User talk:Markjoseph125

Welcome

Hi Markjoseph125. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

• For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
  • Also see What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
• To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
• To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
• Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
• Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
• When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
• Be bold.

Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Markjoseph. I replied to you at Talk:The Forge of God. I also want to take the opportunity to say how much I appreciate the good work you are doing on science fiction literature at Wikiquote. By which I mean the literature that is so often overlooked by less discriminating genre fans. Keep up the good work! ~ Ningauble 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion process

Since you asked at Talk:The Forge of God about how to request deletion, here are some relevant links:

• Wikiquote:Speedy deletions can be used for situations that meet the specific criteria described there.
• Wikiquote:Proposed deletion can be used for uncontroversial deletions that are unlikely to be contested but do not meet the Speedy deletion criteria.
• Wikiquote:Votes for deletion can be used when discussion is needed to reach a consensus on whether or not to delete.
• Wikiquote:Deletion policy has an overview, but it is quite out of date and does not even mention the Proposed deletion process.

Regarding The Forge of God, when an article is merged like this it is normal to leave a redirect to the article containing the merged content. This is done for a couple reasons: for the convenience of anyone who may have linked to the page from an external site (such as Wikipedia), and to retain the page history which gives attribution to contributors who worked on the original article. Therefore I would not be inclined to delete this redirect, but if you disagree you are welcome to start a discussion at Votes for deletion. ~ Ningauble 15:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Kameron Hurley

A page that you have been involved in editing, Kameron Hurley, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Kameron Hurley. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. --Collingwood (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe

Thank you for your corrections and additions to The Book of the New Sun. Wolfe is one of my favorite genre writers, whose work richly rewards careful reading. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence

Thank you for your additions to Intelligence. I reverted one edit because there was an obvious typo ("earned" vs. "learned" and formatting errors. Please italicize all book and publication titles. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Theme pages

Hi Markjoseph125. Thanks for your contributions. I just wanted to open up a discussion on the issues that came up regarding your contributions to Sin, Suffering and Art. The comment field for edits doesn't provide enough space to adequately discuss editorial issues, and I hope we can do that here instead.

• To feel oneself so tiny, so fragile, so inherently losable, was at first spiritually crushing. But, by the same token, this realisation was also strangely liberating: if an individual human existence meant so little, if one’s actions were so cosmically irrelevant, then the notion of some absolute moral framework made about as much sense as the universal ether. Measured against the infinite, therefore, people were no more capable of meaningful sin—or meaningful good—than ants, or dust.
  Worlds barely registered sin. Suns hardly deigned to notice it. On the scale of solar systems and galaxies, it meant nothing at all. It was like some obscure subatomic force that simply petered out on those scales.
  • Alastair Reynolds, Absolution Gap (2003), Chapter 6

Problems with this quote:

1. Title should be in italics
2. The whole quote is interesting. I understand the desire to keep the whole, which would be entirely appropriate on author pages. But for theme pages the entire quote has to be on topic for the theme, and your fellow editors will be critically examining whether the entirety of the quote is on topic. I understand your argument about providing context for understanding the part of the quote that is about the topic, but if more words are expended providing context than providing information about the article topic, then I'm not persuaded the quote is suitable for inclusion on a theme page.

• Through the music speaks a truth about art that Wells does not understand, but that I hope to: that art doesn’t have to deliver a message in order to say something important. That art isn’t always a means to an end but sometimes an end in itself. That art may not be able to change the world, but it can still change the moment.
  • John Kessel, “Buffalo” in James Morrow (ed.) Nebula Awards 27, p. 211 (Originally published at The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction January, 1991)

Problems with this quote:

1. Is John Kessel a notable person? If he is, please provide a link to his Wikipedia page to demonstrate notability. Quotes from non-notable authors are not entirely ruled out, but it would support your case for including the quote if you demonstrate notability of the author.
2. If the quote can be edited to remove references to characters and plot lines the reader is unfamiliar with while remaining comprehensible, it should be.
3. I don't find the first sentence persuasive. Isn't "saying something important" delivering a message?
4. The second sentence expresses a common sentiment, and not in a particularly new or interesting way.

