User talk:Illegitimate Barrister/Archive 1

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

Hi, welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 16:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, ask if you have any queries. :) --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Khanh[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Nguyen Khanh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added source(s) and removed the deletion notice. Hope it's better now. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crysis 2[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Crysis 2, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Crysis 2. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject[edit]

Hello Barrister, I would like to suggest you to join Wikiquote:WikiProject Weekly Cleanup? --~~Goldenburg111 20:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, but I am not forcing you to join. --~~Goldenburg111 20:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Greetings! Please move your adminship request to the subpage, Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Illegitimate Barrister, and transclude that page to the Adminship page. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for the help. Illegitimate Barrister 05:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am back.[edit]

I actually had to leave a bit earlier, but now am back. I have tried reverting the Bush article using the HISTORY, which is the simplest way to correct massive vandal attacks such as have been going on, but you have been editing it piecemeal too rapidly for me to do that. Find the point in the history BEFORE the vandalism, press COMPARE and then revert to that. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 06:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, I knew I should've left it alone. Well, I'll try to manually get rid of the vandalism as much as I can. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 06:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement[edit]

I am just back from a brief excursion and have noticed you have been moving images, which is a desirable activity on many of the pages, but there are some things about their placement I have learned from experience on different browsers, computers, smartphones and other mobile devices. To move most or all images in a section to the top of that SECTION seems to be the best strategy for easy editing of them and the text, and they usually display well, but moving more than one or two images to the top of the PAGE above the first section is a problem on mobile devices (which I generally hate to use for wiki-work). On mobile devices this results in a long column of images BEFORE even the introductory text, which clearly is not desirable. I will probably be around much of the day, and able to do a bit of work here, and will probably show you what I believe is a more desirable arrangement on at least a couple of them soon. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, the reason I've been putting all the images at the very top is that doing otherwise would leave just a bunch of empty blank space at the bottom, which looks ugly on desktops and other similar devices. It looks better to have thumbnails surrounded by text, in my opinion. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 15:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion[edit]

Just a suggestion: it would be helpful if you could use edit summaries more. (It's not mandatory, of course, but it is good wiki "etiquette".) Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my bad. I'll try to do that more often. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(No worries.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

excuse me, but can you add that bit about the nightmare he had, of his own assassination? He told frends about it prior to it actually happening. check the wikipedia page, it talks about it. Thanks, everything here is wikilinked to make it easier for ya to go to the article I hope thats okay. Bye 208.54.85.189

If you can give me a source, date, and the quote itself, I'll be more than happy to add it for you. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 15:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator.[edit]

Congratulations! Be good, and do well. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Happy editing! Eurodyne (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Your interest in serving our project is greatly appreciated. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations and good luck, -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow Wikiquotians, I am called upon by the voice of Wikiquote to execute the functions of administrator. I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of Wikiquote. That if it shall be found during my administration of Wikiquote I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may be subject to the upbraidings of all who are present. With the kindest of regards, your most humble and obedient servant, Illegitimate Barrister 09:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Illegitimate Barrister, congratulations. -- Mdd (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Illegitimate Barrister 13:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
OMG! A Kalki clone! Anyway, congratulations on unanimous approval! --Abd (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not follow. In any event, thank you for your words of encouragement. Illegitimate Barrister 21:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is referring to the length and rhetorical flourish of your reply. Don't worry, it's nowhere near Kalki's level. BD2412 T 23:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. Heh, thanks. Illegitimate Barrister 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say he was up to about 500 milli-Kalkis.
Let me rephrase that. If I were to consider this objectively, not that objectivity is really possible, I could define the level of prolixity of Kalki as 1000 milli-Kalkis. Then, given that the short sample was about half the length of what the genuine standard for prolixity, the Kalki himself might have written -- or is it herself? I don't know and it's my fault that I don't know, but I don't like using "they" for a single person, do you? Anyway, moving on, not to put too fine a point on it, given the standard and IB's actual performance in a real text, even though it's only one sample and could be off because of statistical variation, I could estimate IB's prolixity as 500 milliKalkis, or mK for short, not to be confused with milliKelvins.
Having said this, if you are in a cold clime as I and Kalki are, at this time of year, may your temperature be such that the millikelvins are completely insignificant, you being warm. May all beings be well and warm, unless, of course, they prefer cold. Maybe you live in Australia, and is it true that everything is upside down and backwards there? --Abd (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush[edit]

