User talk:DanielTom/Archive 1

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Hi, welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! --Abramsky (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Abramsky, thanks for the welcome message. Best wishes, Daniel Tomé 14:31, 26 December 2012 (GMT)

Bertrand Russell

Hi Daniel, I am sorry I didn't give you a direct response on your comment of 13:38, 23 January 2013 on the Talk:Bertrand Russell. The occurrence of a possible copyvio created a more or less urgent problem which has priority. I also apologize for possibly jumping to conclusion. I think if you start trimming articles or even start suggesting it, there will always be controversial. A series of people have contributed to that article to the best of their ability, and probably nobody will like it that there contribution will be trimmed or even removed. Trimming articles like you proposed will almost certainly disappoint several people, and should be treated with extreme care. Personally I think it should be a last resort if all other options fail. Also I tend to disagree that sub-pages are "page that only very few people read". I think sub-pages are an enrichment, which gives both us and the readers more options. If you have any questions about this, please respond here. There are different things playing at the same time, and I find it helpful not to try to discuss these thing all in one place. -- Mdd (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mdd, thanks for your time and explanations.
I only suggested trimming because I wanted there to be enough room in the main article for (what I consider to be) very important quotes that were being moved to other pages. I was happy to hear that there seems to be a better solution to the problem (putting a couple of key quotes in the main article from the books, with connections to the subpages). But I always shared your concern that trimming could "disappoint several people" and that is why I used the Talk page to hear other users’ opinions first. And you are correct about subpages, I didn't mean to belittle them, or the efforts of those who contribute to them.
I also agree with you that trimming "should be a last resort if all other options fail", and I truly never meant to upset anyone. Indeed, I am rather new to Wikiquote so sometimes I have to ask the opinion of more experienced users about some perhaps sensitive issues. Thankfully you and the other editors take the time to clear them up, and I appreciate that. Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, a champion. Kudos! I haven't played for years (as an unranked amateur). Did you know Wikiquote has an article on Go? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the kind message, Ningauble. I'm always happy to meet people who know Go (sorry to hear that you no longer play it). And thanks for telling me about that Go page, I will definitely check it out! Best wishes ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments. Please know that they are appreciated.

ELApro (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My hat goes off for you :) Daniel Tomé (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re. email

I prefer to reserve private email for situations that require confidentiality. Feel free to post criticisms on-wiki for community review. I will reply to your on-wiki rejoinder on-wiki. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, it seems we had the same idea at the same time. -- Mdd (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but not quite. Special Relativity shows that there is no "same time". Well, you're the engineer. :-p ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I choose mukburger (user gets kukunized) Mukburger 3 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you grow up? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm 43178941623412637012783213 years olkd. Mukburger 3 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Welcome talkback] Thanks

Hey There, thanks for the welcome, are you by any chance brazilian? Have some cookies. Eduemoni (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some cookies to you!
You are welcome. No, I'm Portuguese, but thanks for the cookies ;-) ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


At my contributions! -- 23:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, you're going to be blocked. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this the same user? I guess my contribs are full of reverts of this guy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, but thanks for your help! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why I vandalized

Someone deleted my perfectly good article called John Tripp and dissmissed it because, "It didn't have resources." Which it did, I did cite the progressive and yet someone deleted it. This is why I hate the Wikimedia Foundation, you find good information however a lot of articles are deleted for no F__king reason other than to censor stuff that not a lot of people know about! Trout the Wikimedia! 14:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to hear about your disappointment, but that's not an excuse for vandalizing articles. I would think you could find a better way to make your point. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Daniel, thanks for this link correction. I totally agree. -- Mdd (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, no problem. (-: Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the recent additions to the Stoicism page, but I wish to note that using the abbreviation Ibid is usually discouraged here, in preference to fully named citations (though not necessarily with repetitious links). One reason for this is that many casual wiki editors can often break up strings of such quotes, and make improper citations seem correct, and make actual corrections more tedious. Though an admirer of many stoics, and many stoic discernments, I too perceived many deficiencies in many manifestations of it, as Bertrand Russell and others have, and to include many sides of any disputations or arguments is usually a helpful thing to do, and thus some of your additions are very welcome. ~ Kalki·· 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC) + tweakReply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. My thinking was that we could use Ibid. if the same "block of text" (source) appeared over and over again, in order to avoid repetition, but I do understand the point you make. As to Bertrand Russell, despite his sharp tongue, I actually think that he was a Stoic himself, at least to some extent. Finally, hats off to you Kalki for creating that article! Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, sorry if we got in any edit conflict. I will leave it for now. -- Mdd (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all. The clean-up is all yours – great work! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much for the creation of this page. A couple days ago, I had grabbed a copy of one recent translation of some of the more ancient texts from my home to use at my current location, in preparation for a page on it in the next week or so. Now I might just add a few things in coming weeks.

On my mentioning of measures of intelligence levels in a recent argument about images — I can agree it might not have been the most tactful way to reveal that — but I had decided to begin to indicate some things about my past experiences in future weeks and months, beginning at a very early age — and I had realized that some things would not be easily understandable without some awareness of that fact — and a bit of irritation at the repeated denigration of the use of images as if they were to dismissed as something childish and infantile was something I was attempting to squelch a bit, in deciding to indicate it then, rather than waiting a bit longer in relation to other more general contexts. My initial draft of the note I posted actually had much more info about some other things, which might have clarified some of my intentions a bit better, but which I decided not to mention, as I realized I might not have much chance to be online for several days and adequately clarify some of them. As an absurdist I never expect to be able to communicate all I might wish to — nor fully understand all that others might wish to, but I remain resolved to attempt to indicate many of the things I believe to be vitally important and helpful, when I have the opportunity to do so. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much. I must say that at first it was rather hard for me to understand the text, perhaps because the translations were not very exciting, but then (luckily) I found that wonderful site from where I took those quotes, which made I Ching quite a joy to read through... As to your comment, I have already responded... I appreciate your battle... It could be interesting for you to write more about yourself in your User page. (I still don't understand why you call yoursel an absurdist!) Best wishes, Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Before I created my username Vouthon, I created an article here:

I would like to know how I can get these contributions under my IP address put under my new username?

Kind regards,

Vouthon (

Hi. Thanks for that article, and welcome to Wikiquote! Unfortunately, it's not possible to change the attribution for edits, which means that if you want your edits to be assigned to your account, you have to edit while logged in. Try to remember that from now on, it's important. :-) Of course, you can write on the talk page that it was you who created the article, if you like. In any case, don't be disheartened, your contributions are appreciated! Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It just came to me...

as I was making up the userpage, but since I am not really that brilliant, it was probably something that I heard a very long time ago, and stored deep in the sub conscious.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I think it is a wonderful motto to live by. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, you have added back a 429 words quote here. Now before we end up in an edit war, I would propose that we first discuss these matters before putting more quotes over 250 words back. -- Mdd (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the question here is, if you can make an (legitimate) exception to the copyright rule of "maximum of 250 words per quote, and in exceptional circumstances 272 words". And if we can make one, can we also make a dozen like in the former George Carlin article? I think we cannot, but if you think you can, we have to take this to the next level. -- Mdd (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only noticed your message now. While I accept the need to trim the old George Carlin article, which is something I am doing, and plan to keep doing in the future, there are also MANY quotes, in MANY other articles, that exceed the limit of "250 words". (And you misquoted that proposed policy, it doesn't say "in exceptional circumstances 272 words": the "272 words" are only given as an example.)
I don't know about you, but I myself have read all George Calin's books, and I know by heart all the words he said in his HBO shows. Do note that the George Carlin article has been and remained the same for YEARS, and I believe it is one of the most popular pages here. So if you want to delete something, it is you who have to discuss it in the talk page first. Otherwise you may end up keeping the more trivial quotes and deleting very important ones, which was exactly what happened. So, yes, I am adding BACK those important quotes to the article (slightly trimmed), and trimming the other quotes as I go.
That's my quick reply; as to your last line, you should, of course, do whatever you think is best. Yours, DanielTom (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should take all the time we need to sort things out, before adding any larger quotes back. You might have missed that I have shared my concern about this article two weeks ago, see here? -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read my message above? Major DELETIONS should be discussed FIRST in the talk page, as is the case with any MAJOR changes. I actually took the time to "sort things out", which to my mind doesn't mean deleting entire passages without even leaving a single line behind: please note that DELETING is different from trimming, as deleting ONLY TAKES A FEW SECONDS, and no effort at all. Now, I have just finished restoring the most relevant/important quotes (trimmed) to the article. (See here and compare the material before the trimming with it now, after my last edits.) DanielTom (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well here we seem to have a mayor disagreement. When it comes to upholding the copyright guideline "Inappropriately lengthy quotes will be trimmed or discarded, with a maximum of 250 words per quote", I think people don't need permission to proceed. Especially if they have shared there concerns earlier, and didn't get any response.
Also to keep it simple, we should not assume one can make an exception to the copyright guideline, whenever one feels like it. It seems like a good idea, that those exceptions should be approved on the talk page first. -- Mdd (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And one more thing. I already stipulated on the talk page, that I didn't trim the quotes but (temporarily) removed them (see here). My idea here is, that any expert can easily add appropriate sections (back), but layman cannot. Temporal removal should be a normal and acceptable option. -- Mdd (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extreme procrastination

