User talk:DanielTom

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

This is DanielTom's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to DanielTom.

All I know is that it's not a genuine quote[edit]

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Re. this edit to the Socrates article:  Famous, yes, but bogus. Apart from the fact that this is actually Plato using Socrates in a fictional sense, it is a horrible translation of Plato's Republic. See discussion at Talk:Socrates#"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" and the Wikipedia article about this well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of Socrates. Note that the latter does not even mention The Republic, to which it is attributed here – it is a totally bogus attribution.

What would you think about moving this "quote" to the misattributed section? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK I moved "All I know is that I know nothing" to the misattributed section. DanielTom's point is still valid, that a more famous quote should be first, so I put "The unexamined life is not worth living" as caption for the first image. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ningauble: Wow, I did not know that! @Peter1c: Thanks for fixing it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ningauble: Sir Anthony Kenny, in his Preface to An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy, writes that Socrates "claimed that the only wisdom he possessed was his knowledge of his own ignorance." Not a good start. 🙈 ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I wrote him an email, and he answered that his statement is "supported both by the Apology passage and the Diogenes Laertius quote". (He is most likely referring to Apology 21d and Lives 2.5.32.) Still, the claim "...the only wisdom he possessed..." (emphasis mine) is probably too strong. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for removing that bullshit "mace" quote from the D Trump article! I knew I was forgetting something after I removed it from the I Trump article!

Damn, that's embarrassing. I could have sworn that was a legitimate source. Ah well. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Many otherwise reliable publications run quotable quotes columns that are completely unreliable. This sort of filler material is neither original reportage nor properly cited research. It has always seemed bizarre to me that the editorial standards of legitimate publishers permit it, but it is a well established tradition. Reader beware! ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr Trump[edit]

Today, Mr Trump stated that burning the American flag should be punished by "perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail".

I feel that such an extreme statement, indicative as it is of Mr Trump's overall philosophy of government, freedom of expression, and the validity of the American Constitution, should have greater prominence on the Wikiquote repository than simply being shoved at the bottom of the list of things he said in 2016. (And if you want to argue that it's not indicative of his overall philosophy, why did he say it?) I propose that this be made the caption of one of the images. Which would you prefer? DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you add the quote along with a new image? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Michael Scott Gallegos" review[edit]

I hate to ask for favors, but if you have a few minutes to look at Michael Scott Gallegos and feel that it falls within the requirements of the Wikiquote community to be retained, I would appreciate a vote to keep the article. I understand that if you do not believe that the article is worthy of retaining, you will not be able to vote in its favor. Sorry for the late notice, but the vote closes: 18:00, 15 December 2016. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and for all of the good works that you continually contribute to the Wkiquote project. ELApro (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I left a comment there, don't know if it will help or hurt. (I rarely, if ever, !vote to delete articles other users worked hard to create – but understand that admins sometimes need to be more relentless.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your time, your opinions and your contributions are much appreciated. Thank you once again. ~ ELApro (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Apollonius of Rhodes[edit]

Hi DanielTom. Just wanted to say κῦδος for the Apollonius of Rhodes article. ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Peter1c. :) DanielTom (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know Greek, Peter1c. I wish I did. What about you – are you taking Greek classes at divinity school? (If you don't mind me asking, of course – just thought you might like to read the New Testament in its original language.) My favorite quote from the New Testament is,

  • The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.[1]

(Luke 17:20–21 KJV), but ἐντὸς ("within") is often translated as "among" or "in your midst". This is consequential because the first translation makes Jesus sound wise, while the others make him sound egomaniacal and delusional (from my perspective).

The Greek alphabet is easy, but learning vocabulary (and grammar) takes too much time and energy for me, at least for now (John Ogilby, the translator of Homer, began to learn Greek at fifty-four). So I have to rely on translations. There's only one translation into Portuguese of the Argonautica (from the 19th century) – which has a beautifully written introduction and many valuable notes, but archaic language. Of those into English, Francis Fawkes's translation is probably the most poetical, but suffers from the same problem (antiquated words). The Loeb translation is more readily understood, but also more than a century old. For Wikiquote purposes, E. V. Rieu's translation (the one I used the most) is nearly perfect because he – like Robert Fagles, another modern translator – seems to have paid special attention to famous passages, which are not always well rendered in translations of long poems. I was only disappointed with his rendering of the famous simile:

  • Her heart fluttered within her, restless as a patch of sunlight dancing up and down on a wall as the swirling water poured into a pail reflects it.

which in the Loeb translation is more faithfully rendered as:

  • And fast did her heart throb within her breast, as a sunbeam quivers upon the walls of a house when flung up from water, which is just poured forth in a caldron or a pail may be; and hither and thither on the swift eddy does it dart and dance along.

