User talk:Ningauble

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search


thanks for that move - JarrahTree (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

re suleiman[edit]

I happen to have a copy of Mansel, which is quoted in the wikipedia article, and checked the two extracts of the poems - the earlier refs that mansel utilises are to up to 3 other earlier sources, is it ok simply to have mansel as the ref ? I see your dislike for footnotes on your user page - I hope the format of the citation is in order JarrahTree (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

it would be very useful to understand why you dont respond to talk messages JarrahTree (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, and sometimes I get around to it later. Reasons?
  1. This is not a full time job, and the pay is lousy.
  2. The sun is just dawning where I live, and I need another cup of coffee.
  3. I often find it easier to show by example than to write explanations.
  4. Et cetera...
~ Ningauble (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
ahh sheesh, thank you very much for your reply, (as for the coffee, I fully can relate to that and that would have been sufficient in itself to tell me to back off, so to speak) thank you for your showing by examples - it is much appreciated.

One weird curiosity (and take your time and please, and please ignore if you so wish) - Nikki Haley uses the expression have our back or have the back. I have been only exposed to usage in new york and toronto from first hand experience, (houston texas usage a very long long time ago) - and from an Australian (with English cultural accent) point of view, I havent come across the expression used - is it something that is expected from usual south carolina usage? I can imagine the UN instantaneous translators (I have known only one of them) would be scratching their heads on that phrasing... any clues ? Thanks again, I do hope I am not too much of a problem JarrahTree (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

JarrahTree, this usage is widespread in contemporary American popular culture, as attested in Wikiquote.[1][2] I do not know where or when it originated. I vaguely recall having heard it several decades ago, but judging from GoogleBooks it only started appearing in print with this sense since the 1990s.[3] ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that, and the links - the variant in Australian or english english (sic), would be more to cover your back, or to watch your back - in other words the usage where the lack of a verb other than the possessive is interesting. My children when they were, as Australians often tended to drop either verbs or other usually helpful grammatical necessities for effect in their school days, as adults they are far more grammatically conventional/conservative JarrahTree (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource author-inline[edit]

Hi. Can you import this Wikipedia template into Wikiquote? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The linked template invokes Lua code, about which I know practically nothing. I am not going to touch it because I lack competence. I also note that it uses a Lua module that is in Alpha testing/development. I would not advise anyone to use this unless they are actively engaged in and committed to developing and maintaining the software. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Arrowverse LOQ[edit]

Hey mate, I just saw your AFD about the Arrowverse crossovers. Can I ask why you think the individual series "press the Limits on quotations for materiel from these shows"? --SuperJew (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, the Arrow article, as it now stands, is completely full up to the limit of five dialog sections per episode. Putting more sections from some of the same episodes in another page would be over the limit. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah I understand your meaning. Yes of course it is at the limit. They used to be over the limit and I culled them down to 5 per episode. But that is the limit so it's fine. I though you meant like slightly over. Cool thanks --SuperJew (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

David S. Cecelski[edit]

Hi Ningauble, thanks for your feedback here. Did you check if a new 2nd 2015 edition even exists? For example, the data about the 2015 edition speaks about first 2012 edition. -- Mdd (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes Mdd, there is a 2015 edition listed, without preview, at GoogleBooks.[4] However, I am beginning to have doubts about the contributor's veracity. I looked up a passage you removed with this edit to the Gautama Buddha article, using my own copy of the cited 1935 edition (19th printing, 1954). The first item attributed to that source is a mashup of material from different places in the text, with some wording changes, not a direct quote.

The contributor may be unclear about the difference between a quotation and a rewritten synopsis. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your assessment. Because the actual quotes seem a mashup of the 2012 text, and the info on the 2015 edition don't make clear, that the book is a second edition, I have temporarily removed the quotes again, and replaced them with some more reliable quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Another thing about this situation make me wonder, who should have the burden of proof in situations like this? I assesssed Illegitimate Barrister's first edit, see here, a few days ago. The source seem to be removed from both and, and there is no way to double check this 993 words long quote. What can be done here? -- Mdd (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Pardon the lateness of my reply Mdd. The proof lies in verifying what the cited source says. As at Wikipedia, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

PR material for Star Wars and Snow White.[edit]

I was wondering if you could clarify what you mean by PR material through example in regards to the quotes on Star Wars (film) and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), for I've not actually seen what you consider a good example of an addition to an about section, only what you consider bad additions. I wonder if it would save us both time just deleting all the about sections for works of fiction. I want to know what standardized metric it is you use to determine notability as several of the quotes on the statue of liberty lack evidence of having been quoted. Thank you for your recent assistance. Forgive me if I restore this post should you delete it, but unless a question is clear cut vandalism with hate speech, blanking a talk page looks unprofessional, which you clearly are not in your editing capabilities. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

By "PR" I mean Public relations. I do not recall using the term in the contexts to which you refer, and have nothing to say about them. I have used the term recently when referring to quotes of people involved in a production (writers, directors, etc.) giving interviews to promote their work.