I see you've been editing the page George W. Bush a lot. This edit by a vandal was never reverted, so many quotes were lost. I might restore them (one by one) eventually, but I'm too busy right now. BTW, you may want to link to your archives from here – just copy the box from other user talk pages that have it. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you could restore those deleted quotes, that'd be great. I'll add the archive template to the talk page. Illegitimate Barrister 12:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like Ike.[edit]

Thanks for all your recent activity here, in adding to the pages. I am just briefly checking in before having to leave again on some excursions, but was prompted to give thanks after the additions recently made to the Dwight D. Eisenhower page. I admire a great many people, but have always thought Ike's subtle and strong leadership with great respect for Liberty has long been underrated, by those who consider themselves either conservative or liberal. To my mind a well balanced person is both, and doesn't go about intruding into the activities of others needlessly, nor avoid doing so when there clearly is a vital need. No person is ever perfect in all possible ways, but there are those who do excel at this balancing act, and I have long thought Ike was one of them. Thanks again. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I do like Adlai Stevenson as well, and believe BOTH these figures are underestimated in their importance. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I like Ike too. I believe U.S. Grant is in a similar way to him, in terms of underrated-ness. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted much of your editing does seem to be promoting defamatory stances.[edit]

I just have a short time, and just recently glanced at things, but I agree with another editor that many of your captions on the page for Australia are very inappropriate, and have apparently been selected to be defamatory or inflammatory. Some of these on this or other pages might be appropriate for some particular speakers, but should definitely not be provided such leading prominence as some of them have on such general subjects as a nation. I don’t have time now to do a thorough review of that page or your edits, or attempt any revisions, as I must be leaving soon, but just thought I would make note of the situation directly. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, surely we should not remove quotes simply because they might be seen as negative by some people, should we? That would be a violation of NPOV, would it? Otherwise should we remove anti-Semitic quotes from the pages of Nazis? However, I'll remove some of the more "inflammatory" quotes from the thumbnails as a compromise measure. I can see how some might see that as POV. Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister 19:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment: the objection is not regarding the inclusion of the quotes on a given page, but rather their use in captions for images, which places emphasis on them and casts them as representative of the subject of the page. And when inflammatory quotes are used in such a manner, they do represent a POV about the subject. The quotes used as captions on the Australia page for example are hardly representative of the country. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The inflammatory quotes have been removed from the page for the time being. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 20:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I remain preoccupied with many other things than internet tasks, so I will probably only be checking in her intermittently for some days yet, but certainly agree that quotes should not be censored from the pages merely for "unpleasant content", and yet also emphatically agree with the assertion that the quotes in captions should be more carefully chosen as representative of the subject, and should generally not be those of some of the more abhorrent extremists who might comment on such subjects.
I believe that we should all be aware we are always presenting and to various degrees promoting or criticizing various types of POV when we select and present quotations. I believe most of us can and do endeavor to present humanity, most human societies and important truths in relatively respectful ways, and that we should be honestly and considerately involved in dialogue with those who object to some of the perspectives we might favor presenting.
As I believe has become increasingly apparent to some over the years, I am rather hostile to pre-fabricated rules and assessments, which are such things as most wikis were designed to minimize, and I remain inclined to keep a respect for genuine consensus and clear truths rather than artificial mandates clearly a high priority, in my own regards, where possible. I know many people cannot clearly understand many of my own perspectives on things, but I hope that in coming months I will be able to make clear some of the experiences which have shaped my own perspectives and attitudes, and invite others to present many of theirs as well, so that there can be clearer understandings of many things, as time goes by. I thank you again for your generally contributive activity here, and hope you continue to find this an interesting project to be so involved with. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
Greetings and salutations, Madam Kalki. Your speedy correspondence of the twentieth day of the month of March was received by me with great favor on the same day. Let me begin by stating that I extend my gratitude and debt towards you for your insight regarding this matter. I shall admit that I will try to exercise more discretion in the future. As I am only a mere man, and am thus, am not infallible, I may be subject to errors of judgement from time to time. But these errors are of lapses in judgement, certainly not of any intentional maliciousness on the part of myself. I shall endaveour to avoid such errors whenever possible. I beg to remain, and I hope, your most humble and obedient servant, Illegitimate Barrister 23:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to note that I have usually endeavored to retain mostly "genderless" identities on the internet to the extent I can, believing that this is a good tactic for many people, though it can also create its own complications. "Kalki" is actually a name used for both men and women, and though not my "birth name" I was accepting it as one of my own, as one I literally "dreamed up", long before I was distinctly aware of this, or had heard anyone else use it, outside of my dreams, as a very young child, and might explain a bit more of how I came to use some of the names I have most used, in the coming year. I expect much of my anonymity will probably have to be reduced in the year ahead, and actually am not entirely looking forward to the problems this will present to me and others, and am still considering many ways of presenting various facts I believe of some importance about past and present situations. I am expecting a very interesting year ahead, here and elsewhere. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Let me extend my sincerest apologies for the error. I shall desire to call you by whatever moniker or descriptor you shall be preferred and be desired to be known as. Your most humble and obedient servant, Illegitimate Barrister 23:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatred and Terrorist promotion[edit]