Temporary Notice: don't expect me to be active in the next week or two. Studying for college is an unfortunate and painful necessity, but a necessity nonetheless. Time for me to suffer. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wish you well as well — your contributions have certainly been a very welcome and actively educational influence here lately — but certainly they should not come at the expense of neglecting necessary involvement in processes of education elsewhere. ~ Kalki·· 00:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for your kind messages. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for expanding the Story page so rapidly — and thanks again for your help at WIkipedia. I have to be leaving soon, but I figured I would simply make a note of appreciation before doing so. Blessings ~ Kalki·· 21:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, it was a pleasure. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ts'ao Sung

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ts'ao Sung, 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) 16:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop posting to my talk page

Please stop posting to my talk page, as I am going to attempt to follow this advice by admin BD2412 (talk · contributions). Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you stop blocking accounts that have zero malicious edits here, then we may have a deal. Otherwise, no. Potential contributors to Wikiquote are more important than your primitive desire to deface their harmless accounts and to use the " Confirmed" template. I think you are in serious need of psychiatric help. Please seek it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your last sentence is a personal attack. Please redact it. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's say I know someone who I think is (for example) considering suicide. What you're saying is that, basically, if I tell that person to contact a mental health professional immediately, that would be a "personal attack". But it isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alan Rusbridger

Hi Daniel, I didn't agree with you assessment on the Alan Rusbridger stub/start. In other cases tweets are considered quotes, so I added some context. Now you can still prod this, but hopefully somebody improves it. Cheers. -- Mdd (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mdd. Sure thing! I actually didn't think that was a quote (there was no intro, no context, no source, whatever). Even now I still can't see how "It's actually an observer piece" could ever be considered a notable quote, but okay, thanks for the note. :) DanielTom (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oreilly "vandalizaton"

I vandalized nothing. Simply corrected a horrendously biased page lacking context and opposing viewpoints.—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

You didn't "correct" it, you just removed all its content.[1] Twice.[2] That is vandalism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blah blah blah, you and the other guy can't stop me. Go cry to an admin!—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

A message to a troll

Cirt, the troll admin.

Cirt, why don't you actually start contributing to Wikiquote, instead of just coming by only to further your disruptive agenda? I consider my edits here sporadic at best, and yet I have already made more edits to articles than you have in your almost 5 years on Wikiquote (and I've only been editing here for the last 10 months). Also, your edits are pretty lame. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example, take the last article you edited: Portugal. Now, that used to be a decent article, with quotes by two giants of Portuguese poetry, Luís de Camões and Fernando Pessoa, both considered among the best poets of the World still today. That was before you showed up. Then you appeared and decided to add quotes... by three U.S. Congressmen. [The very erudite and noteworthy quotes you've added include: "Modern day Portugal has been an integral member of the European Union (EU) and is a strong proponent of European integration"; "Portugal and the United States have been partners for more than 200 years, and allies for more than 60 years"; "Portugal is a close and valued ally." Need I make any comment?] That's your average "contribution" right there. I don't know if I should cry for Wikiquote or for you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note the inverted commas in "contribution". ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Block me then you piece of shit. --Technoquasy (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have the tools, please wait a few minutes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have 1000's of proxy servers and IP address tools to troll the shit out of your crappy Wikiquote website --Technoquasy (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another warning? You are not really an admin are you? A warning will not scare me away. --Technoquasy (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but admins need to know you were warned, and yet still continued to vandalize pages. (Don't you have something better to do with your time?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings. Why are you adding quotes from Shakespeare's plays to his page? Each play already has its own page. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BD. I know, I am adding quotes to those pages as well, trying to make them more complete, but then I select 3 of the best quotes from each play and add those to the William Shakespeare page, with a link to the in-depth articles (using the {{main}} template). I did a similar thing in the Bertrand Russell article (see, e.g., here, here and here), at first following the format of Dostoevsky's article. I want key quotes to be in the main articles. For example, if people now go to the William Shakespeare page and search "kill all the lawyers", they will easily find that quote. If they want, they can then click in the link right next to it and go to the play's main article, to read further.
The Shakespeare page should potentially be the best page on WQ, and the most popular, but as it stands it has almost no quotes by him whatever, so it is not much visited. Adding a few sample quotes (the most famous ones) from each play to his main article not only improves his page, but also makes the sub-pages you mentioned get more visits. (Is that controversial?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know that it is "controversial" but it is duplicative. My thinking on this is that if we are to have any duplication, it should only be of Shakespeare's best known quotes - "To be or not to be", "What a piece of work is a man!", "Romeo, O' Romeo, wherefore art thou, O' Romeo". Not every work will necessarily be represented in that collection. BD2412 T 16:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with your idea (only "duplicate" the most famous quotes), except that I think we should add the best known quotes from each play. (I would be satisfied to only add the ones you mention if Wikiquote was just some sort of elementary school project, but it isn't.) I don't have a problem with 3 "duplicates" per play, but if you do I will stop – there is room for reasonable disagreement here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. You forgot to mention "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." ;) DanielTom (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, let's move this discussion to the talk page. I'll go ahead and copy it there. BD2412 T 17:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a plan. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Carry on. BD2412 T 17:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your polite comment here.

Perhaps you and I can try to move forwards together, and continue to engage in constructive and polite dialog in the future. :)

I would really like that! -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the quality of quotes contributed by others.

I would point out that the purpose of this project is to serve as a reference work - a directory of quotations from various authors and works, on various subjects. While we do strive to insure that our collection does not leave out the best quotes, our purpose is not limited to presenting the best quotes, any more than a dictionary should be limited to presenting the most interesting definitions, or an encyclopedia should be limited to presenting the most interesting topics. Our goal, ultimately, is to present all of the quotes that meet our criteria for inclusion of quotes, in a format that makes it easy for readers to find quotes that might be useful to them. Some of these may seem uninspired, but if they pass or reasonably permissive threshhold of notability and quotability, and therefore included. If other editors are contributing quotes that meet our criteria for inclusion, then they are carrying forward this work. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24 hour block.

I have blocked you for 24 hours to make it clear that I am serious about the interaction ban that I have imposed. I will explain further under your most recent topic header on the administrator's noticeboard. BD2412 T 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever, man. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you have now specifically requested to be blocked for 30 days, I will accommodate your request. Perhaps you will take this time to consider how harmful it may be to your own psyche to become so concerned with the actions of another editor that you can not even stop yourself from saying their name. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to add a "Quotes about Camões" section to the Luís de Camões article, with the quote—

  • Aqui jaz Luís de Camões, príncipe dos poetas do seu tempo; viveu pobre e miseravelmente e assim morreu.
    • Here lies Luis de Camoens: he excelled all the poets of his time. He lived poor and miserable; and he died so.
    • Inscription placed over Camões' grave by Gonçalo Coutinho, as quoted in Poems, from the Portuguese of Luis de Camoens: with remarks on his life and writings. Notes, &c. &c. by Lord Viscount Strangford (1803), p. 22,

but you blocked me before I had the chance to save that edit. Could you please add that section to the article for me? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC) last edit: 22:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeff Q, per The New Penguin Dictionary of Modern Quotations (2003), the quote "Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery..." was originally a "remark at American Booksellers Association luncheon, Washington DC, June 1969, quoted in the Vancouver Sun 7 June 1969." Please copy that to Wikiquote:Reference desk#Citation details for a Marshall McLuhan quote for me. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page privilege removed

I have removed your talk page privileges for the duration of the current 30 day block, because this edit was a direct violation of your interaction ban. I hope that you will be willing to take this more seriously when your block expires next month. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well, as expected. I have been recreating a few games by Honinbo Shuei (those from 1896 onwards) on my goban, so I am now in a very peaceful state of mind. Maybe you've had this experience as a Go player yourself?
In any case, I have way too many articles to edit, and getting myself blocked again would be a waste of time, so I am not going to expand on why you come across (alarmingly) as a hypocrite when you use your tools to unevenly enforce this so-called interaction ban. (You know what I'm referring to. I can't make it clearer than this, otherwise I'd be blocked again.) It is very condescending of you to tell me to "take [the interaction ban] more seriously" when you yourself do not take it seriously, and are only interested in sanctioning me (and only me) for its violation. Finally, everything you and I will ever do in this life is a "privilege" (even breathing), but I would appreciate it if you could use the language we've all agreed on, and say "talk page access" rather than the patronizing "talk page privilege". I hope that you will be willing to take your blocking tools "privileges" more seriously next time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding any perceived inconsistency between how you and another user may have been treated: it is officially none of your business, and I would not blink if someone reinstated your block for bringing it up. I will mention that the original blocking administrator already replied about the situation, that those events transpired while I was off-line, that the matter appears to have been resolved, and that it is officially none of your business.

Regarding "privilege": I use the term advisedly and to make an important point clear: Anyone can edit, but not everyone may edit if they abuse the privilege. The ability to edit one's own talk page while blocked was enabled in 2009 for the express purpose of appealing the block.[3] It is a special dispensation, a privilege that one may not abuse by, e.g., continuing conduct from which one has been expressly proscribed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to see you back.