(E. V. Rieu evidently thought he could improve upon Apollonius by omitting the mention of the "caldron", as Virgil did, but that goes beyond the duties of a translator.)

Lastly, he sometimes (I should say apparently) doesn't realize the full potential of certain passages. E.g., the description of Medea's reaction to Jason's words:

  • Thus he spake, honouring her; and she cast her eyes down with a smile divinely sweet; and her soul melted within her, uplifted by his praise, and she gazed upon him face to face. (Loeb translation)

is rendered by Rieu as:

  • Jason's homage melted Medea. Turning her eyes aside she smiled divinely and then, uplifted by his praise, she looked him in the face.

(Maybe he thought "her soul melted within her" too commonplace in ancient Greek poetry, having previously translated Homer's Iliad and Odyssey – I can't be sure.)

In any case, I'm very happy to have his translation. (I got it as a Christmas gift.) Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DanielTom. I noticed that you drew on multiple translations in creating the page, and I was also impressed with the references to earlier influences like Homer and later authors influenced by the poem like Virgil. I took one year of Greek, which is just enough to learn all the noun and verb forms ("morphologies" as our teacher liked to call them). One year is enough to be able to sit down with a text and a dictionary and understand it. If you wanted to do it on your own, all you need in Hansen and Quinn's Intensive Course. Some of my colleagues in classes here have enough vocabulary to sight read Greek without a dictionary, but I don't expect to ever reach that level. For New Testament, the software tools and online counterparts like will analyze the word forms for you, so you could do exegesis and write papers without even knowing all the morphologies. Regarding ἐντὸς in Lk 17:21, do you see "The Kingdom is among you" as egomaniacal because it would be Jesus equating himself with the Kingdom, as if to say, "I am among you, therefore the Kingdom is among you"? That would make sense. Another way of interpreting "The Kingdom is among you" is to say that the interlocutors of Jesus are living in the Kingdom already, but they just don't recognize it, because they devote their attention to idols and worldly rulers and allow the way they look at the world and each other to be determined by the values of the world rather than living by the true teaching of the Law and the Prophets (as Jesus interprets it). Translating ἐντὸς as "among" gives the sense of what we call realized eschatology, where the Kingdom isn't just in the future, but in the present, and not just inside individuals, but also in relationships among individuals insofar as they are guided by right interpretation of Law and Prophets rather than by the world and its rulers. I think reading "within" and "among" for ἐντὸς both evoke a useful idea. When we are alone contemplating God, His Kingdom is within us. When two or more of us gather together in the name of God (or in ecumenical and interfaith settings, in the name of kindness, awareness, justice, mercy, virtue, truth, etc.), then the Kingdom of God is among us. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi back Peter1c. I think you covered all the bases, and agree with most of what you say. I've been busy this week, but should have thanked you sooner for your thoughtful response (and book recommendation). You gave me much to think about. Take care, and best of luck with your studies. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm way out of my league here, but your explanation of "realized eschatology" made me go back to Bart D. Ehrman's Forgery and Counterforgery, which deals in part with eschatology (e.g., section "The Theology of 2 Thessalonians", pp. 163 ff.). Again, knowledge of Greek is essential for many of these passages. I did some research regarding "ἐντὸς", and found this comment by Ehrman (who, as you can tell, is my "go-to" expert on the New Testament):

  • Luke 17:21-22 does not say the Kingdom is within individuals. It says it is "in your midst" – []i.e., in your presence. For Luke, Jesus manifested the kingdom during his public ministry. It has to mean that (from the Greek) because otherwise Jesus is telling his enemies the Pharise[e]s that the Kingdom of God is inside of *them* [–] which he certainly didn't think.

But I think it is fair to say that Jesus (like all enlightened individuals) gave great importance to the present moment, as is evident in his (probably immoral) teaching "Take no thought for the morrow" (which, if interpreted literally, would do away with savings, and hence investment and prosperity). Actually, to be even fairer to Jesus, the evil of his teaching is alleviated by the previous verse: "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33 KJV, emphasis mine). To me, this sounds like a professor telling you not to worry about grades: study first, and good grades come naturally (as a by-product). ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.


