User talk:Risto hot sir

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Risto hot sir, and welcome to the English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A Question[edit]

Can you explain what is that stuff on Wikiquote which you are editing consistently. I am talking about the mini Eddie Vedder page. Thats hilarious and since i am a fan of Pearl jam and him, i should know about that stuff. To reply me simply leave a message below. Regards 2409:4063:2310:83F6:0:0:1B37:58A0 12:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Words displayed the first time in recordings[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Words displayed the first time in recordings, 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/Words displayed the first time in recordings. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Paavo Haavikko, Samuli Paronen, Väinö Nuorteva[edit]

Hi Risto hot sir, I have speedy deleted the last three lemma's you started here after I noticed they were completely made up of your own work, and didn't contain any quotes published in English. Mdd (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to restart the lemma's from text published in English sources, but please don't add any of your own translations. If you don't agree with this policy, it is not the way to start more lemma's, but discuss this at the Village pump. -- Mdd (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, nobody has translated these in English before. The Finnish references are there. If the translation is poor, please tell what's wrong! I have no relationship with these authors, the only thing that matters is that there's very limited knowledge about Finnish writers. --Risto hot sir (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not about the quality of the translation. As the main page stated Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations... If you translate a Finish quote, you create an English quote... which is still considered an unsourced English quote. The English quotes, we collect here, should already have been published elsewhere.

Now I noticed the work of Paavo Haavikko has been translated into 12 languages. Just take some of that translated work (in English) and restart the lemma. that is no problem. Just don't continue translating yourself. -- Mdd (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If these sentences are good, so what's the problem? Any reader who understands English and Finnish can correct those. Let's not prevent people to find out important things about literature! --Risto hot sir (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mirkka Rekola[edit]

Hi Risto hot sir, I just noticed the Mirkka Rekola is also unsourced, and cannot stay like that. To give you and example of an appropriate opening I recreated the Paavo Haavikko lemma. -- Mdd (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the example of Haavikko, but those are not the best ones of his work. UDScott has accepted the Mirkka's ones (and has made about 30 000 edits). Were there English translators at Platon's times? --Risto hot sir (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikiquote is not all that simple. Did you realize the initial poem at Mirkka Rekola was 363 words long, while quotes over 250 words are not allowed (see WQ:LOQ). Now this is fixed as well by actually using a secondary (online) source. -- Mdd (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank You for the Pentti Saarikoski article! I didn't know of that limit. But what could be a more reliable source than the writer's own homepage? Mirkka herself has carefully selected and accepted the translation. --Risto hot sir (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mana Mana[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Mana Mana, 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) 12:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The translation of the song "Beast" can't be found anywhere. You must listen the mentioned record. Jouni Mömmö's articulation is so unclear that I translated the Finnish text ("Ilmestyskirjan peto"). The message and the words are the same... and this is not official poetry. If You want the texts from the other three songs, too, I'll do it with pleasure. --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. As I explained in an earlier comment, Wikiquote doesn't accept translations by their own editors. From the English Wikipedia lemma its seems Mana Mana didn't produce any English works, so there is little change English quotes actually exist. Now I speedy deleted the lemma for the same reasons earlier lemma's were deleted. -- Mdd (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