I am very glad to see someone I take to be a very intelligent, astute and attentive assessor of situations back in operation here. I have not had time or opportunity to extensively examine recent situations here and elsewhere, regarding your recent activities, and those of others, and only have time to make a brief note right now, but as a person well acquainted with the intolerance many have for many ideas or explorations of facts and realities beyond their relative narrow or shallow ranges of focus, I would recommend at least a brief moderation of your own wit and cleverness, as further aspects of situations present themselves over coming months. I would not wish to lose chances at further open dialogue that might be instructive for many people, with someone who displays competence at seeing through many forms of obscuration, deceit, and delusion and is willing to permit some relatively mild forms of them to exist at rather innocuous levels while focusing on eliminating or diminishing the most unjust and detrimental forms of them, which are often quite abundant in many forms of semi-social human interactions. I am in a good mood seeing you back, and having just attended a She & Him concert last night in Boston, but that is about all the time for commentary I have now. Awareness, Life and Love go on... So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 11:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]

Many thanks for your very kind note. I hope you enjoyed the concert. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press, while closely related, are two different things. Quotes specifically about the latter are probably better housed at the article for the latter. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad to see you using "Cheers!" again, sir. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did Dryden get "purple"?

This is usually translated as "red", but it has the same problem as the classical Greek word "argent": it refers more to the vividness of a color than to its hue. These words are usually associated with redness because classical Greco-Roman writers, as it happens, wrote often of bloody battle, and the color of freshly spilled blood is both vivid and red; but they also used these words, less often, to describe things that are not red, such as the intense green in a field of new spring grass. Modern cognitive scientists have speculated that the ancients did not even think about color in terms of hue like we do, that they did not have words for specific hues and actually perceived the world in a different way.

So why "purple"? Although it is now archaic, English writers have historically used "purple" (from Latin purpura, Greek porphyra: dazzling) in precisely this sense: to mean an intense, vivid appearance, not a particular hue. This archaic usage is confusing to moderns, but survives metaphorically in the phrase "purple prose" borrowed from Horace. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not aware of that, and I thank you for the explanation. It seems that Mr. Dryden's use of "purple dye" may be more literal than you suggest—
Purple. This is the name of a very precious color extracted from the purpura, or murex, a species of shell-fish, called in English the purple. This color, the same with the famous Tyrian dye, and the most celebrated of all the ancient dyes, is now lost, and it is doubted by many whether the moderns have any thing which equals it in richness and brilliancy.
Although, as you say, purple may not have been used to connote a particular hue, the "vividness" that it conveyed could thus have had some foundation in reality. I do not know if the same considerations apply to rubescunt in Virgil's line ("arva nova Neptunia caede rubescunt"); apart from poetic merit, I should still prefer "red" as a translation, inasmuch as my understanding of the word goes – "rubescent/e" as is still used in English, French, Italian and Portuguese –, as well as its context (color of blood). But it is now clear to me that "purple" was not a mistranslation (not that I ever thought it was; the fault rests with me, due to my own ignorance). Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Rubescent" is rather rare in English, and is chiefly a literary reference to what Virgil said. Who can say whether a rubescent "rising color" was, in his mind, necessarily red in hue? We are all ignorant of what the ancients were really thinking, of what the world looked like through their eyes.

You are not alone in preferring "red"; many translators do, and Dryden's literary use of "purple" is indeed confusing. (The root of "purple" referred to a quality of color long before the invention of the famous dye which had that quality to such a remarkable degree that the word became associated with its hue. It is as if someone today invented a new yellow pigment so remarkably brilliant, called "brilliant", that over time the word lost its original meaning and came to mean a particular yellowish hue, even when it is muted.)

Language would be so boring if it were static. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should think the "ancients" were just like us. I remember, as I was reading Plato's Republic, of being overwhelmed by the feeling that time has stood completely still these past 2400 years: we could be there with them, eating their food, partaking in their discussions – what is justice?, what constitutes a good life?, – and finding that human beings have always had the same spirit, hopes & fears, for millennia.
"Language would be so boring if it were static." Indeed! Take the following passage from Bishop Gawin Douglas's translation of the Aeneid (finished in 1513, published posthumously in 1553):—
The battellis and the man I will discriue,
Fra Troyis boundis first that fugitiue
By fate to Italie come and coist lauyne,
Ouer land and se cachit with meikill pyne
By force of goddis aboue fra euery stede
Of cruel luno throw auld remembrit feid:
Grete payne in batelles sufferit he also,
Or he his goddis brocht in Latio
And belt the ciete, fra quham of nobil fame
The latyne peopill taken has thare name,
And eke the faderis, princis of Alba,
Come, and the walleris of grete Rome alsua.
Mr. Dryden's own magnificent translation was published only ~140 years later. (Appreciating how much the English language has changed in such a short period of time is but one of the many delights in comparing translations.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lines from Aeneid (1.590-91), "Lumenque iuventae / purpureum" ("The purple light of youth"), serve as a good example of "purple" being used in the sense in which you described it, I would say. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DanielTom,

Thank you for the notice. A proper source has been added.

All the best,

Tempo21 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tempo. I've just added the original quote in Serbian to the article, which may make it easier to source it adequately. I don't think the link you provided can be called a "proper" source, but unfortunately I couldn't find anything better myself. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I must admit I did not realize that a part of the quote was already in the article, and I apologize for the drawback.
  • Nevertheless, the part "Christianity is" is still missatributed, and trickily added by modern authors and antichristian circles.
  • If one takes only into account what Voltaire himself wrote, in context, without fear or favor, it is clear that Voltaire was referring to Catholicism, and not to Christianity as a whole.
  • You know that France was specifically a Catholic country at that time. The context is a Catholic anti-protestant France. You know that not all Christianity is Catholicism, don't you? You know that Catholic authorities also persecuted Christian minorities, don't you? Thus, I hope to see you using these two terms properly, in order not to be deceitful.
  • I admit my comments were not short, but I still think that at least a comment about the misquote is necessary in the article, because Voltaire never said the added part "Christianity is", and the lying pen of some people has twisted the original. Before doing anything, I'm seeking forward for your reply.--Goose friend (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is clear is that Voltaire was referring to his country's religion. You may perhaps add a note below the cited quote saying that it is sometimes misquoted as "Christianity is...", given that the word "Christianity" was not explicitly used, but please do not add long POV commentaries as you did here: notes should be brief, and directly related to the quotes themselves, and yours wasn't. You wrote: "Voltaire was indeed known as a critic of the Catholic Church, but not religion in general. He advocated religious tolerance and spoke against the abuse of Church clergy who had demanded the death penalty of a calvinist father, around 1766." Clearly Wikiquote is not the appropriate place for such descriptions. Another problem with your commentary, insinuations: "in which he is said to have written..." (when, in fact, he did write it). Then you add "he also spoke against atheism", when that had nothing to do with the original quote. For these reasons, I've reverted your edit, as explained at your talk page. If you need help in coming up with a more acceptable note, please ask. (Also, I may be wrong here, so feel free to ask for other editors' input.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall refrain myself from long commentaries in the article, but you should not be biased, just like those modern authors who deceptively put the words "Christianity is" in the mouth of Voltaire. You may refuse to admit it, but indeed the religion of France at that time was Catholicism I'd yo suggest to go and learn the differences between the original doctrine of Christianity and the sectarianism of the Catholic institution. Thousands of people and figures throughout the ages have pointed out the differences, even before the so-called reformation, and Voltaire himself spoke a lot about the differences he perceived, in his dictionary. And finally, I just wanted to let you know that indeed Voltaire was an advocate of pacifist religious ministries. He said that "the institution of religion exists only to keep mankind in order, and to make men merit the goodness of God by their virtue." Have a good day. --Goose friend (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Replied at your talk page.) You could add, below the quote, a note saying that it is sometimes misquoted as "Christianity is...", and that Voltaire was probably referring to Catholicism specifically. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC) (Issue resolved.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Taking things out of context is green. ~ DanielTom

Regarding some recent ill-tempered remarks at the Administrators' Noticeboard:

"Idiotic" is an adjective meaning characteristic of someone with extreme mental deficiency, and you specifically ascribed that which you deemed idiotic to me. There is no reason to have introduced anyone's mental capacity, whether ascribed to someone in particular or not, into the discussion at all: it is purely ad hominem. There was no need to repeat your opinion that I am idiotic:[4] it has no bearing on the issue at hand.