Do you have a calendar?

Do you understand that the page was created before she was confirmed?

Do you understand that those are the most common BDV quotes I found? Everyone was talking about how her influence-buying line and her grizzly line. I tracked down their sources and put them in. Isn't that what's supposed to be done?

Do you understand that I don't participate in your country's electoral bullshit, so I'm not 'opposition' ? Doesn't your neck hurt? DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Re. "I don't participate in your country's electoral bullshit" – relax and take a deep breath. You don't know what my country is. Now compare your biased intro, "Betsy DeVos is an American lobbyist", with Wikipedia's (at the time): "[Betsy DeVos] is an American businesswoman, philanthropist, and noted political campaign contributor". Once you get over your neck pain and read my message again, you'll realize I only complained about the intro being biased ("Very biased intro (fixed by an admin)"), not the quotes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
How is it 'biased' to not go into detail? I wasn't sure what she did for a living, I knew she was involved in lobbying, and "lobbyist" is accurate. If you find something that you consider insufficiently detailed, expand it. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ovid quotation?[edit]

Salve, I found this quotation on Ovid's talk page and I wonder if you recognize it?

"The high-spirited man may indeed die, but he will not stoop to meanness. Fire, though it may be quenched, will not become cool."

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"From the Hitopadesa" (see here, p. 157). Vale. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You're right; see here: Hitopadesha How did you find that so quickly? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Trade secret: simply type "The high-spirited man may indeed die" into Google. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Laudant quod non intellegunt[edit]

Unrelatedly, I want to share something with you:

ignorantes enim damnant quod non intellegunt
stulti autem doctorum, laudant quod non intellegunt

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Cf. "When Socrates had read, as authors note, | A certain book that Heraclitus wrote, | Deep in its matter and obscure beside, | Ask'd his opinion of it, he replied, | «All that I understand is good and true, | And what I don't is, I believe, so too.»" —John Byrom, "Socrates's Reply, Concerning Heraclitus's Writings" in Miscellaneous Poems (1773). (Socrates was no fool.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand my intended meaning. The example of Socrates laudans quod non intellegit is an interesting thought, but I had in mind Disumbrationism and the Sokal hoax as examples of "laudant quod non intellegunt".
"The ignorant condemn what do they do not understand.
While educated fools, what they do not understand, may praise."
Also, consider this variation of the Latin: soli autem stulti doctorum, laudant quod non intellegunt
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

IP vandals[edit]

We've got a serious case of IP addresses (presumably from the same vandal) continuously making vandalism edits by any or all of the following:

1. Adding unneeded emphasis to quotes.
2. Copying/pasting directly from DVD/Blu-Ray subtitles (which are highly unreliable).
3. Adding extra quotes when the article already has enough.
All without explaining their edits in the edit summary.

And on the following articles:

The Shrek series
The Toy Story series
Chicken Run
The Incredibles
A Bug's Life
Monsters, Inc.
Mike's New Car
Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) (adding a line from an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants that is NOT part of the film!)
Aladdin (1992 Disney film)

And I am positive that there will be more victims unless these IP addresses are blocked indefinitely and the articles (not just the ones listed) are protected indefinitely. These vandals will not stop. They keep getting new IP addresses every hour or so. I already reported this fiasco, but I am still awaiting a response. WikiLubber (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I regard you as Wikiquote's leading expert on ancient Greece and as such ask your thoughts on whether pederasty should be a page distinct from pedophilia and whether or not quotes on pederasty should be added to the page for homosexuality.[edit]

I was wondering whether you would consider the quotes on the wikipedia page for Pederasty in ancient Greece to be acceptable to add to the page for pedophilia, and if an additional page for pederasty would be warranted, in your expert opinion. Also, whether said wikipedia quotes should be added to the page for homosexuality as well, given the very high potential for offensiveness in equating pedophilia with homosexuality. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an "expert" on anything. Do feel free to create a page for pederasty—if you come across any memorable quotes about it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
No thanks, your unusual ordering of publisher, title and date in your post on my talk page made 23:26, 2 January 2016, made me think you'd been published before. I guess you're just a talented amateur in the areas on which you write, which makes me wonder if wikiquote has any professionals writing on their fields. I look forward to any news articles that may be one day be published about wikiquote, which may finally mention you in print. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Latin proverbs[edit]

Superb, DanielTom! The Finnish site is still more complete. --Risto hot sir (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