But if I try to understand Mömmö's singing from the record and write as such, is it OK! Not a printed version but a document that can be checked by listening. - And could You please find out if there's Uuno Kailas's poetry in English. He's one of the best - especially "Eye changers", "Barefoot" and "Playground"? --Risto hot sir (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
You can do whatever you like as long as you don't publish it here. Although I do not know all ins and outs, I do believe there are copyrights concerns here. At least one condition is, that you are not allowed to quoted from unpublished sources, and own translations could be considered as such. It could even be possible that you are not allowed to translate and published recent works without permission. Also there is an implicit policy in Wikiquote not to accept unpublished quotes, and lemma's that only contain this kind of work get deleted. Is this explanation enough not to continue to publish your own translations here? -- Mdd (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's enough! Copyright: these texts are over 30 years old. It's a pity that English people have no possibility to read Mömmö's lyrics - which are now more current than ever. - In fact the Holy Bible should be categorized as Jewish proverbs, because there's no evidences that many people in it even have lived. The Bible was put together 300 years after Christ by voting which books were included and which ones not. I'm not against the Bible, but the rules should be the same! --Risto hot sir (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
There is indeed some of Uuno Kailas's poetry translated in English. Some of his work can even be found online with contemporary translations, but if the blog is relatively unknown and the author/translator hasn't published more wokrs, these can not be considered reliable sources. -- Mdd (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for the search! --Risto hot sir (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Now I see the page created, excellent! Still there's one missing novelist: Väinö Linna. His work "Tuntematon sotilas" ("The Unknown Soldier") is shown in TV every Independence day. The other very notable novel is "Täällä Pohjantähden alla" ("Under the North Star"). --Risto hot sir (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Can You imagine how schocked I was when discovering that not a single Finnish poet was in Wikiquote! A lot of money has been spent to make our literature known. Are the responsible persons stupid, lazy or greedy for money? It costs nothing to write here. - Some new suggestions: Impola has translated Kalle Päätalo. Arto Paasilinna is famous in Germany also. Juhani Aho, Ilmari Kianto, Hannu Salama, Timo Mukka, Veikko Huovinen, Veijo Meri, Lauri Viita? And let's not forget the women: Sofi Oksanen is now the most selling novelist abroad; Eeva-Liisa Manner, Kirsi Kunnas, Minna Canth, Maria Jotuni, Saima Harmaja perhaps. --Risto hot sir (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC) - Nobelist Frans Emil Sillanpää. Joel Lehtonen. The critics voted Volter Kilpi's "Alastalon salissa" the best Finnish novel of all times. Kaarlo Uskela's books were burnt in the 1930's. --Risto hot sir (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC) - And then there's Pentti Haanpää and Claes Andersson (psychiathrist, politician and poet). --Risto hot sir (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Atsujin[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Atsujin, 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. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Only wrote what was in the Hoffmann's book. The Japanese people might know this poet? --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You have made a lot of pages based on the Japanese poets in this book. Try to do other research beyond this one book. Most of these poets are not notable enough to be recognized, and they don't have much recognition beyond this one book. Maybe you should try adding their quotes in their original language to Japanese Wikiquote. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, other users disagree with me. I still believe that these pages need more work, but I'll back down for now. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There are millions of people of Japanese origin in the States. They can evaluate the notability. I don't understand this language. --Risto hot sir (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Try to follow the proper format.[edit]

Take a look at how I changed the article Daibai. The way it is now formatted is how you should be making the rest of these articles on Japanese poets. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dohaku[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Dohaku, 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. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that these poets are in the book, but if all you know about someone is that he died, than don't make an article about him. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not Wikipedia - the poems are the most important here, not what poets did during their lives. --Risto hot sir (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
At least write that the person is in fact a poet. Without context, the quotes are meaningless. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Asei[edit]

I assume the quote, "The blossoming of cherries in the spring evokes in haiku poets a feeling of wonder at nature's beauty. But facing the blossoming of grasses and nameless field and garden flowers at the beginning of autumn, Asei grieves for that which comes and goes, yet leaves no lasting impression." is from Yoel Hoffman. If so, please specify on the page or else it will have to be removed. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Just realized that there are a lot of description/explanation quotes on these Japanese poet articles, including, "Tsuchi means "earth" and kane is "metal". There is no particular significance in the combination tsuchi kane, and the poet's intention is not clear.". The same applies to all of them. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The haikus and Hoffmann's explanations belong together. All Americans don't understand Japanese language and its word plays. --Risto hot sir (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
If so, than go back to those articles and add in that those are Hoffman's quotes. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
With pleasure! --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Chosui[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Chosui, 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. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Daibai[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Daibai, 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. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You really need to add more information to your Japanese poet articles other than their date of death. Everyone dies at some point. That is not what makes them notable. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The book's name is Japanese Death Poems, so the feeling of dying is very important. And please don't propose new deletions 'till the principles are discussed! --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the "feeling" is. Their needs to be background. If what you're saying is true then any page with a quote relating to death, wouldn't need more background other than the fact that the person died, because of the "feeling". Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, poetry is expressing feelings. Let's wait what other editors will write. --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The page Baiseki has enough information. I would add the two words myself, but since I don't own the book myself, I can't write definitively that they are poets. That is your job. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine! --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wang Zhihuan[edit]

This page is already on Wikiquote. You don't have to add a link to a Wikiquote article's Wikiquote article. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was in Wikipedia already! --Risto hot sir (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Enryo[edit]

I thought we discussed this already. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This should help. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Too much to read (and if You visit the Finnish sites, You might see that they're more joy to the eyes). --Risto hot sir (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Among other things, the page mentions that the biography should be approximately four sentences, not four words. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Another quote: “Quotes should be formatted as a bulleted list, each quote on its own bullet, with no quotation marks. Citations and any notes, such as translation or context, should follow in a sub-bullet. If a quote is not in English, it should be italicized. In that case, especially for non-Latin scripts, a transliteration is often useful.” Pay attention to what it says. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

All Wikiquotes have different practices, and I can't know them all. Many editors here prefer quotation marks, 'cause these are quotations. - I've heard that New York is a pretty big city, Big Apple, so there must be good libraries to get informaton about Enryo, for example. - When You compare the sites of Friedrich Nietzsche (just click language Suomi), which one looks visually better? The references should be at the end to not disturb reading. - What if I write only one poem a day, is it too hard to format it? --Risto hot sir (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Fuso[edit]

