User talk:Nijikon

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Saikano[edit]

Your recent posts to WQ:AN would seem to indicate that you claim to be User:Saikano. If so, I will try once more to advise you on this situation.

At this point, you should not expect anyone to pay attention to your protests and your pleas. Your existing activities on multiple projects have built up quite a bad reputation, and the only way you might be able to fix this is to stop asking people simply to trust you. If you want trust, establish it by doing a lot of good-faith editing before you ask for a review of your situation. As long as you keep creating new usernames just to ask for reconsideration, you will only dig yourself in deeper.

This username is currently unblocked. If you continue to use it to complain, eventually it will probably be blocked, too, and we might deem it necessary to start blocking your IP(s) to prevent pointless creation of new usernames. If you instead use this username to do solid work on Wikiquote (that demonstrates that you've learned Wikiquote policies and guidelines) for a few months, you will provide the community evidence that you have turned over a new leaf, and might be able to gain new trust. I would warn you, however, that Wikipedia tends to be harsher, and would probably require a lot more evidence of contrition and cooperation for you to "fix it" there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!--Nijikon 12:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

KNXV/KTVK Tragedy[edit]

I did not delete this (though I thought about it). I proposed that it be deleted, which is different. Even though this page depicts a real (and horrifying) event, there is nothing in those quotes which is quoteworthy. Wikiquote is not a place to share any verbalizations that you find interesting, but a place to share the interesting thoughts and phrases of notable people and works of art. The transcript of a catastrophe is hardly the sort of thing you would find in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations.

To fix the page, first provide an introduction explaining what happened and why it is notable. Then find interesting, sourced quotations about the catastrophe from well-known, reputable sources. If you disagree, you may remove the {{prod}} tag (though you shouldn't do it without at least some attempt at cleanup). In that case, I will probably ask for a vote on the subject on the Wikiquote:Votes for deletion page. --Ubiquity 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anime quotes are on this site and there is NO sorce and NONTHING real importian about them, too the site, and yet they still stand! I have MUCH more quotes if thats what you'd like!--Lolicon 13:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

When a page is about a movie or a book, that's assumed to be the source of course. And if you see a page that you think does not measure up to Wikiquote standards, feel free to nominate it for deletion using either the Wikiquote:Proposed deletion or Wikiquote:Votes for deletion process. But a movie or a book is different from a real-life event. Wikiquote does want to have pages on creative works of art, it doesn't want to be a news filter. A transcript of a tragedy is not a quotation. In fact, it's very unlikely to even include quotable quotations, because when people are in trouble they don't take the time to think up cool things to say, but instead say banal stuff like "Oh, shit!". But yes, if you have notable, sourced quotations about this tragedy, you should consider posting them. If you mean you can include even more of the transcript, I don't think that will help. --Ubiquity 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion[edit]

Proposed deletion is not a vote. The {{prod}} tag indicates that someone (in this case me) thinks the page should be deleted, and gives anyone who wants to preserve the page a week to make fixes. As I pointed out before, you can even remove the {{prod}} tag if you disagree. In this case, I stated above that if you do that I will then ask for a vote, because I do not believe this kind of content (news transcripts) are appropriate to Wikiquote. At that time you will know exactly where to go to argue against deletion and to cast your vote. So, the following courses of action are open to you:

  1. Do nothing, and the page will be deleted sometime after 2008-01-15 14:46.
  2. Remove the {{prod}} tag without changing the page, and I will ask for a vote. Who knows, you may win. The voting process will also give us the opportunity to hear other points of view from the community, and will give you additional time to respond.
  3. Add quotes about the incident from reliable sources. The number and quality of the quotes will determine whether I think the page is then suitable for Wikiquote. I can't promise you that further quotes will change my mind.

People often have disagreements about what belongs in Wikiquote and what does not. This is one way of resolving these disagreements. --Ubiquity 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair Enought!--Lolicon 15:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Saikano[edit]

