User talk:Ningauble/Archive 3

Archive

This is an archive of past discussions on User talk:Ningauble from Jul–Dec 2009.
Do not edit this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.

Filter

Ah, good thought on the Abuse Filter - I was so caught up in killing all the attack pages, I forgot about that. Thanks. ~ UDScott 20:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it only seems to be effective against small-minded individuals. Fortunately, most vandals seem to fit that description pretty well. ~ Ningauble 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Books

I don't necessarily disagree that sorting the quotes here may be best by author, but it begs the question: is this the approach we should use for all theme pages? What makes this page different from others? I'm not opposed to one way or the other, but perhaps we should make the approach to theme pages consistent. What do you think? ~ UDScott 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer sorting theme articles by author, in part because where there are multiple quotes from the same author I think they should be together (by date), but mostly just because that is how my "mental index" works: by author like my library. There are situations where a chronological order shows historical development nicely, e.g. World War II and parts of Christianity, but for timeless themes this is not so much the case. A few months ago I threatened on the Guide to layout talk page to unilaterally revise the guideline, but did not follow through.

Besides "I like it," there are some practical considerations:

1. In the lamentable but still common case of themes consisting mostly or entirely of un-cited attributions, authors are all we have to go by.
2. Dates are one of the most commonly dropped parts of incomplete citations.
3. Citations often identify the date of the edition, which is helpful for verification but leaves the chronology murky if it was not the first edition.
4. Similarly, notable secondary source attributions often lack dates for the primary source.

If we are going to standardize (with exceptions) on one or the other, I prefer sorting by author and I think it makes practical sense. Are you agreeable? Do we need wider discussion? ~ Ningauble 19:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Speaking of weak attributions, what do you think of the tertiary stretch I used to rescue Democritus from PROD? ~ Ningauble 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with grouping theme quotes by author, but I do feel that we should remain consistent among all theme pages. This would of course require a good deal of work to get the other theme pages in line with this. I would recommend that this be discussed in a larger forum, perhaps on VP or on the Template talk page. As for Democritus, although it is weaker than direct sourcing, at least it is something that someone can go to and verify (which in mind meets the intent of our sourcing requirements) - and it is pretty hard to find direct sources for some of the ancients we have here. ~ UDScott 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I took it to VP because most talk in WQ namespace goes unnoticed except by RC watchers. ~ Ningauble 23:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for replying on my talk page and at village pump. User:Whiterose and I seemed to come to the same conclusion -- I actually found that same set of diffs you did :) see User_talk:Whiterose. There's a really bizarre part though! Check those diffs you found: one is labeled "File," the other is labeled "Image." I used Control + C (i.e., copy 'n paste) to switch the script from one location to another. How did that bizarre little anomaly get in there? Thanks again! In all the years I've been editing Wikipedia I've never accidentally edited an old version of an article... I'll be sure to never do it again! Peace and Passion 21:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Changes

I noticed you reverted my changes to Rudolph Hess.... That's okay, but I'm confused. I checked the edits in both my IE and Firefox, and it worked (and I've used that technique numerous times in Wikipedia and it always works, and a couple times here). It's the technique advised by Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:How_to_fix_bunched-up_edit_links#Using_a_floated_div. The other primary method, using a {{fixbunching|XXX}} template doesn't work because the template isn't in Wikiquote (plus a {{stack}} template we don't have either -- and I don't know how to import templates correctly). There is another more obscure method which I will try, notify me if they do not render properly on your end (I will check both browsers on my end). Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Check the The Matrix Revolutions article and see if it's working for you, I used the same technique on it.

PPS I'm downloading a browser emulator (Microsoft Expression) so that I can check to see if my attempts at fixing bunching edit tags / formatting issues work in all formats before I leave them to stand.

I have never seen symptoms of the WP:BUNCH bug with my browser & skin, so I looked up bug#1692 to see what's up. Ugh! The way MediaWiki floats edit links has been borked for years. There seems to be little interest in really fixing it, but it may be moot if the Usability Initiative deprecates floating them in the first place.