By the nature of many of your recent edits, one could easily take it you are approving or even advocating various forms of prejudices and hatreds of the United States, the Democratic Party, and Islam and also promoting a hodgepodge of diverse prejudices, presumptions and even the advocacy of terrorism.

I can accept that various forms of bigotries and extremely ignorant statements of human beings can and should be quoted in this project, but I believe Humanity is more deserving of respect than to have expressions of some of the foulest bigotries of some of its members actually promoted in various ways by adding images to emphasize some of the most asinine quotes of various people being their most asinine — from generally admired politicians like Winston Churchill to generally scorned terrorists like Osama bin Laden. I accept that such quotes can be quoted, and should be, on various pages, and some of them even emphasized with images on the speakers pages, but I do not accept that they should be given such general prominence AS IF the promotions of various forms of bigotry were properly characteristic and representative of the SUBJECTS of the quotes — and I believe other editors have agreed in the past that such a promotion of various forms of defamatory denigration of various subjects goes beyond what is proper here.

I believe MOST of the quote and image additions you have made to many pages seem to be DESIGNED to FOSTER and PROMOTE various forms of HATRED of HUMAN BEINGS or their forms of faith for various reasons, and I find such fostering of such hatreds not appropriate for this project, or for humanity in general. I can ACCEPT a page for a terrorist or terrorist group having images of the vile consequences of their actions — I cannot and do not accept that THEIR views of the proper role of ISLAM or of general HUMANITY should be IMPLIED to be the proper ones in ANY way, either in regards to muslims or general humanity by adding images of such FALSE and foul claims to the page for ISLAM. I scorn the ways of hatred and evil promoted terrorists and tyrants in general — but I do not seek to delude myself or others that hatred of such faiths as they FALSELY claim to serve in their extremely bigoted forms of insanity is an appropriate response to their hatreds of such broader and more forgiving forms of faith as my own and that of many others — including far wiser adherents of such faiths as they quite often very WRONGLY claim to serve.

I know this issue must be more thoroughly addressed, but was gone most of the day and now must be leaving again, and I have delayed a bit to make note of my objections to some of your recent edits, but will probably be back within a few hours for further discussion of the matter. I have already delayed too long to go one place and get something done which I had wanted to do, but I still must leave. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

My apologies. I am in no way trying to promote bigotry or anything of the sort. My goal is to provide different viewpoints on subjects, both positive and negative. I can understand how that might be interpreted as promoting prejudices bigotry. My intentions were nothing of the sort. I apologize if my edits have been construed as promoting bigotry, again that was not my intention whatsoever. Illegitimate Barrister 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you may have intended, I believe that is precisely what you are doing — and I really don’t have time to discuss it now — as I actually MUST be leaving. Will probably be back within a few hours. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡
Though you already have posted this to your archival page, now that I have a bit more time, I am making a slight continuance of my earlier comments here, so as to avoid creating a new section and recapping previous assertions on your talk page. In my earlier statements I started with a very bold comment which was deliberately intended to be somewhat startling, and though I actually recognized that I could very easily seem it, to you and to others, I believe I was not being naively stupid in my assertions, and affirm that I was actually being only somewhat mildly facetious in implying some things which I know could easily be taken by many to be simply errors or false assumptions on my part.
I was quite aware from the start that you ostensibly are NOT intentionally supporting or advocating forms of bigotry or terrorism, but sincerely believe that to various extents you seem oblivious to, you are effectively PROMOTING or even legitimizing many extremely bigoted claims of various people against various groups, by providing them a prominence which I believe they do not merit and should not be given. There are some places where I believe some of the image and quote combinations you have devised or pasted into some of the pages can be appropriate, but most of them are in various ways, implicitly or explicitly denigrative of various groups, and I believe it is improper and unjust to many people to give them such prominence on those theme pages. I will probably attempt to address the issue more extensively in future weeks, after I get through my current period of intensely rushed activities, involving many new concerns and a wide range of tasks to give extensive amounts of my attention. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, Kalk. Please be aware that I do not always agree one hundred percent with the quotes I add to the project, but that I add them for contextual purposes. I tried, and try to, put negative thumbnails further down pages with the more positive ones on top, so as not to give undue weight to them, and maintain an objective encyclopedic tone. If you have any further concerns about my editing, don't hesitate to post them and I will try to address them the best I can. Best regards, your most humble and obedient servant, Illegitimate Barrister 02:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error?[edit]