For a user taking a Wikibreak, you sure do edit a lot. ;) Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm an addict. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello! These specific years have been used recently with Japanese poets - has UDScott the same opinion as You? --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Risto hot sir. I don't know about UDScott, but if I remember correctly Ningauble spent a lot of time deleting such overly specific categories a while back. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Tervehdys! Look at Dairin Soto! But You are right: before year 1000 it doesn't perhaps make sense to write the exact years, 'cause there are so few people...--Risto hot sir (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC) - Well, You may continue to undo these "too specific years", I dont' care, but UDScott will correct them. --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)- "Blocked?" - those red links will change to blue just after UDScott has time to create new categories. There are many categories of 1500-century's people already (specific years). Someone must write the years again, and I suppose it won't be You... --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Please stop removing valid categories and putting in their place non-existent (red) categories. To me what you're doing is close to vandalism, not to mention extremely lazy and rude (because it forces other users to clean up after you). Create the categories first. Only then can you use them in articles. It's not so hard. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll follow only UDScott's orders (who understands the whole picture). And I'm writing only facts. --Risto hot sir (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
First of all, Risto hot sir, I am certainly not in charge here - we are a community rather than a dictatorship (and I can certainly be wrong) and DanielTom has just as much to say about how this site works as I do. Secondly, the point I believe that DanielTom is making is for you to follow through on what you are adding. Rather than just adding a red link, go ahead and create the category so that the link is no longer red. It is similar to what I was asking you to do for other pages you created. I cleaned up some of them to show you how, but I never planned to continue to follow after you and clean up your incompletely formatted pages. Please take this to heart and discontinue creating things that others must fix for you. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I'm too lazy at editing. --Risto hot sir (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) - And those Japanese haikus are visually much better, I think, than the terrible site of Nietzsche, where someone tries to explain with thick letters what's most important in Friedrich's philosophy. --Risto hot sir (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disputed or misattributed[edit]