You have asked for my advice before, so here is my advice about this situation:  If you cannot find a more objective way to articulate why you don't like something, then you can simply say that you don't like it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saying that what you believe is green doesn't imply that you are green. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take, for instance, the belief that the Earth is flat. I could say that such a belief is "idiotic" without necessarily implying that those who hold it are idiots (maybe they don't have access to the same information as we do). Incidentally, what I actually said was that barring IPs from editing would seem to me idiotic – I have already apologized for my poor word choice, which apparently offended you, and said you are smart. Coming here and defining what "idiot" means is obviously just trolling on your part. Your final advice, though, is welcome, and I will try to follow it. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Daniel, recovering as well as could be expected under the circumstances. If you liked the McNeill article, you might also appreciate A History of Mathematics by Florian Cajori. Just as an aside, I wonder why the latest entries are usually placed at the bottom of a user talk or other discussion page instead of at the top. Wouldn't it make more sense to place the latest entries at the top?ELApro (talk)

@ELApro: I am glad to hear it. Thanks for your suggestion – I took a look at the article A History of Mathematics when you created it, a while back, and decided that I should get a copy. Perhaps this December I'll start reading the book, and I might even add a few quotations to the article, as I go along.
Interesting question, "Wouldn't it make more sense to place the latest entries at the top?" Perhaps "sense" is geographical? In diaries, the newest entries are also placed below the older ones, in keeping with the chronology. I think it is just a convention (like, e.g., writing from left to right).
Bertrand Russell addressed this topic in an essay entitled "On the origins of common customs", published in the 22 January 1934 issue of the New York American, which I quote below for your enjoyment—
I met recently an anthropologist who began to tell me of the customs of savages, which seemed to me very queer. After a while, I remarked on their irrationality, but he replied: 'Why do you take off your hat when you meet a lady?' I had to confess that I had no notion why one does so. It appeared that it is a gesture indicating readiness to lay one's head on the block in submission to the grandeur of the person to whom one is talking. From this we passed on to other customs. One shakes hands to show that one has no concealed weapons in them. Old-fashioned people, when you sneeze, say 'God bless you' but do not know why. The reason is that your soul is supposed to come out of your body when you sneeze, and unless somebody quickly invokes a blessing on you, your soul will be unable to get back and will become a ghost.
Another custom which has roots in the very distant past is Christmas. Christmas is much older than Christian religion; it was originally a celebration of the winter solstice, and its purpose was to prevent the sun from going out. It was invariably successful: from that moment the sun's light grew stronger and the period of daylight increased. No wonder so useful a custom has survived.
(I will post this message on your talk page as well.) You have my best wishes for your continued recovery. Yours, etc., DanielTom (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breaking Bad

As far as I can see, Wikiquote:Limits on quotations is a proposed policy/guideline at this point. Now, I realized that there is a need to have limits on quotations with copyright concern all, but will that be a policy or just a guideline? I imagine that if LOQ is a guideline then we just need to follow that the best we could, not follow strictly to 5 per episode. 5 per episode seems a little too strict IMO.Chrishmt0423 (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a proposed policy. Maybe in the future WQ will have an official policy (hopefully with more relaxed limits on quotations), but so far it has been hard to reach a consensus (the "community" is relatively small). As for Breaking Bad, the last episode section had 7 quotes, which seemed to me too much (I'm pretty sure you could fit in all the dialogues in just 7 "quotes", but this isn't Wikiscript, after all). Maybe 5 is too strict; I was just informing you not to get too carried away. Your additions are otherwise very good. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provérbios portugueses

Viva. Fui ver a página acima e deixei lá no talk comentários sobre metodologia. Sei que isto pouco tem a ver consigo mas, por erro meu de formatação, podia deixar essa ideia. E Sei que o meu ponto de vista empirista não tem muito crédito hoje! Cumprimentos—This unsigned comment is by Xyzt1234 (talkcontribs) .

Obrigado. Sim, o senhor faz observações muito pertinentes. Concordo também com os seus anteriores comentários na mesma página. Fique bem, DanielTom (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not again

This time, BD2412 blocked me for 3 months over just 1 edit. Impressive. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for BD2412

  1. Why 3 months? Why not 2 months instead – double of last time? Now, you blocked me for 3 months, which is three times the original (one extra month is a long time).
  2. Why did you remove my email access? I'm guessing this was an accident on your part (otherwise it was an abuse of tools). Unless I somehow misuse the email function, you shouldn't be revoking it.

Thanks for your clarifications. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, one month to one quarter is a normal progression. The next increment, if necessary, may be one semester or one year, at the discretion of the administrator handling the matter. Regarding your comments about email: this is an extremely ineffectual way to appeal a block. Insinuating that the blocking administrator is either acting carelessly or in bad faith pretty much guarantees that your appeal will be denied. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[citation needed] What are you talking about? Please add the above-cited quotes to the Breaking Bad article for me (what a waste of time this is). ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BD2412, my questions are still unanswered. I do not doubt that everyone will support whatever you do even if it involves blocking an editor for 3 months over just 1 edit, which you think was made in bad faith (when, actually, it wasn't). Now it's too late for you to behave like a rational person, so you will have to play the macho card, and continue to prevent me from editing articles for months. How that is a good thing for Wikiquote, I do not know. The question of why you revoked my email access is still of interest to me, though. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

É fraqueza entre ovelhas ser leão.

~ Luís de Camões ~

Os Lusíadas, Canto I, stanza LXVIII.
With respect to the edits you are requesting, we are building a project for the ages. People reading this compendium a decade or a century from now won't care if the quotes were added in 2013 or 2014. Quite frankly, we are better served by allowing the passage of time to wipe from quotes the sheen of mere novelty, so they can be judged not by their appeal as items in the news, but by their lasting endurance.
With respect to your conduct, saying "I'm not supposed to mention" something in the same breath that you mention that something is about as clear an example of "bad faith" as can be found. As to the email, I disabled that because the last time you were blocked, you used the email function in attempts to have edits made on your behalf, by proxy, which is a misuse of that function for a blocked editor. The impression that you give is of an attention seeker, someone who wishes to provoke responses, and acts both for the good of the project and disruptively to its detriment with this selfish end in mind. This concludes the attention you will receive from me for the pendency of your block. BD2412 T 18:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, thanks for the ad hominem. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coming soon

E á vista disto quem ha de responder a Couto? Quem? Eu, e o farei de hum modo tal, que escarmente para sempre a Malevolencia, o Rancor, a Ignorança, a Perfidia, o Pedantismo, a Perversidade, a Inveja, a Insolencia dos atrevidos de todos os Seculos.[5]

DanielTom (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Couto he nome bem expressivo, por isso tantas vezes o repito)

Por mais que leio, e releio esta ultima regra da Oratoria da Cadeira, eu não lhe posso achar hum fio, huma sombra de ordem para poder esmagar como até agora tenho feito.

Depenno, ou não depenno?

Mais lhe valia não ter nascido!!! [6]

A corja de ladrões assignalados
Fugindo vem da praia Lusitana,
Que, em crimes nunca d'antes praticados,
Tem já muito excedido a audacia humana:
Que, em caurins e calótes esforçados,
Vão demandando o Império da Banana;
Tão infame ralé, corja tão porca.
Eu sempre a cantarei digna da Forca.[7]

DanielTom (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google translate from Portuguese to English gives:
A gang of thieves assignalados
Fleeing the beach comes Lusitana,
That in crimes d'never practiced before,
has already far exceeded the human audacity:
That, cowries and defaults hardworking,
demanding the Empire Go Banana,
So infamous rabble, rabble as nut. sing I always worthy Hangman.
-- Mdd (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cf. the beginning of The Lusiads:
As armas e os Barões assinalados
Que da Ocidental praia Lusitana
Por mares nunca de antes navegados
Passaram ainda além da Taprobana,
Em perigos e guerras esforçados
Mais do que prometia a força humana,
E entre gente remota edificaram
Novo Reino, que tanto sublimaram.
Clearly, José Agostinho de Macedo was using Camões as his model (satirically).
DanielTom (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure where you are referring to. I do noticed Thomas Moore Musgrave did a better job... in 1826. -- Mdd (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macedo is intentionally copying Camões (e.g., same words at the end of each verse: assignalados / assinalados; Lusitana / Lusitana; esforçados / esforçados), but he is not translating him (Musgrave translated The Lusiads, unsuccessfully). Macedo's poem sings of different things. It's a satire. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does the category "Articles with unsourced statements" appear in my talk page? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You once added the template {{source}} -- Mdd (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, funny. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BD2412, the blow fish.

BD2412, the blowfish admin?
Daniel: BD, look at me. You are a blow fish.
BD2412: What?
Daniel: A blow fish, think about it. ...What does the blow fish do?
BD2412: I don't even know what...
Daniel: The blow fish puffs up, okay? The blow fish puffs himself up four, five times larger than normal, and why? Why does he do that? So that it makes him intimidating, that's why. Intimidating, and that's you. You are a blow fish. You see, it's just all an illusion, it's nothing but air. Now, who messes with the blow fish, BD?
BD2412: Nobody.
Daniel: You're damn right.
BD2412: I'm a blow fish...
Daniel: You are a blow fish. Say it again.
BD2412: I'm a blow fish!
Daniel: Say it like you mean it!

[8] DanielTom (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The English Translators of Virgil.

The Quarterly Review, July 1861.

Also in Miscellaneous Writings of John Conington, Vol. I (1872), pp. 137-197.

DanielTom (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See a crushing review of Conington's translation of The Æneid, in The National Quarterly Review, June 1867: "Virgil and his new translator", pp. 78-105. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conington's prose translation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quote by DanielTom

"Don't judge a book until you have walked a mile in his shoes." ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting... I am still allowed to edit my talk page, but not articles – that would actually be productive, and we don't want that. Wikiquote has too many active editors as it is. Our articles are all fine, too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason blocked editors are normally allowed to edit their own talk page is to afford an opportunity to appeal the block. This is the only reason it was enabled.

