User talk:Ningauble

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Alireza Salehi Nejad[edit]

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

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

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


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

Hannah Rothschild[edit]

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


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

@Ningauble, I'd support you, but we'd need a minimum of two per site. And we'd need to get 25 local support votes. Per m:Checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
(I am well aware of the global policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
  • I appreciate the expression of confidence, but I am not sure about this. It has been brought up before, but I was reluctant to involve myself in the personally identifying information of bad actors.[1] I am also not very desirous of making myself the go-to guy for drama queens.[2]

    I am frankly finding it difficult to see any point in having local checkusers when we have no clear local policy about using multiple accounts [3] (and little prospect for developing one) and where, e.g., a clear case of puppet vote stacking[4] is speedily excused[5] before people who avoid excessive drama even get a chance to sift through mass quantities of hysteria and obfuscation or to, here's a thought, look for evidence to be developed.

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

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

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

BRD: removal of introductory content[edit]


I noticed that you reverted my edit to Australia where I added unsourced attributions from the talk page back to the article. I didn't realise that this was against Wikiquote policy, and now I do. Keep up the good work. :) Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


[9]. At first, I had no idea how I managed to mangle that. I've been archiving pages for many years, never did that before. However, with some thought, this was it: I've also done a lot of research, and seeing in history when and where an archived page went can be very useful. Further, someone may disagree with an archiving, so I prefer to archive one discussion at a time. It's very easy if the close templates are inside the subject section. It is then a single edit to take it to archive, and the section title is in the edit history. If they are placed above the section header, as some do, editing that section leaves them out. So I separately restored them, and, obviously, I misplaced them. Thanks for catching it. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. I agree that placing the closing statement above the section heading can be confusing. It is common practice here in order to include the heading within the visually highlighted area of the closed discussion, which does indeed cause a double-take if one clicks the section edit button. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The way I think of it is that what is within the section is templated to close. The section is still there. Having the archive template above the section wreaks havoc on editing it (including archiving). It takes many more clicks or more complex editing. --Abd (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


Eaglestorm has removed the quotes from The Simpsons Season 3 Page. Can you sort him out? -- 11:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@  If Eaglestorm has neglected to point out the reason for removing excess quotes, you may want to read Wikiquote:Limits on quotations which explains it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

sourcing question[edit]

Here, Canto I, stanza 2, lines ?? — which ones should I count, those within the stanza (lines 7–8) or the whole poem (lines 15–16)? Thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And another thing: should one write "Canto I, stanza 2, lines 7–8", or simply "Canto I, stanza 2, line 7"? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
A: I would use a hierarchical schema, numbering stanzas within canto and lines within stanza, just as "chapter and verse" Bible citations use chapter within book and verse within chapter (unless one is using a widely recognized linear numbering standard, like Bekker numbering for the works of Aristotle). In situations where it is best to use line number within poem (e.g. where different editions use different stanza breaks, which can happen with poets who do not use formally structured meter) one should probably omit reference to stanzas altogether.
B: Some authors cite only the beginning of a quoted passage, so it is not wrong; but I generally cite a range when when referring to multiple lines that do not comprise a whole stanza, (even though it can be complicated when the passage begins in the middle of one stanza and continues into the next). ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. One more question, if I may: which do you prefer, writing (e.g.) "lines 45–47", or "lines 45–7"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Please use both digits. Potential confusion from dropping the most significant digits outweighs the amount of ink saved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hakan Lucius[edit]

Good edit.  That said, I worry the issue with that page runs deeper than its insufficient source.  See my note on the talk page.  Suffice it to say, I worry the page may be delete-worthy.  allixpeeke (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Science and Religion[edit]

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations by Subject (= to the Oxford Treasury of Sayings and Quotations) uses "Science and Religion". Should I write to Susan Ratcliffe and tell her she used "improper" capitalization? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)