You restored a claimed quote by an editor which I removed because none of the sources actually claim it as subject Tipu Sultan’s sayings nor written by him. You adviced to move it to disputed or misattributed section. But there is no reliable source claiming it as his quote, nor has it ever been traditionally attributed as him having said it or having written it. The only one claiming it as his saying is the editor Jedi3 who added it. I can't claim something misattributed or disputed because a Wikiquote editor claimed it as the subject's saying. There is no such rule. 00:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That quote ("My victorious sabre is lightning for the destruction of the unbelievers.", &c.) was inscribed on Tipu's sword. See this. I looked at Wikipedia's article on Tipu Sultan, and it also quotes that sword's inscription. What's the big deal? (Wikiquote also quotes the inscription on Muhammad's sword, for example.) Even if the inscription wasn't written by Tipu, it should still be retained—either moved to a "Misattributed" section, if you can show/clarify that it is a misattribution, or to the "Quotes about Tipu" section—and not just removed from the page. Let me know if you disagree; or start a discussion at Talk:Tipu Sultan. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The deal is whether it was even his statement in actual. Kings have many inscriptions dedicated to them, but that cannot be used as their statements. I checked the source added by the editor Jedi3 when he claimed the sword inscription was Tipu's saying. However, the source never claims the inscription was Tipu’s sayings. You can check the source yourself here. We should not attribute something to a source which it never said so. The claim of Jedi3 is unsourced. I checked the policies and WQ:SAU allows removal of unsourced sections. 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the description "His [Tipu's] sayings" went too far because it isn't actually supported by the cited source. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I also checked the Muhammad article to inquire about your comments. The article however never calls the supposed sword inscription as a fact, it only uses the term sword inscription in the quote itself. The "inscription" is actually mentioned as part of a "Quote about Muhammad by Muslims". The reference note never says it as inscription from Muhammad's sword, nor claims it was said by Muhammad. It only claims the supposed inscription is a quote by Muslims. "Sword inscription" or actually "Inscribed on the Prophet's sword" is part of the quote itself. You can see it here: Muhammad#Quotes about Muhammad by Muslims. This is unlike Tipu Sultan, where the inscription is claimed as his saying. 01:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That's why I said the quote could be moved to the "Quotes about Tipu" section even if it wasn't written by Tipu. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
You only referred to misattributed and disputed in your edit summary. Though I'll support the inscription in "Quotes about". I think it should follow the style of Muhammad. The quote should start with "The sword of Tipu On the handle of Tipu's sword presented by Major Allan to Marquess Wellesley was the following inscription", otherwise it doesn't seem like a Quote about. Problem is it will be somewhat changing the exact langauge as Allan is referred to "him" and "Tipu" is not adjoined to the sword in the statement. But the previous statements on source's page 2697 (302 on Archive's slider) in the source make it clear they are referring to his sword given to Marquess Wellesley. However, I don't know whether it is allowed by rules and policies. 02:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the statement which makes it clear Tipu's sword is referred to, The sword of Tipu, ie., the one he usually used and reckoned distinctively his own, being one usually placed in his Musnud, was presented, on behalf of the British Army, by Major Allan, Deputy Quarter-Master-General in person, at Madras, to Marquess Wellesley. We can add it verbatrim or shorten it, though that creates the same problem of not being accurately quoted. Then the statement about it having an inscription and the inscription itself added. There's also the statement of Allan visiting the Marquess Wellesley and being promoted to Honorary-Aide-de-Camp in the source, they will make the quote unnecessarily lengthy if added. 02:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I forgot quote statements don't need to be precise. So here's my suggestion on how to start the quote under "Quotes about Tipu": The sword of Tipu was presented by Major Allan to Marquess Wellesley. The inscription on it read: and then the italicized inscription can be added in the quote. Is it okay enough? 02:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not remember having added the sword inscription quote to the article. However, MonsterHunter has been removing quotes with often poor excuses from a large number of articles. As was explained to him, quotes should not be removed altogether, but instead moved to a Disputed or Misattributed section. See Template:Remove. For example, he removed quotes by fiction writer Wilkie Collins under the pretext that fiction writers quotes are not allowed and the quote is not historically accurate. I disagree, quotes by fiction writers are important, and quotes, especially by fiction writers, do not have to be 100% historically accurate (which should be plainly obvious to any reader, since it is fiction). --Jedi3 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
For clarifcation, what I meant to say is that quotes do not have to be 100% neutral, which you seem to imply, when you say the quote (from a fiction book!!) has to be 100% historically accurate. Almost every quote on wikiquote has some sort of bias, it is what makes many quotes memorable in the first place. What you may consider biased quotes others may consider just factual or critical observations. Your own additions to the Wilkie Collins article could be described as having an anti-feminist, anti-Christian bias. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@ I went ahead and added the quote to the About section, see diff. Feel free to tweak it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If quotes by fiction writers are allowed then basically anything can be allowed. My problem is not your dispute with others. Historical inaccuracy can become equal to a lie. Also the quote of Wilkins you added was not really about Tipu Sultan himself. The major subject was "The Moonstone". It should be removed because it is not really about Tipu. 16:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Also sorry for attributing the sword inscription to you Jedi3. I got confused because of the large edits you added and wrongly assumed it was you as many of the quotes had been added only by you. The claim of the inscription scription being a saying had been added by User:Nvvchar. Sorry for that. Regardless, it was an unsourced claim as I read the source, but it never called it his "sayings". So I had to remove it. 16:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini[edit]

Hi, I see that you reverted my edit on Benito Mussolini. Could you please explain why? I provided a link to a contemporary, widely-circulated magazine supporting the new version of the quotation. In so doing, I corrected a misquote that cited as its source a comedy novel. Mareino (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Correcting misquotes is perfectly fine, but your edit removed at the same time (perhaps unintentionally; certainly without explanation) many other quotes. That's why I reverted it, as stated in my (admittedly somewhat ambiguous) edit summary. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Risto hot sir's Japanese Poet Articles[edit]