Proposed edit

• Art may not be able to change the world, but it can still change the moment.
  • John Kessel, “Buffalo” in James Morrow (ed.) Nebula Awards 27, p. 211 (Originally published at The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction January, 1991)

• One’s strategy in trying to defend or to attack the claim that God exists obviously depends on what is meant by “God.” It may be objected that it is not so difficult to isolate what might be called the popular conception of God. The problem of suffering is of crucial importance because it shows that the God of popular theism does not exist.
  • Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic (1963), cited from the trade paperback edition published by Princeton University Press ISBN 978-0-691-16548-6, p. 137

Problems with this quote:

1. What do the first two sentences have to do with suffering? Why are they necessary to understand the third? It would be more relevant to include the argument where Kaufmann demonstrates his claim that the problem of suffering shows the popular God doesn't exist. How does Kaufmann prove this thesis? Are there a few sentences you could include that would give a taste of his argument? The first two sentences don't support the thesis about suffering or add anything to it, as far as I can tell. The first two sentences seem in fact to show the implications of the thesis expressed in the third, if it is true.

Proposed edit:

• Suffering ... shows that the God of popular theism does not exist.
  • Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic (1963), cited from the trade paperback edition published by Princeton University Press ISBN 978-0-691-16548-6, p. 137

Your three complaints are numbered 1-3.
1) The entire quote is of a piece, and on topic. The only "extraneous" part is the first sentence, but as the second builds directly on it by way of contrast (But...), it can also be considered as essential. In any case, one line of context in an eight-line quote would not be excessive. I've italicized the title.
2) I've added the Wikipedia link to John Kessel, winner of six major genre awards (Nebula (twice), Locus, Sturgeon, Shirley Jackson, Tiptree), and been nominated, by my count, 47 other times, as well as being the co-editor of two major anthologies, Feeling Very Strange and The Secret History of Science Fiction. I understand your concern about the first half-sentence; unfortunately, deleting it makes the grammar not work in the rest. A very small price to pay for a superb meditation on art. The character is H. G. Wells; perhaps that could be put in parentheses? I'm sorry you don't like the second sentence, but your proposed edit destroys the beauty of the quote, as well as obliterating the structure of the three two-part parallel lines.
3) Completely unacceptable. The suggested revision leaves out the why, and renders the quote lame. The first two sentences set the stage for the third. As to how he proves his argument, it is the next few pages in the book. Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Our discussion raises an important question for the community which is as yet unresolved: how much of a quote must be on topic to merit inclusion on theme pages. I'm inclined to say almost all, but I moved this discussion to the Village pump to see if other editors have opinions. ~ Peter1c (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this approach. Thank you. Markjoseph125 (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Wikiquote Barnstar
		Thanks for all your hard work making new articles on interesting people. GMGtalk 18:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Lyanda Lynn Haupt

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Lyanda Lynn Haupt, 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. User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 12:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

See page and discussion. Thank you. Markjoseph125 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Notifying contributors to a VfD article

Per WQ:VFD#Requesting deletions (iii) I really would consider notifying principal contributors to a VfD article especially the creator unless they are blocked or an anon IP. Although inactive they or a {{tps}} may get an alert from monitoring their talk page. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 20:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you already did so. Thanks. Markjoseph125 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Vanessa Grise

Hi Markjoseph125

FYI I posted a reply to another user at User talk:Montgomery28#Vanessa Grise and I mentioned your userid.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Markjoseph125, I have seen you participating in many VFD discussions, but have never seen you vote "Keep". I am not trying to accuse you of anything, just trying to understand why some regular participants in those discussions always vote "delete".

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Howdy Ottawahitech! An easy question to answer!

1) I have actually voted Keep a few times; admittedly, not very many.

2) The reason is that I see Wikiquote as an open-source Bartlett's. It's for quotations, of which the vast majority should be wise, striking, or humorous. I do not think it is the place for political posturing of any stripe, for items that belong in Wikinews, for ephemera, for self-promotion, for people—especially politicians—or media that are not sufficiently important to warrant wider dissemination of their words (most politicians' quotes here are mealy-mouthed generalizations of the "I'm in favor of peace and prosperity" variety), or what might be called, for lack of a more comprehensive term, anti-intellectualism.
If you look at my contributions—and I trust they've been numerous enough to qualify me for a say in this matter—you'll see that they are all from books by established authors, and fit the traditional look and feel of a quotable quote (at least, I hope so). As I see the entire Wiki complex as educational, you'll also note that I have added hyperlinks to quite a few pages, so that someone reading the quotes could follow them to other, related ideas. As most of the recent pages on which I've voted have fallen into the categories I deprecate above—especially no-name politicians and businesspeople, along with a smattering of political issues—I have voted to have them removed as not contributing to what I see as Wikiquote's remit. In other words, there have been many new pages recently that have *not* been nominated for deletion. The ones that have been, have been for very good reasons, and I happen to agree with the nominators. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Request