Wikipedia has advice about what is and is not effective in framing an appeal. Please also take note of this warning: "A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple – editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion." ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very interesting indeed. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block appeal?

N I am not going to grant this appeal, for the following reasons:

  1. Advocating action against the person one is banned from discussing is yet another clear violation of that ban. Doing so within an appeal of a block for violating that ban gives the appearance of utter contempt for the ban and/or complete incomprehension of the reason for the ban and the block. This repeated violation could be considered grounds for extending the duration of the block to a full year.
  2. Suggesting in the appeal, and repeatedly above, that this was an excessive block for a single post displays a refusal to acknowledge that the problem lies in a continuing pattern of behavior, not in any single post. It gives the impression of a disingenuous attempt to mislead anyone who is unfamiliar with the case: this was the third block for blatantly, pointedly, and stridently violating the interaction ban.
  3. Using this talk page to attack the blocking administrator above[9] is an abuse of the privilege of using one's talk page to appeal a block. This display of incivility could be considered grounds for removing talk page access.
Although I do not recommend imposing greater restrictions mentioned above at this time, I am increasingly inclined to suspect that this user may eventually need to be blocked for a period of years in order to prevent further abuse and disruption until he has an opportunity to mature. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone clear the dust off Category:Requests for unblock? One "touching" unblock request there reads as follows:

Sorry, I was abused by a Catholic priest when I was 6. As a result, I hold a lot of anger and resentment toward the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general. I won't do it again.

Also, some accounts there have creative names, such as User:The Poop That Took a Pee, and User:Weiner In My Mouth. Amusing. DanielTom (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breaking Bad – last episode quotes

Skyler: You look terrible.
Walter: Yeah. But I feel good.
Skyler: So talk. Why are you here?
Walter: It's over. And I needed a proper goodbye. Not our last phone call.
Skyler: So you're going to the police?
Walter: They'll be coming to me.

Walter: Skyler. All the things that I did, you need to understand–
Skyler: If I have to hear one more time that you did this for the family–
Walter: I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was really... I was alive.

[Jesse pointing a gun at Walt]
Walter: Do it. You want this.
Jesse: Say the words. Say you want this! Nothing happens until I hear you say it.
Walter: I want this.
[Jesse notices that Walt is bleeding, lowers the gun, and drops it.]
Jesse: Then do it yourself.

[Lydia calls Todd, who is lying dead. Walt picks up the phone.]
Walter: Hello?
Lydia: Is it done? Is he gone?
Walter: Yeah, it's done. He's gone. They're all gone.
Lydia: Todd? Who is this?
Walter: It's Walt. How are you feeling? Kind of under the weather? Like you've got the flu? That would be the ricin I gave you. I slipped it into that stevia crap that you're always putting in your tea.
Lydia: Oh, my God.
Walter: Well... goodbye, Lydia.

It would be great if someone bothered to copy/paste these into the main article. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y Done, does it look correct? PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect, thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  • «Thus Fortune on our first endeavour smil'd.»

The Return of the King

  • «There rode a tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse, if horse it was; for it was a huge and hideous, and its face was a frightful mask, more like a skull than a living head, and in the sockets of its eyes and in its nostrils there burned a flame. The rider was robed all in black, and and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.'»

Hopes abide…

I am saddened to see you are currently blocked, and somewhat saddened that I had not made declarations of some observations earlier. Though I can sympathize with you in many regards, I do believe you have been somewhat lamentably imprudent and extreme in some of your remarks and assertions in reactions to the activities or aims of others, though I believe others are far more so, in many ways, in their reactions to yours. As I will continue to remain somewhat busy with many other matters for at least a week or two, and have very limited times to operate here, I hope to be able attend to present circumstances here a bit more extensively within the next month or so. I must be leaving now, but would encourage you to be very cautious in your remarks here, and reserve some of your more passionate assertions for use elsewhere, where strictures against clear expressions of opinions and emotions are not so suppressive, or statements are fairly and properly suppressed entirely by one's own extensive reflections upon matters. So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 13:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]

Thanks for your advice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Maybe you should stop being a d*ck to Mdd. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? Do you believe such comments are helpful to anyone or in any way will shorten your block time? I would hope for better from you. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Youtube shouldn't be on the spam filter. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not. Would you care to be more specific about the problem you are experiencing? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try posting, e.g., ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it possible to remove "" from the spam filter? DanielTom (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "" pseudo-domain ("URL shortener") is on the global blacklist, not the local one. You can ask about removing it from the global blacklist at the relevant Meta page, but it is not likely to happen because url shorteners can be used to circumvent blacklisting of bad pages at the actual target domain.

You can just link to the true domain directly by using the URL to which your browser is redirected from the shortcut link. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I thought it was a local problem. I now see "" and others are also blacklisted (makes sense). Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like interlinear citation lines to end with a period. My problem with BD's changes is that he doesn't apply the dots uniformly—some of them end up flying in mid-air. I had to fix some of his "punctuation" before, in the Virgil article, and will likely have to do it again in Bertrand Russell's page after his odd recent changes there (look in particular to the duplicate dots he adds when "-->" is used). I agree with you that it will take us (regular editors) much more time to fix these problems (created by automatic tools) than what took to make them, and I would only take the time to remove these duplicate dots in pages I particularly care about, though I would also pray—in vain—that BD doesn't screw up the others. DanielTom (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is one issue where it appears we must disagree. In the past I have noticed you adding the periods, which I consider needless and aesthetically displeasing, but I am glad you can see there are problems in the wholesale conversion of entire pages by automatic tools — though I do hope that enough people will eventually get involved on my side of the dispute to put an end to this, and such styles will not be imposed at all. We shall see how things go in the next month or so. There are certainly many issues to be given further consideration in the months ahead — but I must be leaving soon, for at least an hour or so, and just thought I would leave this comment for now. ~ Kalki·· 14:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I favor consistency (within each article). The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations doesn't use periods at the end of interlinear citations, so I certainly don't believe the opposite practice (i.e. using periods) should ever be imposed on Wikiquote. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back — and a note of caution

  • I have just returned to my current residence and have had opportunity to scan recent edits. I am VERY glad that you are back, but I must assert that it would be beneficial to you and your general capabilities to do good in this world to be more patient and tolerant with the often over-bearing impatience and intolerance of others. There is MUCH I am inclined to INDICATE at present and the near future, but I am still actively considering MANY diverse options, and expect to be busy with many things in the weeks ahead. I hope to be able to express a few more things to you in the next day or so, which I believe you will find helpful and encouraging, but I wish you to retain editing abilities here, and not lose them because of any rash actions. I appreciate all the work you have done on many pages, especially that for Virgil, but I am slightly alarmed that you have begun removing some of the quotes, which I believe to be notable and worthy of inclusion. Such disagreements are such as I hope can be resolved amicably in the weeks ahead. ~ Kalki·· 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Kalki, thanks for your kind words and sentiments, as always. I didn't remove any quote, though. They have all been moved to new pages (see Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid). I'm trying to see if this works better. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Was it a bad idea?) DanielTom (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had only done a very brief scan earlier — and hadn't realized you were actually moving the quotes. I am neutral on the matter at this point, and defer to your preferences, as someone far more involved with the page than I. ~ Kalki·· 02:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Epic fail reverted. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!) --Spannerjam (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Spannerjam, very thoughtful & pretty! Happy Yule to you too! ;-) Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'M EDITING Talk:Justin Bieber You May Block (Talk)

I don't think you should be blocked just because you like Justin Bieber. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you be interested in providing more specific sourcing for the quotes on this page? Cheers! BD2412 T 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did your "certification exam" go, might I ask? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for asking - I passed, and did well enough to take a nice career step from it. Cheers again! BD2412 T 20:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratz. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can trace many of these quotes to their source in the manga, but there are differences, as apparently all the quotes in this article are from the anime. And I have not watched the anime, except for the first few episodes, back in 2007. Anyway, I will try to adequately source these quotes in the next few days. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm wondering why you felt the need to move all Virgil quotes back to a single page, rather than having separate pages for some of his works. Such splitting is common practice when there are enough quotes from an individual work to support its own page, with links to the individual pages provided (see Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare for example). This helps to streamline some pages. I don't wish to quibble over each work, but in particular, I could see having The Aeneid with its own page, given the number of quotes from it (and possibly also The Georgics and The Eclogues). ~ UDScott (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't feel the need, I just prefer it this way. It's a matter of taste. I split the works into different pages just as an experiment. In fact, doing so was not very proper in this particular case, as all quotes from Virgil come from those three works, and moving them to other pages would leave nothing in the main article. Obviously I left quite a few quotes behind, but it can become repetitive, not to mention sub-pages are rarely visited. I know you prefer to have separate pages for the works, and I do too when the main article is becoming too long, but in the case of Virgil, while the article's length is at a tipping point, I don't think (m)any new quotes will be added, so I favor letting it stay as it is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough - it's certainly not a big issue. I was just surprised to see the separated pages recombined into one. The one that jumped out at me was The Aeneid, which certainly seemed large enough for its own page. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for inserting the appropriate template. It has worked.--Nvvchar (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My pleasure, sir. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O'Hair quote

  • Frieza-Force: first off, hiiii!!! Now if GoodReads isnt a reliable reference, then wat is?!! The late iconoclast did champion masturbation (check it out on the net) so i find it quite necessary to re-add the info. Find me a good source, please, alrighty then!!! WOO-HOO!!! Frieza-Force

answer the question, please.