I agree with you that the articles made by Risto hot sir about Japanese haiku poets are inappropriate for inclusion on Wikiquote. If you will visit his talk page, you will see that we have argued about this extensively. I would appreciate if you told him so directly, as he has expressed that he would stop making these articles if you did so. Thank you in advance - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've expressed my concerns here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but he feels that is no longer relevant since a second source has been found. I do not understand this reasoning since he did not use the source when he made the articles and at most, that would only get rid of your second complaint. He has expressed that he wants to see what you would say now. And so, I personally, request that you express your complaints to him directly. Thank you - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
What do you think is the course of action from here? Should we nominate the articles for speedy deletion, add a deletion prod, put it to a deletion vote, or tag them for cleanup? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Deletion vote. Then the additional sources will be found - like in Doyu's case.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Risto hot sir, you are not seriously suggesting that we put all 102 articles on that vote? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's how democracy goes.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hoffmann's book is a collection of Japanese death poems. It has a very narrow focus. Category:Japanese poets has now been turned into a sea of pages with just 1 quote each, all about death, from that single source. Not very helpful. It would have been more sensible to create a page for Japanese Death Poems, in my opinion. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should move all the articles to that category, or should we delete them? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I meant a page (not category) for the book Japanese Death Poems. Of course it goes without saying that notable poets (with more than 1 poem, quoted in other sources) could have their own page. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Isn't the suggested page Japanese death poems a copyright violation?--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If it is a copyright violation in one page, how does spreading it over a hundred Wikiquote pages make it not a copyright violation? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If most of the poems are on one site, why to buy the book? But if those are spread over hundred pages the situation is very different. And according to Just a Regular New Yorker I'm the only owner of the book on the Tellus, so the publisher is only happy to have publicity.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
How should we go about this. Should we nominate each article for speedy deletion and give a link to this discussion as the reason? If we did so, Risto hot sir would have to make the new article since he has the book. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC) (Edit - This comment originally appeared before the previous one by Risto hot sir.)
They do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion at this point (unless Risto hot sir, as their author, himself requests it), but they can be speedy deleted once (if) their contents are merged into the page for the book (under "housekeeping"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Won't request it. The Death is the most essential and definitive subject in a human's life - unless most people don't want to think about that. The "housekeeping" is "Hebrew" to me.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with how many sites it is spread over. You are taking the information from a single book and copying it onto the website. That is not just a Wikiquote violation, it may be illegal. Furthermore, since you seem keen on quoting me, here is what I actually said; “no one other than you seems to have [the book]”. The key word there is “seems”. I wrote that because no other editors are using the book to edit. Lastly, the author is responsible for his own publicity. Violating his copyright is not a favor as it makes it no longer imperative for people to buy the book in the first place. If you wish, you can add SOME of these quotes to death. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The only thing that matters to me is to get people to THINK. Everything else is from Orwell's or Kafka's books.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Getting people to think is perhaps one of the key purposes of the Wikimedia Foundation and it's projects. However, I am not sure what that has to do with our discussion on how to handle the 102 pages you made. If this was meant as a suggestion, please clarify your meaning. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
These 102 pages have a lot of thoughts. If you don't understand haikus, what can I do?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, these pages "have a lot of thoughts", and yes, I understand haikus. Yet, that doesn't help us figure out what to do. If you would like to help, consider looking through each haiku. If you can find an additional source for it, than add it to the combined page. Once that is done, I will help you delete all 102 pages with the template {{db|housekeeping}}. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's vote!--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's vote about what? Please try to express you thoughts completely. These fractured sentences that bear little relevance to the topic at hand are not in any way helpful. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Lets' vote about the notability and the freedom of expressing your feelings!--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What I said before still applies. Through what medium do you want us to vote? How will "freedom of expressing your feelings" affect the status of these quotes as a probable copyright violation? Will the outcome of this vote determine whether or not you follow through with the plan that I outlined? I simply want to know if you will follow this plan. Vague comments about votes that have no place on Wikiquote to begin with, does not answer that question. If you do not like the plan, perhaps because it is too tedious a thing to do for something that may need to be deleted any way, than may I suggest a different option? How about you give your consent to speedy delete these articles? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, let's vote! That's democrasy! If you look at the palindrome conversations at many Wikipedias, for example, I've so far had the last word. Only silence have I met. You should give up.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You are the first person I have ever met who does not understand how to answer "yes" or "no". You haven't even attempted to clarify what you mean about a vote. Have you even read what I wrote in my previous post? As for your palindrome prowess, congratulations. I'm not sure what this has to do with what we are discussing, but congratulations nonetheless. In an attempt to preempt what I can guess you will write next, I give up. You are better at Palindromes than me. I prefer more intellectual pursuits. Now please, answer the question. Will you go ahead with the plan, and if not, will you follow my other suggestion of just doing a mass speedy delete? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Palindromes are very intellectual, I think. The plan will be: voting. We must obey what the users say.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I have wrote this before, but seeing as you have not received it, I will write it again. Through what medium do you want us to vote? How will "freedom of expressing your feelings" affect the status of these quotes as a probable copyright violation? Will the outcome of this vote determine whether or not you follow through with the plan that I outlined? I simply want to know if you will follow this plan. Vague comments about votes that have no place on Wikiquote to begin with, does not answer that question. If you do not like the plan, perhaps because it is too tedious a thing to do for something that may need to be deleted any way, than may I suggest a different option? How about you give your consent to speedy delete these articles? It is either that, or you agree to follow the following steps that I also already outlined; looking through each haiku. If you can find an additional source for it, than add it to the combined page. Once that is done, I will help you delete all 102 pages with the template {{db|housekeeping}}. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