Here you (perhaps accidentally) duplicated many quotes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like I did. I'll try to fix it. Illegitimate Barrister 17:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links[edit]

Regarding this edit [1] to the Hitler Wikiquote:

At the beginning of the twentieth century, few people would have suspected that a nation considered by many to be the most cultured, advanced and civilized would elect to power a homicidal maniac and allow him to seize total control of every institution in the country and every facet of the community. A man who maltreated, gassed and otherwise murdered millions of people based on their racial and ethnic background.

I think it is a good idea to avoid using interwiki links for long strings of words, and where it is unclear what will be linked to. Do you agree?

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I do the interwiki links that way people can click on it and see what the author is referring to, when it is not explicitly said. I find that putting things in brackets to be ugly and distracting and should only be used as a last resort. – Illegitimate Barrister
  • Yes, and in some cases it is reasonable to do so, but I think that here it is unnecessary. Indicating that "a nation considered by many to be the most cultured, advanced and civilized" refers to Germany is maybe a good idea, as it can be potentially unclear to some which nation is being referred to. But linking "maltreated, gassed and otherwise murdered millions of people" with 'murder' is non-obvious, it could also link to 'evil', 'The Holocaust', 'genocide'; also "based on their racial and ethnic background" with 'bigotry' has similar issues. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great work![edit]

Thanks for you great work on numerous pages, particularly Second Amendment to the United States Constitution‎. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guys! The pleasure's all mine! {:-)} – Illegitimate Barrister 03:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag-Map[edit]

I used Flag-Maps in Persian Wikiquote for all countries, this a good integration for Wikiquote's Countries pages. why we can not do it in English Wikiquote? is that not beauty for "English-speaking world"؟ --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is not the Persian Wikiquote. Also, the image is already on the page. Having two of the same images on the same page is redundant. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just suggested my style. Wikiquotes are not Wikipedia. we can Show our Creativity for pictures in the Wikiquotes. we are not sincere followers of wikipedias in all projects. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump[edit]

Adding this picture was VERY inappropriate. If it were up to me, you'd be blocked for it. Please stop trying to make every article on Wikiquote all about race. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know where you got the impression that I am "obsessed with race". – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other problematic pictures: this one was completely unrelated to the quote. Here you misrepresented Trump's quote: "There's a lot of hate in the Koran." You took that out of context – here's what he actually said: "There's a lot of hatred there that's some place. Now I don't know if that's from the Koran. [...] You have the view that the Koran is all about love and then you have the view that the Koran is, that there's a lot of hate in the Koran." And you added a picture which gives the impression that Trump is in favor of banning mosques – but he isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to imply otherwise. – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't see any need to add so many pictures to the article – mostly illustrating (often in a misleading way) unimportant quotes – at so fast a rate (28 edits in less than 1 hour). The article is fine as it is. IMO, your only good addition was this, but even there you chose a picture from 2007, not the shooting Trump was referring to. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


layout[edit]

You keep changing the layout of pages, but there is no need to have a new header for every year. See Selected pages, e.g. first two: Douglas Adams and Dante Alighieri – only their major works have specific sections, and these go below the other miscellaneous quotes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to page "Napoleon"[edit]

Hello,

It seems to me this edit [2] is not sufficiently 'about Napoleon'. It only mentions him indirectly. I suggest it be reverted. Do you agree?

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the quote is undeserving, then you can remove it if you so desire. – Illegitimate Barrister, 03:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