I am not sure why the floating div workaround at Rudolf Hess failed to float. It seems to work at The Matrix Revolutions. Perhaps the difference is omitting "|none" in the images to avoid attempting to float them within the floating div. The current table-based approach at Hess renders ok for me. ~ Ningauble 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to intrude upon the conversation, there are only bunching issues because there are a bunch tangentially-related images on the page. I fail to see how File:Matrix like corridor.jpg is relevant to Trinity's "I don't have time for this shit" line. (I do like the "chance" image, though) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

@EVula: In my cleaning of Revolutions, there was a picture there (that "hallway" one); I didn't want to remove it because it was already there (but if you'd like to that's fine, or change the particular image / caption). What I tried to do was add some "interesting" / "germane" images to other quotes, because I notice that often articles with a solid column of images (of the same width) look slightly better formatted than with articles with just a couple randomly placed (this depends on the particular layout of the specific article, of course), and ultimately make it easier to fix the bunching problem. I have noticed some articles on the Wiki that have some serious aesthetic formatting / rendering issues because they contain a column of images with different widths (and of vastly varying appropriateness to the article, see on WQ:AN my entry about an IP who removed some "questionable" pictures from a Nazi article and left the more appropriate / germane ones, and was reverted as "vandalism.") Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

Hi,

I'm an admin in he.wikiquote, and I wanted ti ask you why Dumbledore shouldn't have a separate page. We have a discussion in he.wiki, and I have doubts about this page. ברוקולי 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This community has been moving away from having fictional character articles separate from the works in which they appear. Consensus in votes for deletion has been consistently against them for about a year now.

One much-discussed problem with character articles is managing fair use of copyrighted works: it is difficult to keep track when a work is spread among multiple articles, and these articles tend to attract excessive contributions. Another problem is that it gives poor quality treatment to the work itself when it is arbitrarily fragmented, and treatment of a character is diminished by taking it out of context. Besides, it is not real: the work is a real thing, deserving of respect.

For a couple policy discussions on the subject, see Wikiquote:Village pump archive 25#Characters_2 and Wikiquote talk:Limits on quotations#Characters. ~ Ningauble 19:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It helped me a lot. Ill talk with our local crat's about it. Feel free to contact me in he.wikiq if you need some help there. Cheers, ברוקולי 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on the refactoring of the VP archives. From now on I'll check the toolbox "What links here" if I do any more refactoring. Do you know if "What links here" works in the following situation:

Say article X has a link in it to article A, in the form [[A]]

While article Y has a link in it to article A, in the form [[A#particular_section]]

(This is meant to be illustrative of the situation you pointed out on my talk) — I'm wondering thus if I used the "What links here" tool, would it, in this situation, return articles X and Y as linking, or only X? If it returns both, then it would be an appropriate tool for me to use in this context, but if not.... Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "what links here" recognizes a section link as a link to the page. Also, clicking a broken section link takes you to the top of the page when it can't find the section, so all is not lost. ~ Ningauble 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User rights

I am now required to do a captcha test when adding links - is this a result of tripping the filter? Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 20:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think so. This also prevents you from moving pages. The filter reset your status from autoconfirmed user to new user. After a number of days and edits you will automatically be re-autoconfirmed. I don't know whether one of the bureaucrats can override this, you could ask one of the old hands. Sorry about the inconvenience. We walk a fine line trying to mitigate and discourage vandals without interfering with good contributors. For what it's worth, this is the first time in five months of operation that an imprecise filter reset the counter for a user who was already autoconfirmed. I know that is little consolation for the one who got bitten, and I am sorry. ~ Ningauble 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Wind"

Just wondering if you'd like to take a look at what I've done to the topic Wind. I was going through short articles and "prodding" articles that weren't up to snuff (and didn't appear that they ever would be), and came across wind... I was about to prod it, but I decided I might be able to do something with it. I'm almost done with it (I've removed the "inuse" tag), I was wondering if you'd give it a look over (as it's the first article I've really "put together," a second pair of eyes would be appreciated). Thanks, Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 02:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)!

PS I had to look through about 1000 search results while compiling those :) exhausting! ...

And I spent the rest of the day unstubbing this one... phew... Monkeys... what d'you think? Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 08:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PS It needs a move to Simians (with "Monkeys" being a redirect); I still don't have my permissions back from the accidental "vandalism."

Thanks.

Thanks for your help.

Hmmm; hope you won't mind a bit of a redacting on my comments there for purposes of political correctness!