(See Kalki's edit.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin nomination

I have just nominated myself for admin at Requests for adminship‎‎. I had actually prepared a brief statement for you a few days ago, of some of the reasons why I would currently be declining to seek this, but definitely altered my position just within the last day. Whatever comes or goes, I intend to remain active here, and probably more so in the coming year than I have been in many recent years. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 20:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Kalki, very brave of you. I think it is clearly in the best interests of Wikiquote to have you as an admin. And relax, this will take a while, either way. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Kalki, I am glad you can laugh at that canvassing of the worst type... I would comment there, but I'm afraid doing so would get me blocked (for a year this time?), and I don't particularly care for that. All I can do is shut down my computer in disgust. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know exactly what restrictions you are under, but whatever they are, I advise you stick to them, and let He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and those pathetically akin to him in character and ambition, though thankfully not in power, find their own ways to their dooms. I am one of those people who is not so easily phased by difficulties as many are — and even when it seems that troubles must be borne, I usually find ways to turn them to the advantage of such causes as are truly worthy of devotion: Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love. So it goes. ~ Kalki·· 19:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hey buddy...

I have NOTHING to do with that Zarbond impersonator. Maybe if YOU put on your glasses, then your eyes will actually see the different IPs. Restore my comment right now, and thats an order! 17:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt that. Your IPs are nearly the same. You will end up blocked soon if you continue to cause trouble, your only edits are insulting comments, and people don't have much patience for vandals such as yourself. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note - I moved this page back to the plural form since this is the common way we have such theme pages (see Dragons, Fairies, or even Cats). I left the redirect in a singular form though. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine. I noticed the WP page uses the singular form, and as the article itself started with "A Troll...", I thought its title should be changed to the singular as well. Thanks for the note. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Laugh out loud, take a peek at these two revisions: [1] and [2]. Heh, but I may never become a sysop, even though I am pretty active and editing content instead of asking for rights left and right, I do have a horrible past. --~~Goldenburg111 20:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You certainly don't have any "horrible past" on Wikiquote, so don't worry about that. As for becoming a sysop, well, first you need some time to familiarize yourself with Wikiquote's policies, and with its users. Remember, a person is only elected sysop if he/she has the trust of the community, and that takes longer than a few weeks to form and develop. Some people think that candidates for adminship should have made at least 600 edits before running, others say 1000+ edits. More importantly, you need to show great maturity. You may want to read through the archives of past requests for adminship to get a sense of what it is people are looking for in a candidate. All in all, though, I think that aiming for adminship is quite misguided. Being a sysop is very much overrated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Daniel for replying, and yes, I did look at the past archives. I am not eager for these rights. It's pretty much no one is blocking or deleting pages. That's pretty much why I need the rights, not want. Yet, once, me and a global sysop talked about my future. I asked him, he told me to what until someone asks you to go for sysop rights. Until then, stick to wiki content. --~~Goldenburg111 21:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Waiting until someone asks you is very good advice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank User:Rschen7754 --~~Goldenburg111 21:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Rschen, for giving good advice to Golden. ;-) DanielTom (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+ :) --~~Goldenburg111 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Daniel, you want to be the "co-founder" in my wikiproject. It's dedicated to clean up pages that are in need of cleanup. You want to help out? --~~Goldenburg111 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, quite an honor, but I have to decline. I don't join "clubs". There is a project, though, which I think could benefit Wikiquote: establishing a "good article" system. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for your suggestion. I will accept your decline, and I will respect that. --~~Goldenburg111 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasnt Vandalism.

There you happy?! Chirukane64 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and question

Thanks for the welcome. It popped up as I was creating my user page. :-)

I've just asked for help on an issue. Maybe you can help me with it?

(By the way, does Wikiquote have anything like Wikipedia's Ping template? It's very useful.) --Thnidu (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Thnidu, it was my pleasure – thanks for your recent efforts in the Carl Sagan page. You will note that I already replied to your question there: essentially, the quote in question appears in the book, is adequately sourced, and so should not be removed; I suggest adding a note next to said quote clarifying that it was Martin Rees who originally expressed it, instead of simply hiding it altogether. Finally, no, I don't think we have a Ping template here – maybe it would be a good idea for us to import it from WP, though. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!

Dear DanielTom, thank you so much for 'Welcome'! Meanwhile I have started the page of this artist. I hope, you like... Perhaps you could provide me with the Wikiquote-Tag (if there is any) to include the Link in the english site on Wikipedia of the artist. Thank you so much and have a nice day, best wishes and sincerestly, Larigot--Larigot (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Larigot, thanks for creating that article! You can now go here (the "external links" section of its Wikipedia page) and add the template {{wikiquote}}, which will make appear there a link to the page you created here. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello DanielTom, thank you so much! Have a nice time, cheers too, Larigot--Larigot (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for looking up that quote! i've added the original and another translation, with references.—This unsigned comment is by Attila.lendvai (talkcontribs) .

Great, thanks for your additions. Take care, DanielTom (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your brother

I would love to meet your brother if I get the opportunity. :) --~~Goldenburg111 20:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have two. You probably mean my twin. He is quite evil. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry, I'll bring a sword with me ;) --~~Goldenburg111 20:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So where can I talk to him? --~~Goldenburg111 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You shouldn't talk to strangers. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your opinion

Greetings Daniel! You seem to be my first (and only?) subscriber. If my proverb pages ever become "a thing" you can brag about it :). I would love to hear what you have to say about my content. The hardest part is to decide which should be included. --Spannerjam (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Spannerjam. Just a quick note to ask for your patience – I'm in the middle of some research for Portuguese Wikipedia, and then I'll need time to go over your proverb pages here, before replying. Take care ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proverb pages were a great idea for Wikiquote, and I see you created most of them here. The amount of work you put into them, and what you managed to do almost single-handedly, is very impressive. Your contributions have already helped create some of the most visited pages on WQ, with much content of both historical and cultural interest, and I guess many native speakers of languages other than English also enjoy going through their own proverbs (as I did reading Portuguese proverbs). I don't know that I am qualified to give advice on how to improve these proverb pages, at least I would certainly prefer to turn to other, more experienced, users for their opinions (e.g., BD2412, Kalki, etc.). In any case, the proverb pages here, for the most widely spoken languages, are already pretty extensive. If I had any criticism, it would be of the occasional awkward mistranslations. There is no need to translate proverbs by yourself, when it is so easy to find scholarly translations of said proverbs, on Google Books. There are also very good, freely available, dictionary of proverbs on Google Books, some of which I have used, for example, to add to the Latin proverbs page. Modern dictionaries are also available, freely, that give both the original and the translation, sometimes the meaning as well. If you are still in doubt, of which proverbs to add, you may want to look at Wikiquote on other languages, and their proverb pages. Finally, re. presentation, perhaps it would be nice to include a few pictures, so as to illustrate and highlight the most popular proverbs. An easy way to tell if a proverb is widely used, or popular, in a language, is to do a Google search and see the number of hits. In the end, though, I think you should just do what you enjoy, and include the proverbs that most speak to you; chances are they will be meaningful to most other people as well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking your time. Theoretically I agree with you 100 %. --Spannerjam (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You Only Live Once

I 'd be careful fuckin around with others if "I" were u. Blue Shrek, YODO, and Zarbon are still hear.—This unsigned comment is by This Is the End (talkcontribs) .

You mean here* (—why do vandals always have trouble with spelling?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DanielTom, because these vandals are too busy being retarded than studying English Grammar. --~~Goldenburg111 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you restore some of the image sizes on this page - images really should not have a size mandated for them. Rather, they should be left to the default size (220 px). For reference, see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Size. Also, you do not need to add 'right' to them - simply use the format of [[FILENAME|thumb|xxx (either text on the subject or a quote)]]. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The default size is fine, except when it breaks poetry verses. See, for example, in your revision, Endure the hardships of your present state, / Live, and reserve yourselves for better fate. – "state" appears alone in the second next line, and that's not good aesthetically. Ditto for In length of train descends her sweeping gown; / And by her graceful walk the Queen of Love is known – the lines break. Compare also Dying, he slew; and, stagg'ring on the plain, &tc., which breaks too under your version. I don't like this. And that's why I tweaked the size of some pictures. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, a good reason - perhaps such reasoning belongs in the edit summary so that it is understood why it was done). But, I would again call your attention to this part of the WP Image use policy: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference, so the use of upright with a scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible." Your use of a 260px size, while it may look nice to you (and to me by the way), may cause problems for other users, and is generally discouraged. I encourage further experimentation to get the desired effect you wish for without causing such issues for others (I'm not sure what the best answer is). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, yes, I can imagine some problems with forcing large sizes. The previous format, where the pictures were smaller, looked fine to me (it still "forced" sizes, though). I too don't know what is best, but the pictures are not many, so hopefully they don't pose too big a challenge to any of our readers. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

doubts of a Gnostic Agnostic …

I am not familiar enough with the details of the beliefs or attitudes of all those you have recently labeled "atheists" to dispute most of them, but I am sufficiently familiar with some of the complex aspects of the views of Burton, Proudhon, and Van Gogh to strongly contest assessments of them as atheists in any fixed, certain or absolutist ways. I believe that it should be remembered that among many of the Pagans, the early Christians were labeled "atheists" because they rejected the conventional norms of reverence and respect for the pagan traditions about the gods. I would characterize Proudhon and Van Gogh as doubters and rejectors of many theistic assumptions, and particular Christian traditions, but so far as I am aware, not absolute deniers of all notions of some sort of God, though they may have had strong tendencies to doubt many aspects of many theistic traditions. Burton may indeed have been reported on one occasion to have described himself as "atheist" but it is difficult to determine how casual or measured such a statement was, or even that the report is actually accurate.

