User talk:Ningauble

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

Sumit Chowdhury[edit]

Hi Ningauble, could you give your feedback on the update of the article and comment I placed at Wikiquote:Deletion review#Sumit Chowdhury. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdd. Can you clarify one point before I comment there again: did you verify the quotation associated with his new book is actual text from the book rather than a synopsis about the book? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well to clarify, the problem from the start was that those quotes were not verifiable, and they still are not. If the book was online available and verifiable, I wouldn't have trimmed down the quotes from "Rules of the Game" (such as done here). To stipulate the fact that the text is from a prepublication, the attribution " Prepublications at rulesofthegame.in, 2014" was added (see here). If you think this is still not acceptable, you could improve it or (temporarily) move the quote back to the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that it has not been verified. I will think about composing a comment for the deletion review, to address this and other changes subsequent to the nomination, but I don't know if I will get to it today... ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ningauble, if you are not going to comment anymore, I will close the Deletion review. -- Mdd (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Please wait, I am drafting it now. Also, as the principal contributor of content in the current article revision, I would suggest you leave the decision to someone more independent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"maximum of one quote for an 11 minute short feature"[edit]

I spent 3 days transcribing quotes and you deleted my entire first page? Where does this rule you quote come from, did you just make it up? TotesNeato (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has deleted Xavier: Renegade Angel, or any other page that you edited.

I placed a {{checkcopyright}} notice on the article talk page because there seemed to be a lot of dialog transcribed for such a short format show, more than recommended at the draft Limits on quotations. I think the article could be improved by some judicious trimming, to showcase the most strikingly quotable bits. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

RomaineCorbould[edit]

I see you have blocked that user, but I think you should also leave a note on his/her talk page. OccultZone (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's just a spambot, the one known as NTSAMR. Attempts to communicate with them are futile. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow.. OccultZone (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

interwiki[edit]

Aren't interwiki links handled automatically now by Wikidata? Or is this still necessary? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to enter the links here if they are entered at Wikidata, but it's not fully automatic: they have to be entered somewhere. I don't hang out at Wikidata, but I presume folks there prefer links be entered there, and there are bots that can sort them out. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

hypocritical of you[edit]

to criticize Kalki for having driven a valuable editor away, when you yourself are doing the same now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This complaint is too nonspecific to address. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Should read: have done, rather than are doing, unfortunately. Here's a nice quote: "every Wiki has those non-productive quality controllers who think the Wiki should be protected against the people who actually build it." But hey, at least it made you happy. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I can only guess what you are referring to, and will not do so.

I am quite willing to address any grievances you may wish to present about specific conduct on my part (please cite diffs). Otherwise, this sort of generalized expression of disaffection is unproductive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for all the "italic title" formatting additions which you have been adding to the pages — I had intended to do much the same thing once I found out how they worked, but simply have not had the time to do many, as yet. ~ Kalki·· 18:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Little by little.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix[edit]

Thanks for fixing that issue for me. This is my first visit to Wikiquote (won't be me last), and I was wondering about the anonymous quotes. I understand now not to do that. Question: I think I understand you moving the other quotes to the talk page, they are attributed, but don't have a citation, correct? Or is there another issue with them? Any help/advice is greatly appreciated. (btw, love your own quote about what a quote is... and I will quote you on that) Onel5969 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, welcome to Wikiquote. Yes, that is why I moved the unsourced attributions to the talk page. See the guideline at WQ:SAU. I removed the anonymous remarks without copying them to the talk page for a couple reasons: firstly, without even an attribution there is not much basis for trying to research them, and if they are just things heard on the street then there may be little prospect of ever finding them in print; and secondly, when we have had uncourced anonymousities in our articles, it has tended to enourage people to start adding things they just made up themselves. That said, some anonymous sayings are widely repeated in print. They can be included by citing noteworthy sources that attest to their fame. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page due to 'unoriginal quote'[edit]

What if a quote is original? —This unsigned comment is by Bifs100andone (talkcontribs) 12:50, 15 August 2014.

Citing the original source of a famous quote is a good thing. See WQ:Q.