Hello! Please tell me, what is the idea behind copypasting quotes from 'language' and 'literature' sections into 'country' page? I find it confusing, especially since I state the sources so that interested parties can use the sources to find the info about whatever they need. -Tar-ba-gan (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both deal with the same country, so I put them on both pages. – Illegitimate Barrister, 08:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it looks like people do not seem to include a lot of quotes about the English language into the page about the USA or the UK. And, I would not say China throughout its 5000 years of history has been the same country with the same language. In my current view there is a succession of countries with the same major ethnic group, and they share the same writing system (like Europe, that was historically united as the Roman Empire, then as the Holy Roman Empire of Germanic Peoples, and other episodes, the latest being the European Union). Spoken languages/dialects in China differ dramatically at any given location, while literary languages differ historically. And very much like the English language is not an exclusive property of the U.K., Chinese is not an exclusive property of China, though it definitely comes from there.
  • History matters, even if we choose to state that for 5 (or 2.5) thousand years China has been the same country with the same language: the case with many of my quotations is that they have their historical attribution. The quote from the 19th century has to deal with the style used in Imperial Examination system (only Qing Dynasty), the quote from the 1900's is about the new literary language coming into being, very much from the outside (read Hawai'i) into the Empire that is about to collapse... I mean, those quotes would have looked good somewhere in History of China section but they do not describe China as a whole, they do not even describe a very long historical period (in Chinese terms).
  • What I am trying to do: to talk about Chinese influence upon Japan/Korea/Vietnam, I go to pains of selecting two different quotes, one of them mentioning language, another about literature, even though their meaning is very much the same. Why do I do that? Content pages being kept on-point is what is tremendously important these days when we have virtually unlimited access to information but very limited time to sort it out.
  • I am sorry my style could be better, but since you are genuinely interested in China, I hope it was not boring for you to read the above. BR, --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Places"?[edit]

I have proposed at the Village Pump to use "Places" rather than "Countries", but since you added the section, I think you can go ahead and change it without further discussion, if you agree with my reasoning. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion. I think "countries" is better, since they're more important. If we change it to "places" that could just make it end up getting cluttered with too many entries. Regards, – Illegitimate Barrister, 00:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WQ:Q[edit]

Where is this quoted? (Keep in mind, not everything you read on random websites should added to Wikiquote.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Why do you use websites like friesian.com as a source? Highly suspicious. Th4n3r (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings[edit]

Not to be argumentative, but while some mass shootings may be carried out by terrorist groups, this is not always the case. So in my mind, some mass shootings may fall under the category of Terrorism, but many do not - and I believe the three pages we currently have here under Mass shootings do not really qualify as Terrorism, as they were carried out by individuals who did not appear to have any political motive for their crimes - and thus were not considered Terrorists. To me, the category of Mass shootings should not be included in the category of Terrorism. What do you think? ~ UDScott (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but that said, some mass shootings are terrorist attacks, like the San Bernardino attack that happened in the U.S. earlier this month. Therefore, I think we should have it listed under terrorism, as well as crime, in case any future pages are created or found that fall under the categories. Regards, – Illegitimate Barrister, 03:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still disagree - in the cases where the mass shootings are also acts of terrorism, you could just add Terrorism as a category for those specific pages (meaning that a page for the San Bernardino shooting could have Terrorism as a cat, but not the page for the Aurora, CO shooting), rather than the category as a whole. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Since you put it that way, it makes sense. Removing. – Illegitimate Barrister, 15:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Vidal[edit]

Hi there - just wanted to comment on your updates to this page. Don't get me wrong, your contributions are much appreciated, but I wonder if you are putting in a bit much in the way of subsections. I'm not sure why you feel we need subsections for every year (especially when many of those subsections only have 1-3 quotes in them. To me, the subsections are only needed when there are so many quotes in a given section that breaking them up a bit makes it easier for a reader to find things. In this case (and I've seen it on other pages as well), they are unnecessary and really break up the page to a level that is not helpful. Perhaps just using subsections by decade would be enough? What do you think? ~ UDScott (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I've took out the sub-headers. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Quotes about Trump[edit]

This section is getting very long, and it will only get longer; what do you think of creating a separate article for it? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. Though, what title would we call such an article? – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I don't know. "About Donald Trump", maybe? Most of the more recent quotes are about his presidential campaign, so we could have an article like Wikipedia, "Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016". Let me know if you have a better idea. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I don't think there has ever been precedent for this before, having one article solely for quotes about an individual. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley L. Ross Addition to Capitalism[edit]

I would like to discuss the notability of the addition you made to the Capitalism article. The quote contains a spelling error ("to supports"), which I have confirmed is in the original source. I haven't been able to find any evidence for the notability of the author. ~ Peter1c (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP block[edit]

Dear, you can block this IP? Even after warnings, he does not stop. Thanks. Érico (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked now, senhor. – Illegitimate Barrister, 03:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert[edit]

This edit - I added local pages (even tho they were not created) so users viewing the article know that there is a need for page creations of those countries... with a wikipedia link: They won't think a page on Laos or Cambodia is necessary (in which, I think Wikiquote needs more country pages, I'm the man to do some!). I'll go with your edit, but I'm explaining here why I did that. Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If you want to create a country page for those, by all means, go straight ahead, it'll be much appreciated! – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to. Have a good day! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decaying Links[edit]