I have actually created or added to About sections many times myself, including the first article I ever created for Wikiquote[5], the longest article I have created to date[6], and numerous others. In each case I thought the additions had strong qualities of Quotability like this one or at least something strikingly distinctive like one of these. In no case did I quote someone pimping their own work. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nepali Proverbs[edit]

Isn't there anything such as editing in good faith? Such complex rules to follow. Wiki knows only 1 Nepali proverb. I know a 100. But plz I can't. These boring rules. —This unsigned comment is by Thapa Kazi999 (talkcontribs) 06:43, 21 February 2017.

I am sorry that you find it boring Thapa Kazi999, but citing sources is what we do here at Wikiquote. A reliable and verifiable source must be cited for every quotation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


What did you mean with this edit? [7]. Although I do like to create pages for films, I am an even more avid reader than film watcher. I'll assume sarcasm. :-) ~ UDScott (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing personal. (I had not even noticed that it was you who created the article.) It's just something I occasionally comment when noting or linking the original basis of derivative works.

What I meant is that I highly recommend Chiang's novella. (It was I who created his article.) When discussing Stories of Your Life and Others at a book club recently, there was consensus that the best thing about the film is that it has inspired very many people who were unaware of Chiang to read his work.

If there is a taint of sarcasm in the tone of my stock comment, it is because I am often annoyed by articles on very inferior films based on very fine original works. I am not saying that is the case here, it's just a stock phrase. I have not even seen the film, and don't expect to, because the original story is so singularly brilliant I doubt anyone can improve upon it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I would certainly agree that in most cases, the original work (especially the original written work) is far superior to a film adapted from it. I will have to check out this novella in particular. I did feel that this film was quite good, but I am interested in reading the original for sure. In this case, it was simply an oversight that I missed that a page for the author existed. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Are these acceptable? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Care to comment?[edit]

Just wondered your thoughts on a discussion I am having with Mdd that I feel may represent a growing trend to stifle contributions here. I am all for keeping out non-notable material, but I fear we are going a bit far at times. The discussion can be found here: User talk:Mdd#Populism. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I replied there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete my css page[edit]

Hello Ningauble, I have seen that you have deleted my Userpages as requested. Please delete the page User:Labant/common.css also. Thanks. --Labant (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


This is still showing up as having LintErrors, You've in the past fixed up a number of recurring errors on this. Protecting it might be advised.

How do I add a sandbox? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Can you be more specific about the errors that are flagged? On cursory inspection I am not seeing the problem (except that <div class="plainlinks"> should probably be a span).
  2. I have thought about protecting it on general principles because it is the only unprotected component of the Main Page, however (a) a number of regular contributors update it without problems, (b) it has not (yet) become a target for vandalism, and (c) the person who most frequently makes those recurring errors is actually an administrator, so protection is futile against that particular problem.
  3. You can create your own personal sandbox as a user subpage at User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox. When you don't need it any more just put a {{delete|author request}} tag on it.
~ Ningauble (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It's listed here, which typically means that somewhere something's causing something to appear outside a table row or table data. Why is a table even being used for layout in this template? It should be a plainlist, but wikiquote doesn't have the relevant Wikipedia/Wikisource type classed style implemented currently.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
ShakespeareFan00, it looks like the template is using an unsupported/obsolete hack to create a table footer, and that appears to be the only reason a table is even being used. I will look into restructuring the whole template tomorrow. (I will be away most of the day today.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
To me if the "partial listing" is meant to be at the end it's a simple case of moving a div around. BTW English Wikisource has a template called plainlist, which makes it much easier to do certain types of list formatting. (It's based on some additional CSS classes which are defined in "") which if imported here could make it even easier to write code for things like {{TOCalpha}}ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Perhaps you can get this to behave properly without using forced <nowiki></noiwki> handling? I tried and got various inserted or removed lines depending on which options were used. The current approach isn't ideal because embedded headings might contain content that can't be placed inside a P tag. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've effectively had enough of trying to determine the minutiae of a parser, that from my perspective doesn't behave in a consistent, understandable way.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


I didn't add the pop culture, just neatened it. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing personal. Your edit just called the situation to my attention. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. 👍 Hyperbolick (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)