Note that the principal reason your contribution was deleted[1] is because the quoted person/source does not appear to be notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nerds article[edit]

I had read your reply on UDScott, although we had enough conversation there so I thought of bringing it here. I have created User:OccultZone/Nerd, you can check it. There are many quotes that are related with this particular word, I got about 12 but I am finding reliable sources. At least for now, 3 quotes might be enough for a article? OccultZone (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This looks like the right sort of quotations generally but, if I may be a bit of a quotation nerd, the attribution to Bill Gates is not a reliable source. According to Snopes[2] and Hoax-Slayer[3] the actual author is Charles J. Sykes, and Wikipedia's article about Nerds mentions that the attribution to Gates is incorrect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You are correct about Gates, please check the page again. OccultZone (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Blackwell[edit]

TY for the improvements, still learning, but puzzled as to why I'm redlinked on this page. Do I need to make a WQ acct or something, on top of my WP acct? All help welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a redlink because you have not created a userpage at Wikiquote. (Confused? You have a single unified login for all Wikimedia wikis, but at each wiki you effectively have a different account with its own "local" userpage.) If you want to avoid the redlink but do not want to author and maintain multiple userpages, then you could create a redirect by placing template {{interwiki redirect|Wikipedia:User:Narky Blert}} on your Wikiquote userpage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Meonian Lyre[edit]

That Alexander shall in you respire,
Without envying the
Meonian Lyre.

What does Meonian mean? (Homer's?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Meonia was the Homeric name for Lydia (or a people of that region whom scholars argue about). Homer himself is referred to as the Meonian Bard or the Blind Meonian. Poetic references to the Meonian Lyre indicate the epic renown of being sung by the great bard. Not envying the Meonian Lyre then means being worthy of praise by Homer himself. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. As to whether Alexander envied the fame of Achilles et al., I leave the vanity of world-conquerors to the contemplation of poets. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Camoens was referring to himself: he would surpass Homer by singing the young King's expedition to North Africa, if successful. Unfortunately, urging King Sebastian to war (or crusade) against the Moors proved unwise: the King died (without heirs), and most of the Portuguese nobility was massacred, in the battle of Alcácer Quibir. (Portugal lost its independence, and was under Spanish rule for 60 years.) What's interesting is that Sebastian did choose two Portuguese poets to accompany him to Alcácer Quibir (to sing and immortalize his campaign), but Camoens was not one of them. The King preferred the rather mediocre poets, Diogo Bernardes and Luís Pereira Brandão. (I don't know how Camoens felt about this.) The two poets were captured in battle, but wrote while in prison. Brandão's poem (published 1588) is now completely forgotten; I tried reading some of it, but although it has 18 Cantos, it is very hard to find any true poetry in it (despite the rhymes, it reads like prose). Just one or two stanzas of Camoens are worth more than Brandão's entire poem. One can only imagine what majestic monument Camoens' imagination, knowledge, and enthusiasm would have produced, had he been chosen to be the Homer of the new Achilles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
(I was not going to comment on the vanity of poets.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

spam[edit]

The recent changes list is being completely flooded by spam. Maybe the filters need to be improved. (Are they up-to-date?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have implemented a new filter for the most prolific spambot of recent days. (I worked on it yesterday but had some difficulty with the coding.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pornography quote removed[edit]

Ningauble, Why did you remove the quote I put from porn star Brandon Iron onto the pornography page? This is an actual quote from a porn actor which demonstrates how evil and perverted the porn industry is. And it's an actual quote that can be sourced. This guy actually said to a teenage girl that he would "f... her like a baby." He's a mainstream porn figure who is all over the internet and he actually said this to somebody. In the light of that creep Max Hardcore going to prison for pseudo child pornography, how is this quote not relevant? Especially as a reflection of how socially irresponsible and abnormal porn really is? Why did you remove it? Sorry I wrote this here, I don't know how to start a new talk thing. Sorry I wrote those other things I was annoyed at you erasing the quote for no reason. —This unsigned comment is by Quotemaaster (talkcontribs) 21:01, 16 September 2014.

Quotemaaster, I removed this quote because it is not expressly about the subject of the page. Being a quote from an industry production it may well exemplify some characteristic or attitude in the industry, but that is not the same thing as being the subject of the quote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ningauble, Thankyou very much for your reasoned answer. That makes sense and I can see what you mean. Again I'm sorry for losing my cool. Respect sir, respect

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you for your recent helpful contributions to Bomis and Hitachi Magic Wand.