Greetings and Salutations, Illegitimate Barrister. Noticed you were here working, & I have a question I'd like to run by you. I have added several quotes, with appropriate links, in the Quotes About section of Antonin Scalia's page, from a source (USA Today) which I assume will sooner or later be subject to linkrot (i.e., dead links due to story being purged by the USA Today website). Is there some way these quotes can be verified for future reference before the links go bad? Would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks. CononOfSamos (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Try using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, or the http://archive.is/ machine. – Illegitimate Barrister, 06:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the changes you made on the Scalia page. Thank you for your time & effort. The Wayback/archival changes seem to be recapturing info for the huffingtonpost link every time I click on it. Is this supposed to happen, or am I misinterpreting what I'm seeing? (Sorry to be a pest ...) CononOfSamos (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed now. – Illegitimate Barrister, 16:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still a problem-politico/huffingtonpost changes swapped w/each other. Let me try to fix this-good way to see if I've understood the process/necessary code changes correctly.CononOfSamos (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ruth Bader Ginsburg/huffingtonpost link is working now: you apparently had already fixed the politico link. Last question (promise!): how do I get the correct URL info (specifically, in the following (partial) string web.archive.org/web/20160220161812, how do I find the 20160220161812 part? (want to understand this so I can do it without bugging you) CononOfSamos (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. – Illegitimate Barrister, 21:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same basic question re the http://archive.is/ machine. I saved a copy of http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2016/02/a-personal-remembrance-of-justice-scalia.html ; it's out there, can find it thru the search function. How do I get the correct URL (similar to http://archive.is/HsPDM for the USA Today story; looking for the HsPDM equivalent)? Again, apologies for troubling you with these questions. CononOfSamos (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand what it is you want here. Can you elaborate? – Illegitimate Barrister, 21:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm having difficulties communicating this properly. If I put the URL http://archive.is/HsPDM into my browser, it points directly to the saved page for the USA Today story. Earlier today, I saved a copy of a totally different webpage (different story on a different website) ; the page I saved with the http://archive.is/ machine is http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2016/02/a-personal-remembrance-of-justice-scalia.html. What I want, & do not know how to get, is the URL beginning with http://archive.is/ that points to the saved page. Is that better, or am I confusing you even more? CononOfSamos (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I think I get what you're asking. Here's the saved page. – Illegitimate Barrister, 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Michael Dorf quote to the Scalia page (Quotes About Section) ; it is currently coded to refer to the dorfonlaw.org webpage directly. What I'm trying to figure out is the http://archive.is/?????? URL that would point to the saved page, not the original page. CononOfSamos (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the archived link to the page. Here is the direct link. – Illegitimate Barrister, 15:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Illegitimate Barrister: I think I've finally understood how to obtain these URLs. Thank you so much for your assistance, it's greatly appreciated. CononOfSamos (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, no problem. If you need more help in the future, please feel free to ask! – Illegitimate Barrister, 00:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how...[edit]

do I get Sri Lanka to be featured on the homepage? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to add it here. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't... and I believe it takes more than to add the page into the template. Is there some kind of process or...? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real process for adding a page there. All you need are administrator privileges and you'll be able to add it. The page at the moment needs some work before it can be added. I'll try and clean it up some. Regards, – Illegitimate Barrister, 21:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for helping out with the page! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. – Illegitimate Barrister, 21:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Was this [3] change a mistake? State governors can obviously be from any party, so I think it was properly placed in the general American politicians category. Do you agree? ~ UDScott (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, was a mistake. Fixed now, thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister, 14:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great - that's what I thought. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka[edit]

Sorry to be a pest, but is this page done with cleaning up so the page can be featured? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is finished now. – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it going to be featured on Template:Main Page Selected pages? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, featured already by Mizsatomic. Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confederacy[edit]