At this point, since Risto hot sir doesn’t want to cooperate (see discussion above), should I go ahead and nominate the articles via speedy deletion on the basis of housekeeping? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Power to the people! --Risto hot sir (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
This question was directed to DanielTom, not you. If you wish to help, you can begin by cooperating and answering the question above. “Power to the people” does not help resolve this question, although I find it ironic that you bring this up a website being maintained not by employees, but by people. Regular people who give their time and energy to this project, who don’t have the patience to deal with users who only wish to disrupt the process by which this website is ran. However, since you insist, I will pose the question on the village pump, which I believe is what you meant by a “vote”. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The people decide! --Risto hot sir (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
And so they will... Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi! He's now the only English author, others are in the category English people. This is a problem also elsewhere. The authors and people mean practically the same, so one place is enough?--Risto hot sir (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC) - And for example People from Los Angeles: it might be useless to write that they are from California too. UDScott has made these kind of corrections.--Risto hot sir (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"He's now the only English author" because you've been removing categories from articles inappropriately. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
At Wq there are still massive categories like "Authors" and "Americans". Who needs them?--Risto hot sir (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove boldface from most "Last words"[edit]

Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for correctly attributing that quote of the day[edit]

Thanks a bunch for catching that mistake! That was from a quite a while ago, if I'm not mistaken, as terrible of an editor as I am now, I was considerably worse before, though graphing that seems to lie outside your current interests. I believe it is also the only time I've ever attributed someone who never said such a quote, compared to my usual mistake of thinking a quote is relevant when it is not, (I've been wrong on the originator of quotes before but the people I attributed did say some variant.) The odd thing is I just gave you another talking point against Kalki, so you should actually be thanking me. Before I say anything more, I'd just like to note your demeanor has been quite professional recently witha considerable decrease in personal insults, and your edits to classical literature continue to be some of the best on wikiquote. However I do dispute the idea I care about my edit count, that you've insisted on, when we can just add quotes to our user pages to inflate it that number means far less than the number of distinct pages edited, which is not a figure you've ever accused me of trying to inflate, even though it's the better gauge of the breadth of an editor's knowledge, compared to measuring something more abstract like total edits that could simply reflect a particular active vigilance on a small number of pages, say for the popular movie of the month. So congratulations, you are smarter than someone who was deeply depressed at the time because of events I hope you're fortunate enough to have never experienced. I don't suppose you know any good quotes on rape you'd like to bestow us with? I'd love to know what you know of that particular subject to help any not luckyfortunate enough to get to remain pure of such prurience. Har har, hilarious, a partially incorrect citation, what a great punchline for the rape joke I was witness to. Thanks DanielTom :) CensoredScribe (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The fastest and easiest way to increase your edit count is to add categories to articles. Just keep in mind you were banned from Wikipedia for adding inappropriate categories. In fact, you should already have been blocked here for much the same reason. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Just as you should have been banned for abusing edit summaries to soap box and pushing POV, %#$*^!, the rules here are not the same as Wikipedia. You don't have unlimited freedom of speech, if you did something stupid enough your many contributions would not factor, Wikia can't ignore certain things that create legal issues regardless of how good an editor you are. It's not just crossing a legal line though, if it were discovered you were paid to add to wikiquote than you would be banned for paid editing as has happened to editors far more prolific than even you. Beyond that though, if I were to say you suffer from the list of mental illness I think you have I would be blocked, yet you are allowed to say I have the intelligence of a five year old for some odd reason. I'm confused what your politics are because I don't see you on the history pages for any of the major political or religious figures anywhere on the political spectrum, (with the exception of the most recent two presidents), so I honestly can't say you're bullying me for political or religious reasons, you seem to just hate me for bad editing, while I think you're just a bad person based off how you treat others. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't hate anybody. Now please stop flooding my talk page. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Likewise, I will delete whatever your next whiny complaint is on my talk page and post a discussion calling for you to be banned for a single day as a reminder you aren't allowed to diagnose other editors, just as I predict you will do to this section thus ensuring that you don't, so as to prove I can't predict you. I think you may be right about not hating, hatred is too below you, you're like one of those aloof cold blooded unfeeling pompous bishonen anime villains the fans love who never breaks a sweat or makes a mistake, you nothing me. Also on a technical level, your understanding of the fastest way to make edits is incorrect, based off your edits I do not believe that speed is your forte; making superfluous edits to your user page can be even faster than adding categories, because there is no rule I can't add a sentence there letter by letter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever been banned simply for doing that. Also, I'm no Go champion like you, however online chess often requires a time limit, what was/were yours during championships? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
1 hour each plus three 30 seconds byo-yomi periods. For the record, I don't play Go competitively anymore. I was never a very good player, anyway. But it is a great (if sometimes frustrating) game, and an art. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Behind my back[edit]