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was for Wiktionary, I screwed up.

I accidentally posted it here, I meant Wiktionary. Can it be TransWikied over there?--Occono 21:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's now at Wiktionary:didodecarestandardizational.--Occono 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

w:Tim Smith (musician)

The message on the quotes section is very clear, but I wouldn't know where to start, could you give me a hint? Ida Shaw 10:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Guide to layout#People pages has general info on article format, and Help:Starting a new page has starter links to boilerplate templates. For some examples of layout for musician articles, Jim Morrison, John Lennon, and Bob Dylan are well done. For quotes from magazines please cite the specific issue rather than just the year, and the article's author and title. Hope that helps. ~ Ningauble 11:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Is it possible to delete every article off the Wiki? I'll give you 3 reasons on why every article found in this wiki must be deleted.

• All Articles fail Manuel of Style

• All articles are a mess

• Finally all articles have no Notable quotes or any Memorial Quotes.

If you don't want garbage or trash at a Wiki you might as well delete the entire mess that the users created.

(Jackerson 23:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Making such broad (and inaccurate) statements is not helping the situation. If you don't feel like this project is worthwhile, why are you still editing here? I've seen some of the articles that you say have no memorable or notable quotes (and, more importantly, I've seen which ones you say do have them) and you are just plain wrong. I'm sorry, but I don't think Wikiquote is a good fit for you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But I'm telling the truth. This Wiki has a lot of pages that needs cleanup, there is actually a lot of pages that fail Manuel of Style and finally I can see pages that have no notable quotes.(Jackerson 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Yup, there are numerous pages that need work. Instead of making bogus deletion requests, you could work on improving them; that would be a far better use of everyone's time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Because its EVulas and InvisibleSuns turn to do their share of the work and finally I have 4 reasons to get rid of some of the garbage articles and all Redirects:

• The time of deleting old stuff and replace them with new stuff has arrived especially getting rid of Adolf Hitler and replace the page with something less brutal and nazi related.

• The Redirects and the Garbage Articles fail manuel of style

• The Redirects are a mess along with those garbage articles

• Redirects and those Garbage pages have no memorial or notable quotes

(Jackerson 00:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

A Question About the Winston Churchill Page

The Winston Churchill page has a "Disputed Quotations" section as well as a "Misattributed" section. In the words of a quote that I dimly recall, but cannot accurately recollect, "This seems excessive." It may be more than "a distinction without a difference", but the wisdom - and the effort - required to distinguish between these two categories seems pointless as a practical matter - IMHO, anyway. It occurred to me that it might be a Good Thing to address this matter before I go adding any more entries to either section, and, as you have been helpful to me in the past, I thought I would ask your opinion. I think these sections should be combined. What do you think?

~~ Archimedes

( Crap !! I can't remember now how to "sign" my entry properly. What a drag it is getting old ... )

Archimedes (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ningauble: I posted the above prior to the point where I learned you had "gone fishing." Hope you're enjoying yourself, and I hope you catch something that is tasty, but not too bony. I will search for information / opinions elsewhere for right now, and I will check from time to time to see if / when you return. Archimedes (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I will only comment here, rather than participate in drafting the guideline, because I am an identified incompetent. This is my presumably stupid, paranoid, and arrogant comment - Forgive me but perhaps I am not getting this comment, was this intended as sarcasm, or something else? Did I say or do something wrong? Or if this has nothing to do with me, then, please forgive my confusion here. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes I was being sarcastic, and no it was not directed at you. I should probably stay on wikibreak. ~ Ningauble 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies for my confusion! :) Cirt (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional characters update

Hey, regarding Wikiquote_talk:Fictional_characters#Notability_exception, I just wanted to stop by and say that I agree with the changes BD2412 (talk · contributions) made there [1] - and I checked first with BD2412 who thinks it is okay as well [2]. There hasn't been any comment at that page in about a month - do you think we can mark that issue as resolved? :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello & Further ?s Re: Changing Username

Ningauble : Hello there! Nice to see U back, or are U mostly on break still? Would you like some dynamite to help with the fishing??