Most appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about editing[edit]

Greetings. You put a people-cleanup tag on a page I put up a year or so back, remarking, "footnotes are deprecated." I took a look at someone else quote-worthy, namely Mark Twain, and I see that citations on that page are linked inline to the external sources, rather than using reference tags as WP does. I'm assuming that's what you meant, that the citations should be inline in the text rather than footnoted in a reference section? Thanks for your help. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the citations go with the quotes, as is standard practice in printed compendia of quotations, rather than in footnotes. Unlike Wikipedia, where citations are supporting information, quotation is the main event here, and citation is integral to it.

Citations for individual quotes are sub-bulleted immediately below each quote ("interlinear" citation); and for multiple quotes from a single work, grouped under one heading, citation details are placed immediately below the heading. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm quite familiar with WP but not as familiar with how things are done over here. I'll start making those changes. Thanks again! --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've inline linked all the references on the page. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Can tag be removed or have I missed something? --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ellipses.[edit]

Encoding ellipses makes it easier to see where they are being used intentionally. I do not think that Wikipedia style recommendations carry over to this project - we have many other variations in style from Wikipedia. BD2412 T 16:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the rationale for the Wikipedia recommendation is a sound one. (Perhaps I am a bit old fashioned, having formed typographic habits before it was first added to HTML 4.0 in '97.) In particular, the rendering of the composite glyph (where it is recognized) is browser dependent and even varies by context in a single browser. In my current browser it looks okay in the body of an article, it is slightly stretched in "diff" mode, and in the edit window it is very miniscule, which I really do not like.

I am not alone, as I distinctly recall other users "correcting" them by converting to three periods (but not in high volume assisted by automation). ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that the benefit of that is that in the diff mode, you can clearly see that the character is an ellipsis. However, since you have brought it up, I have taken that change out of my formatting script. BD2412 T 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. (I think encodings that render consistently are best.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi Ningauble,

Thanks for editing the page I uploaded yesterday. Wanted to let you know that the publisher of my 20 books is working on the Wikipedia page to link to. I didn't realize I had put the egg before the chicken. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.160.81.176 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2014‎

I assume you refer to the Bonnie Louise Kuchler article, created and edited by user BonnieKuchler while logged in. I want to let you know that you and your publisher might find it helpful to review Wikipedia's guidelines on Conflict of interest and Autobiography before attempting to write about yourself or your works. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

One IP user (95.172.74.62) is trolling me, making outrageous claims he knows where I live and what disability I have. I request that you block him (and any other IP he uses) indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, but more importantly, I want any and all edit summary/summaries with an outrageous claim of knowledge of personal information (including the one the IP just mentioned) removed, lest anyone else finds out. WikiLubber (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Alireza Salehi Nejad[edit]

Hi Ningauble, I have received your message. It's a bit confusing to me. Could you provide me with a guidance, or kindly take a moment that we address the issues on email. (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (GMT) —This unsigned comment is by Arashtitan (talkcontribs) 15:04, 12 January 2015‎.

See Wikipedia's general guideline for determining notability. If you want to discuss it, please do so on-wiki rather than using email. Unless confidentiality is strictly necessary, it is best to hold discussions where other users can review and comment on the matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk) 15:38, 12 January 2015 (GMT) —This unsigned comment is by Arashtitan (talkcontribs) 15:38, 12 January 2015‎.

Malarka[edit]

He's the same vandal, should be indef-blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hannah Rothschild[edit]

All right, Ningauble, for me there is no problem if you want delete the article, really there is not this article in wikipedia. --Wiki Wisdom (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Check-user?[edit]

It has been brought up that we need a local Check-user. Based on your fairly steady participation and lack of excessive drama - and the fact that you're not a 'crat, so there should be no concerns about an excessive concentration of user rights - I would like to nominate you for that position. What say you? BD2412 T 04:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ningauble, I'd support you, but we'd need a minimum of two per site. And we'd need to get 25 local support votes. Per m:Checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
(I am well aware of the global policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
  • I appreciate the expression of confidence, but I am not sure about this. It has been brought up before, but I was reluctant to involve myself in the personally identifying information of bad actors.[4] I am also not very desirous of making myself the go-to guy for drama queens.[5]

    I am frankly finding it difficult to see any point in having local checkusers when we have no clear local policy about using multiple accounts [6] (and little prospect for developing one) and where, e.g., a clear case of puppet vote stacking[7] is speedily excused[8] before people who avoid excessive drama even get a chance to sift through mass quantities of hysteria and obfuscation or to, here's a thought, look for evidence to be developed.