Another editor notified me that you complained to an administrator about an edit I made. I'm wondering why you didn't didn't notify me. I'm also wondering (a) what "suspicious motives" you believe I had for the edit about which you complained and (b) what criteria you applied to conclude I have made "very little edits/contributions here." Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The confusion is probably my fault, but I wasn't referring to you there. When I reverted you, I said that your edit was made in good faith, and I believe that. ~ DanielTom (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a forum[edit]

What I said is Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. I have nothing to hide as anyone can see my Wikipedia account. However, this is not a place for disputes and vengeance on other websites. The end. So yes, I will. Not a forum. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As for heads-up, my new account was created after the last one was blocked. That is why I was blocked again for being sock under block evasion. However, that is not the case here and the issue is anyway of Wikipedia. There's your heads up, which you can easily find by just going to Wikipedia so it is not "useful". If you want to restore it, you can ask admins about it whether an unrelated issues that can easily be found out needs to be restored. If they do, well. Until then, don't edit-war. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As always, it's you who are edit warring, not me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Except it was you who started reverting as always. You could have asked the admins earlier itself. But you didn't. You talk about contacting admins about an issue, but don't apply it to yourself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
False. You started reverting. You reverted Capitals00's edit about you; I restored it; then you reverted it again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's the truth which you omitted again: I did make a comment myself in between. My own comment too was removed. Not a revert. Now please apologize. MonsterHunter32 (talk)
I made a comment in between too, and you reverted it as well. I concede that you reverted not just Capitals00, but three users: Capitals00, yourself, and me. And you reverted Capitals00 yet again just minutes ago. Please stop wasting my time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
You didn't comment until after I first removed it first time. Truth is easily visible. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course. It would be impossible to comment on your removal before you made the removal. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
When I'm talking of first removal, you started bringing up your own comment. I have removed unrealted comments only using Wikiquote for their personal vendetta (including you). I didn't remove your latest comments, because it is related to Wikiquote. Admins will decide whether Capitals00's comment is per rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You win[edit]

I don't want to argue again. I've taken many insults, accusations and even admins have argued with me. So I'm permanetly quitting. I don't think there's even hope on getting back on Wikipedia since I abused and behaved badly in UTRS and IRC requests despite the offer.

I don't wish to add yet another user to tge list of those fighting me. So I'll quit and will let you restore all of Jedi3's edits. You can undo my removal. I've informed the admins on noticeboard. Jedi3 is under interaction ban so they'll see if it has to be lifted. But I'm quitting. So you can restore the content. My life is anyway destroyed. I won't be coming back. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I've restored exactly 0 (zero) quotes added by Jedi3 (and removed by you). The quotes we disputed were originally added by Cirt and Nvvchar. Once the interaction ban between Jedi3 and you (which, incidentally, you've again violated just now) expires, he can add his quotes back if he wants. I'm not going to do it for him. And don't be overly dramatic – your life isn't destroyed, you're editing under a pseudonym. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you know how many hours my edits took me? Do you even know what I've went through here and both personal life? That's why I said it was destroyed. I never had a bad intent but I'm a failure who gets kicked out of everything and gets berated. I don't want to take it anymore. Goodbye. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
You get no sympathy from me. You have wasted many hours of my life, and persistently attempted to defame me and get me blocked in the most malicious and unfair of ways. You are no saint. That said, no one is beyond redemption, and I do wish you well, for what little it's worth. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hope you do. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course. Don't worry about it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being forgiving and take care. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I remembered today that I hadn't restored the other comments, including yours, that I removed. So I restored them as well. Also I hope you didn't mind me originally omitting them. Thank you and goodbye. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)