Hello, sorry for the disturbance, but I've noticed that you very commonly create pages for relatively minor (literary) figures and then add their quotes to lots of well-frequented pages. The first part is commendable, but - as one of many such examples - your recent additions of Jasper Fforde quotes to more philosophically themed articles IMO really impoverishes them. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Au contraire; I find that quotes from literary authors are quite frequently more incisive and more meaningful than those from supposedly important political and religious figures. I think if you look at the quality of the quotes (the Wikiquote criterion of quotability) rather than trying to decide who's an important person and who isn't, you'll find that what I've added is rather enriching. I could cite any number of examples; here is just one:

"Maia recognized a look of true religion in the other woman’s eyes. A version and interpretation that conveniently justified what had already been decided" (science fiction author David Brin); compare this to the famous Francis Bacon's: "There was never law, or sect, or opinion did so much magnify goodness, as the Christian religion doth." Point: Brin

As for Jasper Fforde, if there is any modern British author (other than Terry Pratchett) with more to say than he has, I have yet to encounter him or her. Example: "To fail spectacularly is a loser’s paradise." Compare this to Ben Carson's pablum: "Stop thinking of failing." Point: Fforde

What is impoverishing on Wikiquote is the vast number of pages devoted to unimportant movies and (especially) video games. Markjoseph125 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with the latter point. (*We might even team up if need be!) But it wasn't just notability, but also the quotes themselves. Tbh. the Brin quote you brought up is a great example. If it was in an article like "religion", its' not being self-contained would ÌMO well warrant deletion. I edit, for example, lots of controversial or academically marginalized figures myself, but I think it's important to not have them carry over into the few flagship articles WQ has. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bio:

Sorry for the delay. Too much going on, including a trip to see the eclipse.

I'm not sure I understand your criticism of the Brin quote; to me it says something crucial about religion which, as I understand it, is reason enough to put it on the topic page. Besides, Brin isn't exactly a nobody. And, I do very much limit the quotes I add to topic pages to the very best ones I find.

In addition to the movies and video games I mentioned, I should have also mentioned TV shows. Alas, life is short. Not sure how we'd team up. After your reply, I noticed that a recent page was created for the movie Licorice Pizza. Oh, come on (rolls both eyes in opposite directions). I would have loved to nominate it for deletion, but it was created by UD Scott, an administrator who has done marvelous things for Wikiquote, so that is not going to happen. Happy editing! Markjoseph125 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello Mark, you looked like a very active user. How do I add my new article: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander to https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander ? I don't know what ID is supposed to mean. The real reason I am asking this is because I want the little box with the wikiquote link to show up at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex as well. Does an administrator have to rename anything for this to work? Thank you in advance. TerrenceWals (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I made it work by myself now. But I still don't know about the second part of my question. Are you an administrator, and could you maybe change the title of the article to just Scott Alexander or Scott Alexander Siskind? Perhaps this makes my article show up. TerrenceWals (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm just a user; as you see, even my name is in red, not blue. I have nothing to do with the administration, and would have no way of helping you with your issue. Sorry 'bout that... Best Wishes. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Blue Velvet

While I agree that there is often some trimming needed and too many unmemorable quotes posted on many pages, I think you've gone a bit far with the cutting on this page. Some of the quotes you removed are well known and convey some of the nightmarish craziness of characters in this film. I reverted your changes only because there was such a large swath cut into the page, but I might be able to be convinced that some should go (but not all). Otherwise, I applaud your efforts to trim the fat - but I just feel there are many other pages more in need of this than this particular film page. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. Seemed like an unnecessary amount of f-bombs every time Frank opened his mouth. I know nothing of the film; if you think it's best like that, I can leave it as is. Markjoseph125 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)