    I would be reluctant to undertake this unless (a) there is clear consensus in the community about policies for using checkuser tools, and (b) there is clear consensus in the community about policies for the activities that the tools are used to investigate, and (c) there will be a quorum of at least three regularly active checkusers to evaluate evidence and interpret policy together.

    Even if these were the case, I am not entirely sure it would be worth my while because I am very disillusioned by directions the Wikiquote community has lately been drifting. I might be persuaded that it would not be entirely futile and would achieve more than what the Stewards already provide, but I am not seeing it right now. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    I'll accept the nom if you will, and if we can find a third editor likely to pass the nomination process. I do wonder, however, if we can get 25 local editors to vote in anything at all. I also agree that we need a sockpuppetry policy. BD2412 T 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD: removal of introductory content[edit]

The following post, to which the subsequent subsection evidently replies, is copied here from User talk:Cirt.

I noticed, via my watchlist, that you have recently (Feb. 19–20) visited numerous articles I created or edited over the years and have removed information from the article introductions. In the spirit of WP:BRD I am offering a general explanation of why I am reverting most of these removals, to wit:

  • A brief description of why the subject is notable is entirely consistent with the policy language at Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia, as drafted by me and endorsed by you.[9][10] Some of these introductions could probably be better written, but I believe the articles are not improved by simply removing the brief descriptions of what a person is notable for doing and/or what distinguishes a subject from others of its kind. The benefit of this information may be illustrated with some impartiality by an example of something that I did not write myself and was taken directly from Wikipedia, which you removed here: simply stating the person's occupation and an affiliation says nothing to identify why he is notable, or why anybody might be interested in quoting what he said about whatever it is he is known for doing.

I have only given a general explanation with a single example because your removals were quite numerous and I think the general idea is broadly applicable, although I recognize that individual cases may involve special circumstances.

If you disagree about some particular cases, please feel free to discuss it on the article's talk pages. On the other hand, if you disagree categorically then it would be better to open a central discussion of the underlying principles than to create scattered discussions relating to one general issue. The latter course would be particularly appropriate if the reason for your targeted review of articles listed at User:Ningauble#Contributions is because you believe I have been systematically doing something wrong.

Otherwise, please leave them alone. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple replies[edit]

Don't have much time at the moment, but might go through in the future on a case-by-case basis, as some of them were redundant to en.wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed up a few that had in-line citations in the lede paragraphs and some systemic cleanup issues. -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Noticing a few systemic issues, particularly: (1) Verbose intro sects, (2) In-line cites in lede sects, (3) Large external link sects bordering on linkspam. These should all be liberally trimmed for cleanup purposes. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, since you have expunged my original post[11] I am reproducing it above. Hiding or obscuring one side of a discussion in progress is not conducive to coherent deliberation and, insofar as you aver there are "systemic issues" here after I suggested that a centralized discussion would be appropriate if you feel this to be the case, redacting my opening statement is, at best, an impediment to forming community consensus on a matter in dispute.
Secondly, regarding your initial point and subsequent numbered points above: (0) Adapting Wikipedia's introduction for use here is a very common and well established practice of many users, including longstanding administrators. Redundancy with external sources is hardly a problem as quotation itself is redundant. (1) The example cited above hardly fits the description of "verbose". Most of the introductions that you truncated consisted of only two or three brief sentences. Even if you feel the wording might be more concise, that is no reason to expunge any indication of why the subject is notable. (2) There were very few of these, hardly a systemic issue. (3) I said nothing about external link sections. Please do not change the subject, which is "removal of introductory content".
Finally, if you believe these are "systemic issues" they will need to be discussed at a central location to arrive at a community consensus. Would you prefer to use the Village Pump (to consider changing established policy and practice), or the Administrators' Noticeboard (to consider problems with the targeted individual's contributions), or is there another venue you think would be more appropriate? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like outstanding issues with intro lede sects being too verbose, in-line citations in ledes, and too much external links, are now only limited to a smattering of articles. These can be dealt with in the future on a case-by-case basis, as we are doing in a polite and cordial manner at Talk:Science fiction. -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "issues with intro lede sects being too verbose" have been resolved by observing that there was in fact no such issue with most of your excisions and reverting them.

No, I do not consider the stream of impertinent objections you have been raising at Talk:Science fiction#Trimmed lede intro sect to be "polite and cordial". Just like the targeted butchering of articles I created or edited, I consider them harassment. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)