I already set up an account under Username:CononOfSamos at Wikipedia a while ago (back in early October, IIRC). However, the only edits I have made under this name to date have been to the User page and the Talk page associated with that account. And today, I set up a User page and Talk page for CononOfSamos here at Wikiquote. If I've understood the material you pointed me to, Archimedes could be renamed to the new name if the existing CononOfSamos records were deleted? Am I correct on that score? Or I could just stop using the Archimedes account? I was simply looking for a way that the edit history of Archimedes could be migrated to the new name. Sounds like that might be doable if the current CononOfSamos records were deleted, but I'm pretty sure that I could not do that ... but is it doable? Please advise ... Archimedes (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to change Archimedes to CononOfSamos, the existing CononOfSamos would be usurped. The old CononOfSamos would not actually be deleted, it would be renamed to something arbitrary like "CononOfSamos (usurped)". Only a bureaucrat can do this. To request this change:

1. Log in as CononOfSamos and post a message on Talk:CononOfSamos stating that you are the same person and approve Archimedes usurping CononOfSamos.
2. Log in as Archimedes and post your request at WQ:USURP, mentioning or linking to the CononOfSamos message.

This will migrate the edit history of Archimedes to CononOfSamos, but remember that any posts you have previously signed as Archimedes will still display the Archimedes signature. To avoid confusion, you may want to put a notice on your user page explaining that you previously edited under that name. ~ Ningauble 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ningauble - thank you so much for your assistance. I am currently logged in on both Wikipedia and Wikiquote as CononOfSamos. I will put a notice on my User Page as you suggest. Again, thanks. CononOfSamos (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ningauble - I have created a section on CononOfSamos:Talk titled Usurpation. Please advise me there if there are further actions I need to take at this point in furtherance of this process. Again, thanks for your efforts. CononOfSamos (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ningauble - FYI I also submitted a request at WQ:USURP, FWIW : hope it's satisfactory ... CononOfSamos (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Stub template

Please yes be my guest. :-) --Ole.Holm 17:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've created {{Geography-stub}} --Ole.Holm 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see there os a Category:Places. Should I have called it "Places-stub"? I much prefer my name, but will stop using it until there is a decision on harmonisation.--Ole.Holm 15:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference, but I think I like "Place-stub" better because it could be used to sweep in odd little articles about buildings, schools, &tc. that show up occasionally. On the other hand, they are fairly rare, and could just as well be treated as generic themes. So, I dunno. ~ Ningauble 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

About Eugene F. Kranz‎'s Wikiquotes Page

Listen, Ningauble (if that's even your real name... [citation needed])... Eugene is pretty pissed you keep deleting that quote of his. I just got off the phone with him, and he is livid. I suggest you leave the quote there, unless you want "a Saturn V rocket up your ass" (another direct quote from Eugene). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.190.159.7 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Please, take a look at my petition of renaming. [3]

I am not diretly involved in renaming. One of the bureaucrats may be able to assist you. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

wittgenstein/thursday argument

Hi, I'm the guy who was aruging with thursday/kalki re. images & formatting vs content, to which you added some notes. She, as I suspect is her gender, has not addressed my points but is continuing to make many further edits which I question the value of. I dont' wish to stop her but I do wish to ask: is this appropriate behaviour? Is this beneficial, or vandalism albeit without the intent of deliberately deface? She seems to have done much that is positive, yet much that I doubt also. I don't want to pursue this as I don't have time, and more important I don't want my views alone to count - this is a community site and a single person has no right to undo so much formatting (equally, one person alone has no right to impose theirs, which is the point). Any thoughts? 92.29.90.232 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

First, to be clear, vandalism is a matter of intent. Whatever one may think of Kalki's exceptional enthusiasm for illustrations, there is absolutely no indication that it reflects malign intent. As for my own preference, it is not so strong that I would ask the community to reconsider its longstanding acceptance of the practice. If you ever do want to pursue this (or even if not), I encourage you to create an account. You are welcome to contribute without doing so, but your opinion will carry more weight if you make a name for yourself. ~ Ningauble 15:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I wish to, but simply don't have time to, follow this up (I didn't really have time to argue with her either but there we go). I'll drop it here. Thanks again. 92.29.74.55 16:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Can you help me like a little on the new American Pie page? prolly you will see it on recient changes. My name is Sheila BTW! Real-life Daisy Duke

---