Just a question (and I considered this when I was separating out American military leaders), but do you consider categories related to the Confederacy to be part of American categories or on their own? Personally, I would put them as sub to American categories (for example, I would put Confederate military leaders as a subcategory of American military leaders). Obviously, you do not agree, as you kept them separate. I just want to ask if you considered this when creating the categories and if you would think about the best place for them from the point of view of a user. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I put them in a separate category, because I consider "American military leaders" to refer to the U.S. military, rather than the C.S. one. – Illegitimate Barrister, 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask is that Wikipedia puts C.S. cats under American ones - and then there's the issue of people that were both (for example, Robert E. Lee had a long career in the U.S. army, including service in the Mexican American War long before the C.S. was even in existence) and if they are only put under a C.S. category, this gets lost. I would rather bring them back as a sub under American, as they do on Wikipedia. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I added the category. – Illegitimate Barrister, 15:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the vandal fighting — I apologize for being "missing in action" — I literally dozed off a bit there — before posting the QOTD — and woke up a bit late to the mess that had gone on, in the relatively brief period of my doze. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just doing my job. – Illegitimate Barrister, 02:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Please don't refer to other people's edits as "vandalism" just because you disagree with them politically. I politely request that you revdel the edit summary as false, misleading, and defamatory. Furthermore, none of those quotes are remotely relevant to the subject. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware you could read minds. It was vandalism because you deleted it without explanation. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an explanation? Scroll down. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FFS? What is FFS? Also, respond to posts on the talk page, NOT on the archive. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets and templates[edit]

Is there any particular reason you prefer [[w:ABC XYZ|ABC XYZ]] instead of the shorter, and functionally equivalent, {{W|ABC XYZ}}? Thanks. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what most pages on Wikiquote, Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia projects use. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"as quoted in"[edit]

Hello Illegitimate Barrister. I noticed that you sometimes use the expression "as quoted in" and then give a YouTube link (primary source) as the reference (e.g., in Joakim Noah – I could give other examples); "as quoted in" should be saved for secondary sources, written by a third party that actually quotes the person in question. When you're using a primary source, just state the source without the expression "as quoted in". You should also not add "as quoted in" when the person you're quoting is the one who wrote the text (unless he is quoting himself). For example, here it was Allen West who wrote "The dirty little secret no one wants to admit about Baltimore", so it doesn't make sense to use "as quoted in". Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Why would you link a recent political screed like this as the source for a historical document?

Google is your friend for finding authoritative sources for the text of the letter ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, any source is better than none. Would you have preferred no link at all? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article on "Europe"[edit]

I see you've made a massive contribution to the (English) Wikiquote article called "Europe", which is pretty large and of quite good quality. I was however quite intrigued by the length of some very controversial and right or far-right leaning quotations you put in, and to the place you've given to a whole series of quotes under pictures. Those quotes (while not factually wrong or uninteresting per se) almost always highlight a far right perspective on European affairs or a very pro-american one, an effect which is even reinforced by the pictures under which they are put. This is especially striking since these quotes are not at all put into perspective by quotes from either the far left, the left or the moderate right, or from pro-European and pro-EU viewpoints.

Now you seem to have quite a stellar Wikipedian history and I don't have the moral authority to edit such an article to my liking, but do you not think that your personal views have influenced the article quite a bit and made it fairly biased? Or do you think that the article is fair and balanced as it is? And if it's not, do you think the article should be edited down now to reflect a broader range of views, or do you think we should simply wait until someone else adds a whole series of quotes offering other perspectives on the matter? – CMaldoror (talk), 3:03, 16 May 2016‎ (UTC)

The way I look at it is, if somebody doesn't like the message of quotes on page, they can add contrasting quotes to balance it out. I've never been a fan of people removing quotes from a page simply because they don't like them. As for the pictures on the page in question, I had more pictures on there originally to add balance, but somebody seemed to have removed them since then, probably because they didn't like them. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 23:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links in citations[edit]

In response to this question (immediately archived away without waiting for a response):

No, any link at all is not better than citations that mislead the reader, or links to unreliable sources or promotional sites, etc. Please consider the following:

  1. A link that says "Letter to James Madison" and links to anything other than a publication of said letter is misleading. Linking to a political screed from more than two centuries later is surely a rude surprise for someone who clicks the link expecting to find the named source. If one is citing a secondary source that purports to quote the original, then one should use a citation of this form:
    • <original source>, as quoted in <secondary source>
  2. Because secondary sources, particularly less than notable ones, are often unreliable, it behooves one to perform a quick search for the original, or at least some noteworthy concurring sources. In cases like the letters of past American presidents and founding fathers, one would expect to find original or very authoritative historical sources, and if none are found one should conclude the attribution is very probably spurious. In this case, this simple due diligence verification readily yields far better sources to cite.
  3. Linking to a bloggish post on the website of a politician promoting himself and his political agenda (particularly, a polemical screed quoting Washington out of context for a point totally unrelated to Washinton's subject) is a very bad idea. This sort crappy source gives the appearance, intended or not, of using Wikiquote to promote a political agenda.

