent. I apologize if you feel you were "attacked", I hope you feel better and please know that was not my intent. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amiable outreach edit

Amiable outreach. :)

Ningauble, I realize I've let myself get involved in an escalation of things lately, and I'm very sorry about that. I'd like to move forward with you to address issues in the future in a more lighthearted and friendly manner. I do value your input and advice, and I'd really love for both of us to work collaboratively together in the future where we both learn from each other. Once again, my apologies, -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be happy to discuss issues of Wikiquote content, as well as policies and procedures, in a collegial manner. However, if you have any issues with what you believe to be improper conduct on my part then I suggest taking them to WQ:AN for review by uninvolved administrators. If you raise such issues elsewhere I will refer them there. I say this because the basis and rationale of your numerous recent allegations frankly do not make a lot of sense to me. If I am doing something wrong it evidently needs to be explained from a different perspective for me to understand it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I just feel more discussion before going to VFD can't hurt. But I overreacted and you're right. Hopefully we can all be grateful and appreciate the positive outcome that this particular page was improved whilst at VFD, which is a good thing. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed way to move forward edit

I've proposed a suggested way to move forwards, at Talk:OT VIII. I hope it's helpful, -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because we appear to have been talking past each other, from different perspectives on what "quotability" means, I don't think asking me to present my opinion again in converse form,[2] is likely to accomplish much. I think the best way forward is to get some other opinions, which is why I requested comment at the Village Pump.

I would also like to remark about actions such as (1) marking the discussion Done just one day after comments were solicited, and before anyone new to the discussion has commented; (2) starting a top top-level "compromise" thread after edits to the article that arise from an ongoing discussion; and (3) removing an unresolved discussion to an archive page:  I think these sorts of actions have a tendency to break off the discussion, or create impediments to keeping a discussion together in coherent fashion, and are not really conducive to the wiki way of reaching consensus. Please consider that these actions might be seen as giving the appearance, even if unintended, of unilateral preemption by an involved party. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Ningauble's points above. Although I offered an opinion about what could possibly remain at the page in question, it was by no means the final word on the matter. It was just one opinion that was to be part of a discussion, with other opinions offered by others. I would rather have had a true discussion before ending the matter. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not mark a discussion as done, I just indicated I took a particular action that was done, which was implementing the suggestions from UDScott (talk · contributions). It appears, therefore, that you incorrectly read into something and assumed something that was not there. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your concurrent post at the Village Pump, "hopefully this is {{done}} and satisfactory now", certainly appears to contemplate the sense in which the {{Done}} template is ordinarily used: to indicate that an action has resolved the matter and it is finished. Nevertheless, it was not my intent to speculate as to what you meant by it but, rather, to ask you to consider the appearance it might be seen as giving. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, well, it was not my intent, and I have made a good faith extension to you, and I have stricken that usage, twice, so hopefully that is satisfactory for you. :) Hope you have a great day! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abdou Diouf edit

dear Ningauble, sorry for such a late rely. i'm not a regular contributor of Wikiquote. I just saw your message on my discussion page and I'd like to ask you why quotes from the second president of Senegal Abdou Diouf are not considered pertinent for the project. thank you. --Iopensa (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was deleted because the quotes were not English, and it had been tagged as lacking translation for more than a year. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect. thanks. can you have access to that article and send it to me? maybe i/we i can put it on wikiquote in French. thanks. --Iopensa (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Y Done at your talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --Iopensa (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello / Question (s?) / Request for Assistance edit

Ningauble: Hello - doubt you remember me, but we've talked before (some time ago.) I was just about to add a quote to the Calvin Coolidge page, and noticed what looks like an error in the text that I don't quite know how to correct properly. An earlier editor seems to have tried to create a link to Coolidge's Inaugural Address by an embedded link to Wikisource, which he coded as follows:


This does not seem to translate in the way he intended. I have used similar links to pages on Wikipedia and on Wikiquote, but so far I haven't found the right way to fix this code so that it comes out correctly. I was tempted to just leave it as it stands, but since I also have some other minor questions I wanted to run by an editor with more experience than I possess, I thought this might be a reasonable opportunity to ask you for assistance. Can you tell me where I would find an explanation of how to code this properly, & can I pester you for a few other answers in the future? Best regards -- CononOfSamos (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After some additional thought, I found a way to modify the Calvin Coolidge Tnaugural Address reference that seems to accomplish what I had been attempting to fix : I still have other questions I would like to ask you (for one, I have a change that I feel should be made to a page that is edit-locked), but I will wait to hear back from you before I bother you with the details.