hi therefriend! Why did you do that to my saikano artical(or did you)?--Lolicon 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's not your article, even if you created it. It's Wikiquote's article. None of us owns the articles we create. The article's edit history provides the legal list of contributors (which is much more detailed than required by law, as it's usually possible to see every single character added or deleted by each contributor), but the overall copyright for the composition belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, which releases the material under GFDL.
Second, if you're going to ask someone, especially an editor that works on thousands of pages, "why did you do that", it's a very good idea to be specific about what "that" is. The more work you make someone go through to figure out what you're talking about, the less likely they are to respond, or at least to respond favorably. Furthermore, this is essential when you are editing with one username ("Nijikon"), representing it as something else ("Lolicon"), and (inappropriately) claiming ownership under two others ("Saikano" and "Saikano II"). Two basic ways to be more specific would be:
  • Say "why did you delete most of Saikano 2 days ago and write an insulting edit summary?". You don't need to be this detailed, but just saying "my saikano artical" isn't as clear as you might think. For one thing, since you adopted the name "Saikano", the phrase "my saikano artical" could refer to anything you've worked on. You must learn to realize that other people, whose concerns and experiences are different from yours, may not understand the same points from your posts that you are trying to make. (It doesn't help that you don't seem to know the basic spelling of common words here like "article", and don't seem to know how to use capital letters or spaces properly. This kind of txtspk implies a general lack of interest in being literate, in a project that is devoted to a literary purpose. You could hardly do more harm to your cause than if you were to regularly "shout" at your fellow editors.)
  • Use links. Wikiquote has an easy way to point people to an edit:
    1. Look at the edit history of the article. Each edit in the list has two round "buttons" to its left.
    2. Select the left button of the version before an edit (or edits), and the right button of the edit (or the last edit, if there were several in a row).
    3. Click on the "compare selected versions" button to see a page that displays the exact edit(s) listed.
    4. Copy the URL (the web address in the "address" window of your browser).
    5. In your posted comment, paste the URL you copied into something like the following:
      Why did you do [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Saikano&diff=671352&oldid=592208 this] to my article?</nowiki>
      When you save your post, it will look like this:
      Why did you do this to my article?
      Now whoever reads this can click on the link to see what you mean by "this".
Finally, as the edit history shows, I did not do "that". An anonymous (and incredibly rude) one-time editor removed much of your boilerplate text, leaving only a single quote. Any editor could have reverted the edit on the basis that it was a mass removal without explanation (tossing out an insult is not an explanation for a content change). If no one did, it is perhaps because much of the material that was removed didn't follow Wikiquote style guidelines (like inserting pointless and inaccurate comments like "*UNDERCONSTRUCTION!!!", failing to identify episodes by number to make ordering easier) and/or were not very good examples of quotes memorable for their words instead of their visual or aural elements, which aren't usefully communicated in a text medium like Wikiquote. We must recognize that Wikiquote's purpose is not to be a collection place for all quotes of anything, and especially not a place for fans to post their favorite scenes or moments that must be seen to be appreciated. There are many fan websites that do this, and it's easy these days to create your own as well. Wikiquote's purpose is to collect a subset of the very best, most memorable words from different works.
All of this does not excuse the rudeness of the anon's edit. If I were more active right now, I might have posted a note to his/her talk page and restored some of the quotes and maybe even the headings. You are welcome to do so, but please consider what I've said above in making your future edits. (And please leave out the "*UNDERCONSTRUCTION!!!" comments!) Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, generally agreed with Jeff, but a major-minor-picking. I am totally happy to agree on that there is no article mine or yours, since when we are releasing our submission under GFDL, then we agree it will be mercilessly edits and consequently possible collaborative edits, so we have no right to claim to keep it in a shape we prefer, but copyright is never transferred to any others, including the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WMF has a plain and strong attitude about it, and has never acted as a publisher (= the entity which is responsible for its content and also one of its copyright holder vice versa), but as a Internet service provider which hosts users' submissions eventually and without any pre-review before publishing. But again, since all editors are assumed to accept their submissions will be able to edit, it is totally unacceptable to claim to keep it fitting your preferences only because it is "your" article. --Aphaia 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I'd forgotten that bit about the Foundation's careful drawing of the line of copyright holding so that the rights are retained by the actual contributors. Sorry for the confusion. I think I let my contemplation of "compilation copyright" issues confuse me. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

KNXV/KTVK Tragedy redux[edit]

I proposed this for deletion, for the same reasons as before. Please do not remove the {{vfd-new}} tag from the document. Feel free to add your opinion to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion#KNXV/KTVK Tragedy. --Ubiquity 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

KnJ quotes[edit]

That's an interesting idea, but it seems to be better suited for a Japanese wikiquote project. Since there are no official dub/sub releases, all there really is to go by along the lines of english quoting would be fansubs and stuff and that's probably not official enough referencing for wikimedia standards. Tyciol 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)