To provide some comparisons, as to why I am skeptical and object to such assessments, I can assert that I, as an absurdist, can conceive people who are generally ethical fair, despite having some beliefs I would consider ethical errors or delusions of major significance, and know there are notions of "Divinity" that are not easily described in many of the conventional assumptions of many theists. The simplistic assumptions of those who like to frame things in terms of their own perceptions AS IF they could be properly described as entirely and absolutely theistic/atheistic, ethical/unethical, or even aesthetically valuable or worthless, upon very limited or casual assertions, are not such as I am prone to give a great deal of confidence. I know that I literally do NOT believe and disbelieve in quite the same terms of conceptions which many others do; though there certainly is much in common, yet I know that I often perceive Reality in somewhat peculiar terms, somewhat "divergent" from many of the norms of others in various ways. ~ Kalki·· 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]

I have removed the "atheist" tag from Burton and Van Gogh, as I have some confidence that they should probably described as agnostics or even untraditional theists; I am not so confident with Proudhon at this point, but of what little I know, I am more inclined to label him agnostic, perhaps with a strong lean towards atheism, but I really haven't studied his religious views sufficiently to act with as much confidence, at this point, as I have with the others. ~ Kalki·· 03:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Richard Feynman also, whom I greatly admire generally, strongly rejected many traditional theistic assumptions, but I would tend to characterize as an agnostic with a strong lean toward atheism. That he did not believe in any sort of personal "afterlife" and most theistic assumptions, does not necessarily equate with an absolute "atheism." ~ Kalki·· 03:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had only done a rather casual glance earlier, but on further scanning, I altered Clarence Darrow, George Santayana‎, and Jawaharlal Nehru into the agnostic category, all of which assessments are supported at Wikipedia. I know I am in a minority, among both theist and atheist assessors of Friedrich Nietzsche, but I would actually label him an agnostic, and a rejector of many aspects of traditional faiths, rather than an outright and definite atheist, despite the famous remark by one of his characters in a richly poetic work that "God is Dead." ~ Kalki·· 03:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just reviewed Feynman, further, and accept the designation as atheist, but still am inclined to personally think of him as atheistic with yet room for doubt of that, in the way some theists are such, with much room for doubt. Generally, from what I know, I have no objections among those you labelled agnostic — and thank you for your general work in adding both labels, but I would advise more caution about using "athiest", more so than agnostic — even many of various traditional faiths often concede room for many types of doubts about some aspects of their dogma. ~ Kalki·· 04:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To indicate some of the ambiguities that people can have in the way they use some terms, while avoiding some of the complexities of such concepts as those of Spinoza and many mystics, I present a couple of statements by Simone Weil which I have long considered profoundly insightful in ways which are paradoxical and likely to confound many casual assessments about some complexities of faiths: "Every atheist is an idolater — unless he is worshipping the true God in his impersonal aspect. The majority of the pious are idolaters." + "Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong." These assertions might easily be dismissed as "nonsense" by various theists and atheists with particular suppositions, and yet sincerely indicate a complex assessment of many diverse forms of perception. ~ Kalki·· 04:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just reviewed Niels Bohr a bit more, whom I had always tended to think of as a "Strong agnostic", and even though he seems to have become classified as an atheist in the Wikipedia article, I dispute that assessment, and continue to think of him as a "strong agnostic" with statements like "The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality." ~ Kalki·· 09:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a slight difference, categorizing vs. "labeling". And please note the category is not "Fixed Atheists", "Absolute Atheists", "Entirely Atheist", "Outright Atheists", "Definite Atheists", or whatever you're suggesting here. You will find that all these people appear in Wikipedia's lists of atheists, and though I am happy to revise and address the ones you dispute, I am currently too busy with other things (but I'll try to respond this afternoon). ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree there are some differences that can be specified, in various ways. It is simply that "atheist" is generally used in a strongly definite manner, sometimes quite wrongly, even as "theist" or various forms of theism are, in ways which often assume one MUST be one of two things: a theist or an atheist — or else a "coward" or a "liar" or simply ignorant and confused and not "knowledgeable enough" to definitely "decide" between the two. As an agnostic gnostic absurdist I confess such ignorance, and must often laugh at such tendencies to establish narrow dichotomies as to keep from weeping at them. I know that the ranges of human thoughts and ideas are far more extensive and expansive than the categories and labels people have devised for themselves and each other. I believe it should be apparent to those familiar with me, that I embrace a more open acceptance of diverse ranges of thoughts and ideas than labels and categories often permit, and such intensely celebratory attitudes as exist among many diverse mystics, and broadly inclusive and expansive social alliances and congregations as those found among Unitarian Universalists, which are open to many diverse ideas and forms of good will have long held special appeal to me. ~ Kalki·· 10:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
That agnostics are just cowardly atheists is indeed a common view, though not one that I hold. It just so happens that "atheism" and "agnosticism" answer different questions. If I ask, do you know there is no God, you have to say "no", which makes you an agnostic. But if I ask, do you believe there is a God, you can't simply shy away from the question and repeat that you don't know, you have to say what you believe, and if your answer is "no, I don't believe there is a God", that means you are an atheist. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your weak rebuttal of Burton's atheism is unconvincing to me. The episode where Burton himself admits to being an atheist is very believable. Unless you can show that Sir Proby Cautley had some extraordinary reason to be lying, I think we should accept his report. Burton writes, in an annotation to his translation of the Arabian Nights, "The more I study religions, the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself." [12] Both the "agnostic" and "atheist" categories would be acceptable, the latter being perhaps the most accurate. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do NOT claim Cautley was lying, in such terms as I use the word, meaning deliberately deceiving, but I believe it quite possible that he might be mistaken in various ways: Burton might not have actually used that word, and even if he did, was subtle enough of mind to know it has ranges of meanings that the crudest assessors of human thought rarely discern. As many have noted, he loved to disguise himself, and not directly confront many forms of human error and presumption. I am much more prone to trust his own words, in describing the author of The Kasîdah of Hâjî Abdû El-Yezdî which was in fact himself: "he seeks to discover a system which will prove them all right, and all wrong; which will reconcile their differences; will unite past creeds; will account for the present, and will anticipate the future with a continuous and uninterrupted development; this, too, by a process, not negative and distinctive, but, on the contrary, intensely positive and constructive." I also hold as more reliable than Cautley's his wife's assertion: "His idea of God was so immeasurably grander than anything people are usually taught to think about God. It always seemed to him that we dwindled God down to our own mean imaginations; that we made something like ourselves, only bigger, and far crueller. There is some truth in this; we are always talking about God just as if we understood Him. His idea of a Divine Being was so infinite, so great, that to pray to Him was an impertinence; that it was monstrous that we should expect Him to alter one of His decrees, because we prayed for it; that He was a God of big universal love, but so far off, as to be far above anything we can understand."
I certainly do not deny Burton rejected MANY conventional and common concepts of God, but so do I, and I do not consider myself an atheist, though much like Giordano Bruno, Spinoza, and many mystics, I am one who has confidence of states of Awareness and Being far greater than those attainable by mortal minds, and thus doubt or strong agnostic rejection of any anticipations of any human entirely understanding such states, though I actually have no strong doubts that such are real — and not merely "wishful thinking" — and yet certainly am aware that many others have the right and need to believe differently, based on their different levels of awareness and perception. ~ Kalki·· 12:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(You are operating under the erroneous assumption that greater levels of awareness, awe, and transcendental, or mystical, experiences, are denied to atheists, which is simply not true.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed this, after reading your comment in the section below, and I must simply respond that here you are operating under erroneous assumptions about my assumptions, and the worth or value of various assumptions in general. In regard to mystical, ethical and rational insights, I do not perceive that the adherence or divergence from various theistic or atheistic assumptions is the primary factor in attaining or failing to attain various forms of lucid awareness — but they can be significant in various capacities of human beings to transcend their own particular forms of ego-involvment — and not despising any forms of involvements that might actually be vitally important for others, even if not for oneself. There are always many forms of complexity involved that cannot be perceived by either casual or intense observers of various sorts of situations. Such is the type of Knowledge and Awareness which does not make one "prideful" of the fact that one possesses it, but knows that it helps to keep one from being prideful and needlessly intolerant even to those who are. Complexities abound within what seem to be the simplicities of ALL, and Simplicities abound in what seem to be the complexities of MANY. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


May the farce be with you. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I had a good laugh, hope you did too... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for re-adding my edit to this page. I'm not an entire newbee by the way, but I mainly edit Wikipedia.—This unsigned comment is by Ollieinc (talkcontribs) .