CononOfSamos (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do remember you, and had noticed that you returned recently after a period of absence. Welcome back. Feel free to ask about anything – I would be happy to help. If it involves a broad issue then we can take it to a community forum as Collingwood suggested on your talk page.[3]

For protected pages, the general answer is that you can post a request on the associated talk page. Include details of exactly what you want to change so that, if it seems like a good idea, an administrator can do it for you. If you include the phrase "edit request" in the edit summary and discussion heading then someone will probably notice the request. If not, you can call attention to it with a brief note at the Administrators' noticeboard. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English proverbs "cleanup"-sign edit

Why does the English proverbs page need a cleanup according to you? --Spannerjam (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will elaborate on this at the article talk page. I am a little busy with "real life" right now, so it will be later today or sometime tomorrow. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As indicated, Ningauble will provide comments later, but my opinion is that cleanup is needed for two reasons: the layout does not conform to the established templates (meaning the smaller font for the citation and meaning), as well as the sorting by subjective section headings, as discussed here. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The layout does not have to conform to established rules, if they are preventing you from improving Wikipedia or any of Wikipedia's sister projects. See Wikipedias' fifth pillar. Spannerjam (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You asked why the cleanup tag was on the page, and I gave the answer. Of course questioning or even ignoring rules if they prevent you from improving the site is good, but your alternate layout is the product of one person's opinion (yours). This site is built on consensus and, to quote from the same link you provided, ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." I don't believe a fight is warranted here, but your alternate layout should be discussed and a consensus reached on its use. I happen to believe that having templates does help improve the site because it provides a common look and feel. But in the end, mine is only one opinion too - this is something that should be brought up and discussed (and in the end, if a consensus is established, the templates can be amended) rather than just applied to a single page because one user feels it is better than what is already established. I also believe this should be discussed on a larger stage and have moved this to the article talk page rather than Ningauble's Talk page. I suggest we discontinue discussing it here. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to write an article here? edit

Alex Trans (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that you skipped what should be the first step in creating a Wikiquote article: find some famous quotations.

The pages you recently created, with an advertising slogan and a couple promotional links (to a press release and a company website) are not appropriate here: Wikiquote is NOT a vehicle for advertising, it is a compendium of famous and "quotable" quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Site maintenance edit

I very much appreciate your work of maintaining Wikiquote. However, I encourage you to instead of just deleting (reverting) edits by newcomers, yourself reformat those edits if possible, and if the edit is useless, thoroughly explain why you deleted their contribution. If you don't have the time for this, please leave the maintenance for someone else who also maintains Wikiquote (such as me within the proverbs articles). See Wikipedia's guideline Please do not bite the newcomers for more information. --Spannerjam (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is some specific edit or deletion that you would like to discuss, please feel free to do so on the article talk page or at Deletion review.

By the way, thanks for reminding me that it is about time to carry out the consensus of the discussion at Talk:English proverbs#English proverbs "cleanup"-sign. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm refering to the reverted edit by --Spannerjam (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has been my experience that when someone makes a single unconstructive or destructive edit without registering, they are rarely heard from again whether or not they are sent a warning. They often never even see the message because the IP address is dynamically allocated by their ISP.

If this was a mistake made in good faith by a reasonable person, it should be quite evident that it was a mistake and I don't think it is necessary to explain the reversion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I guess you know better since you have been maintaining Wikiquote for a longer time. --Spannerjam (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "Ningauble/Archive 9".