This is actually a very good quote, and a welcome addition to Wikiquote. However, I urge you to use more care (setting an example for others as a Wikiquote administrator) in writing citations and selecting sources. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links in citations, again[edit]

Your response to my last message (i.e., archiving it away without comment) is somewhat ambiguous. Being no response at all, it does not indicate whether you agree, disagree, or simply did not read it.

However, it appears that agreement can be ruled out since you continue to do the same thing I urge you not to do, i.e., misrepresenting a link to something entirely different as a link to the named title, and linking to a secondary source of little or no note when the primary source by a notable author is readily available.

It is really not difficult to find and cite reliable and noteworthy sources for such quotations – a serious error of omission; and it really gives the appearance of dishonesty to link to something other than what the link text says it is – a grave error of commission. Please reconsider your decision to disregard these issues. What you are doing goes against the best practice of experienced Wikiquote contributors as exemplified by your fellow administrators.

If you do not understand what I am trying to explain here, or if you disagree with these principles, then please ask me about it or explain why you think they are incorrect. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"reverting vandalism"[edit]

This edit summary strikes me as very inappropriate. I had removed a caption [4] when removing the quote from the article's body. Adding a different caption is not reverting, nor was the removal in any way a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the project. Was that edit summary just a mistake, or does it reflect your judgement as a Wikiquote administrator? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsy daisy. Seems to be a gaffe. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get your opinion as to whether my citation fixes are "subtle vandalism" or if is rather Daniel Toms uncivil and disruptive behavior warrants correction?[edit]

[5] 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". CensoredScribe (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CensoredScribe: I'm afraid I can't understand what exactly you are asking of me here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 05:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

quoting non-notable persons directly from their blogs[edit]

I don't know why you insist on doing this, but the next time you add a "quote" (excerpt) directly from a blog that you happen you read by a non-notable person (not quoted in any reputable publication), I'll start a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard or Village pump on your very questionable additions. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Notice of discussion at Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion about some of your edits at the Administrators' noticeboard (also mentioned at the Village pump). I urge you to give serious consideration to the points being made there; and encourage you to share your thoughts in the discussion about what has happened and what should happen going forward. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Wyoming, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin board discussion[edit]

Hi there, could you please stop by at the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard and perhaps explain your ongoing vandalism? Cheers. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Admin board discussion[edit]

Hi there, could you please stop by at the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard and perhaps explain your ongoing vandalism? Cheers. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe[edit]

Hi Illegitimate Barrister,

Unsourced material is normally just moved to the talk page, so that other editors could restore some of it, and not removed here [6], [7], [8]. Could you restore those quotes on the talk page? Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These removed quotes were already listed on the talk page, as can be seen [9]. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the reminder. I just noticed I am even to blame here by restoring the article in a previous version here. -- Mdd (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Totten[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Michael Totten, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mdd (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Totten[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Michael Totten, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Michael Totten. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Mdd (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the size of the page by almost 10,000 bytes. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get your opinion on what constitutes a notable quote, particularly for about sections?[edit]

I've had a hard time getting others on board for about sections like for Toy Story Iron Man (2008 film) Halo (series) or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film). I'm also interested in what you think about the page for Graffiti as many of the artist are quite niche as I expect them to be for many of the art movements. I've heard Daniel Tom call me a more incompetent version of you for edit warring before which I feel is blatantly uncivil, as is discussed in the topic above your entry at the notice board. After looking at the list of your contended edits I thought perhaps we both might benefit from working together in reviewing one another's contributions. I think were you to create wikipedia pages the bloggers you are quoting to the category for American internet celebrities before adding quotes from them few would be reverted. What exactly makes Daniel Delaney Angry Video Game Nerd Leslie Hall, Maddox or Hannah Hart notable enough for wikipedia is beyond me, but perhaps you could find out what their criteria are, I would be interested what determines that and if it's as simple as having half a million views on youtube or a certain alexa site ranking.

Determining what was notable for DAESH was difficult for me, as it is for many politically charged subjects with lots of commentators, and more recent sources, on the web or even in academic journals continue to face hurdles in being repeated by secondary sources. I believe you've interacted with Y-S.Ko on the page for Virginia Tech shooting before, they were nice enough to create a page for Genetic engineering that includes memorable quotes from modern scientists that others may not deem notable for lacking wikipedia pages. There are other editors I've seen with differing views on what constitutes a quote being quotable and I think it is time we all begin working together toward a common goal of having our views eventually recognized as rules and guidelines. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the rule of thumb is that if a person has a Wikipedia page, then they are notable enough to be on Wikiquote. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Hockey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illegitimate_Barrister/Archive_1&oldid=2236297"