No problem; thanks for your work here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virgil's Aeneid

Hi. Thank you very much for your opinion you stated on my talk page with respect to Virgil's Aeneid. I responded to your objections and hope that my response will help you to understand why I did this edit and the following ones before and after you posted your opinion on my talk page. Wishing you well! --P3Y229 (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal attack

Hi Daniel, thank you for your attentions to me, but please don't forget personal attacks are explicitly forbidden by local policies. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, and I am amazed how you haven't been blocked here yet. Maybe our local admins still haven't realized that you are just here to troll, and influence the community decision making by intimidation, and sarcastic comments. Shouldn't you be reading Tasso, and perhaps doing a few article edits, instead of wasting my time? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading you and Kalki it seems I'm here to being trolled. Seriously, you seem to be a smart guy, then why do you *always* need to insult other people? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I knew after that fake compliment you would make a personal attack, and there you have it. (Proud of yourself, are you?) Again, please stop wasting my time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which personal attack did I do? Please don't lie. I give a sarcastic answer to a blatant personal attack. Having to deal with continuous wikilawyering and harassments is the actual waste of time which unfortunately affects me. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet another personal attack by you – 1) "why do you *always* need to insult other people"; 2) "Please don't lie." I'll report you to AN now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop, especially you Vituzzu, stewards are not suppose to behave like this. Peace --~ Goldenburg111 20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Systeme of the World: in Four Dialogues (1661)

Thanks for your help in temporarily keeping this original English translation of Galileo afloat as the public domain work of an individual translator.ELApro (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you give a second opinion on the cleanup I made of the Ramanuja article, especially the removal of all quotes from the website.

It seems the specific website is an exact copy of the foreword by Swami Adidevananda in the 1978 Vedartha Sangraha of Sri Ramanujacarya, English Translation by S.S. Raghavachar, which can be found online here.

Now I have stating, that none of the phrases from that introduction could be considered quotes. Could you agree with that assessment? -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, the author (Ramanujacharya) doesn't use quotation marks ("..."), so he is probably just paraphrasing. Maybe we could place these quotes (by Ramanujacharya) under the "Quotes about Ramanuja" section, though. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. The author of the foreword (Swami Adidevananda) indeed seem to be paraphrasing. Adding this kind of text the "Quotes about Ramanuja" section could only complicate things. I guess a more appropriate approach would be to seek out to what original text the lines are referring to, and add that to the "Quotes" section. -- Mdd (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am just curious as to why you are wishing to have a deletion of your user page. There is no need to answer that if you do not wish to, but I do hope you do plan to stick around. ~ Kalki·· 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Daniel

Long time no see :-) --~ Goldenburg111 23:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Hope you did well in your school exams. :^) DanielTom (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I finished my school at a high note (as my father says). I also spend time on this gaming website until my father told me to leave xD --~ Goldenburg111 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, good. Congratulations. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am probably just briefly checking in, as I expect to be too busy with other things to do very much here for a few days, but I noticed your inquiry elsewhere as to the significance of "Meonian", and thought I would note that this seems merely a variant on Maeonian, which relates to Lydia, a kingdom of the Anatolian peninsula, in parts of present day Turkey. ~ Kalki·· 02:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thanks. I was unsure how it related to Homer, because my mental picture of the world map was wrong: I didn't realize he was born in what today is Turkey. The expression Meonian Lyre is also used in Portuguese ("Cithara Meónia"), e.g. by José Agostinho de Macedo in his epic poem O Oriente (1814), where he says:
...E, se he possivel, igualar no Canto,
O que o Mundo escutára a Esmirna, e Manto.
That is, he wishes to, "if possible, match in Song what the World heard from Smyrna and Mantua"... But one can only understand these verses if one knows that Smyrna was the birthplace of Homer, and Mantua of Virgil. I couldn't understand them at first. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]




(You Only Die Once)

Is this really you? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's not me. (It's probably the same guy who created User:Jimmie Whales...) ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me.

The heck is your problem?! y in this holy world did YOU revert me?! I simply stated the truth. it makes no sense so delete the artikle. Primeira-feira (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About TrophyWife...

This is starting to get out of hand. I request all its edit summaries be removed and that it be blocked infinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some IP users are not only trying to mess with me on Wikiquote...

But it is also doing so on Wikipedia, on an account I abandoned. IP users: ( ( ( ( ( ( ( I request that all these and all other IPs it uses be blocked indefinitely, and all pages it vandalized and my talk page should be protected indefinitely (or at least for a year).

What I want to know is who is using these IPs, and why is it continuing to unfaithfully undo my good-faith edits without first consulting me? Plus, I want my dormant DawgDeputy page on Wikipedia protected indefinitely from these IPs. WikiLubber (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to see you back.

Happy New Year! I had been a bit worried at your lack of activity lately. Welcome back. ~ Kalki·· 03:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will not rescind my greetings of good will, but you truly have seemed to become little more than a derisive and denigrative troll since you have returned to activity. I hope you eventually can see beyond the darkness of your own soul as well as that of terrorists and tyrants and other ignorant and confused fools who practice and promote such bigotry and unjust intolerance as you can recognize. ~ Kalki·· 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
It is not "bigotry" to oppose the eating of dogs. I've been a vegetarian for 7 years now (and I'm not that old), so I actually object to the eating of any animal corpses, in general. Which other quote are you objecting to, exactly? If you look at the book's page history, you will see that I've been adding such quotes from way back, and not only "since [I] have returned to activity". In any case, thanks for your greetings, much appreciated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that in removing my comments, stating quite clearly the TRUTH of a few matters, and of my opinions, you behave in a way quite typically of many of the small minded and belligerent, in seeking to censor the truth that does not flatter your dishonest statements and distortions. It is your right to remove this statement of honest opinion from your talk page as well — but it does show your level of cowardice in not being able to accept truth that is not flattering to YOU. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 17:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will respond on your talk page, in the appropriate section. Feel free to re-post anything you want there. But do stop insulting me (even though, I confess, being called a "coward" by anonymous users is always slightly amusing). ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know I can be harsh…

I know I can be harsh, and generally temper myself, to the extent I believe I can do so and remain as fair as possible. We have agreed on some things and disputed on some things, and expect that we long shall disagree on some and agree on others, but in terms of some of your remarks elsewhere, I would state that if there is no clear need for a block on someone, to prevent clear and extreme abuses, I would prefer that even my vilest adversaries be allowed to speak as honestly and sincerely as it is possible for them to speak. I hope to provide some examples of my own moderation in the near future, from some details I could provide of past and present situations, but presently of course, I have my request for adminship to attend to, and MANY other matters elsewhere, and a few here. I hope that within a short while I can address you as an admin, but however things go, I will address you as a fellow human being who I believe is capable of great good, and hope that you develop such abilities to the fullest extent you can. I do not believe we need to suppress a great deal of the will of others — simply find ways to allow them to more fully and clearly expose it — and eventually the greatest aspects of Truth will triumph. Though not such an "absolutist pacifist" in ways as some might wish me to be, I do believe in Truth-force and have much reliance upon it. ~ Kalki·· 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]

don’t bother...

Even though it seems fairly obvious who the "deranged" twerp is — his attempt to disrupt some proceedings should probably be left for the admins... ~ Kalki·· 00:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't have that many admins (yet). ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can be a tough call. I've used revert warring to call attention to disruptive editing. It can backfire, it irritates people. I've been blocked for it, though always eventually unblocked. For future generations, this was about the RfA edits of [13]. The call was correct, disruptive editor SPA, registers to vote in the RfA. It might have been better, though, to leave the edit for a bit, and tag it for what it was, until an admin can see. Frankly, if I see many trolls attempting to hit a former admin, it makes me think he might have done something right. OMG! Capitals? I'll shoot myself! Maybe we need some comic relief. It made me smile....
Apparently agreeing with Kalki, I recommend the "revert war to attract an admin" technique be left for emergencies. You do realize that if the goal of the troll is to attract attention, you helped him to succeed, right? --Abd (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's very simple: if I see vandalism, I revert it. This ancient troll in particular (who regularly threatens to rape and kill us) should be reverted immediately, otherwise he goes on to attack many other pages. Just a few days ago he flooded the Recent Changes completely by creating a hundred nonsense pages. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happened with Mizsotomic?

I come back just to put that I'm retired and I see he is block indefinitely. What happened?? --Goldenburg111 15:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ask Abd. I can't tell you, because I'm under an interaction ban... But I believe Miszatomic will be unblocked soon. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. --Goldenburg111 16:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have protected your page against edits by new accounts for a limited time, based on the current pattern of vandalism. BD2412 T 16:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]