Please remember to write if the person is a poet. Do not just write that they died. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The category is Japanese poets, so why repeat words? --Risto hot sir (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)- And happy Christmas to You! I heard yesterday in the radio the song of the Pogues' and Kirsty MacColl's Christmas Time in New York, wonderful!--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The categories are there to sort the articles. They are not a replacement for a summary. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
As a side point, I don’t celebrate Christmas. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of death[edit]

Thank you for working on adding the categories for the year of death for people pages - but be sure that when you add the category for the exact year, that you also remove the category for the decade of death (since the year of death categories are a subset of the decade of death and thus both are not needed). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, just the exact year! --Risto hot sir (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration on Japanese Haiku article[edit]

Do you that think we should collaborate on making a single page about Japanese haiku? At this point, it makes the most sense since their is no reason to have so many articles that are nearly identical. People on English Wikiquote might not care about a particular poet, but they may find a general article to be very helpful. What do you think? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea! There are some problems still: about 100 poets are not represented yet, so the page would be pretty long. I don't think the haikus are nearly identical: the Japanese poets have perhaps thought all their lives how the final poem should be (like the pharaohs' pyramids). Look at the statistics: about 20 - 30 persons check the site on the first day, and they certainly not are common readers. - By the way, Christmas actually is Saturnalia from Rome. And before that it was celebrated in Babylon (and in Persia before?) with decorating trees with balls reminding of the sun. The christians, for practical reasons, wanted to time their Jesus's birthday on the same day.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not unusual for different cultures to celebrate the "return" of the sun in the weeks around the winter solstice, by lighting candles. Christians light an advent wreath on Christmas, Jews light a menorah on Chanukah, people of African heritage light a kinara on kwanzaa, e.t.c. This is not a coincidence. In Jewish tradition, this dates back to Adam who celebrated the winter solstice as well. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing "American" tag[edit]

I am not sure about this, but I believe that if you add a state than you should remove the "American" tag. I don't know for sure, though. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ask UDScott - and remind that there are notable people in South Dakota and West Virginia too! --Risto hot sir (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Haiku Articles[edit]

You have been adding many haiku articles. They are from people who are not notable and while ordinarily it would be okay, your blatant disregard for formatting has made these articles more of a nuisance than a positive contribution. I know that we have discussed this before, but I feel that I can not back down from my opinion any longer. You don't have to listen to me, but as a word of advice, I implore you to stop making these badly researched articles. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Goshuku[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Goshuku, 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. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So "this is English WQ" - and you're building a wall. That makes me wonder why the hell do I write here. Maybe you should delete Beethoven and Nietzsche, too, I don't think they spoke English. --Risto hot sir (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Beethoven is a famous and notable person. His works are unique and can be researched using a multitude of resources. These poems on the other hand have no sources other than a single book that no one other than you seems to have. Ordinarily, this wouldn’t be a problem, but you are unable to write adequate biographies and you have no regard for formatting. There is no way for other Wikiquotions to confirm the validity of these quotes and there is, as of now, no reason to put in the effort since these haiku articles add very little, if anything, to Wikiquote. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow! So I've got the only Japanese Death Poems -book in the whole wide world - it must be valuable! Therefore it's my duty to write the poems. Biographies unfortunately are not in that book. Formatting is not important to me; on the other hand I've made about 3 000 edits recent times, so could You forgive me? - JDP-book exists, many ancient works not. At en-WQ there are many quotes from Publilius Syrus, for example, whose many plays have disappeared, and after hundreds of years people guess they might perhaps been his. - And I can't write to Japanese WQ, 'cause I don't understand their writing.--Risto hot sir (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Your attitude is not helping. I have nothing against you, I simply want to ensure the high standards that Wikiquote has. What I meant by, "These poems on the other hand have no sources other than a single book that no one other than you seems to have." is that it appears that no other user of Wikiquote owns this book. If they do, they are not using it to edit.
If biographies are not in the book, than perhaps you should reconsider the inclusion of these haiku poets in Wikiquote.
Just because formatting is not important to you, doesn't mean that you can disregard it. There is no way for you to deny the fact that you have no regard to formatting these articles. It can be seen in the edit history.
Publilius Syrus is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and Google-ing his name brings up a multitude of results. You can not compare him to these poets. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, multitude of results of non-existing works.--Risto hot sir (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I have just as much reason to assume that your haiku articles are made up poems as well. Their are no legitimate sources for these poems. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's compromize!: You'll stop blaming haikus and I Syrus. --Risto hot sir (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “blaming haikus”. All I am doing is trying to maintain the strict content standards of Wikiquote. Is it too much to ask that you cooperate? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I write everything I know about these Japanese poets. If You are interested in the strict standards and want to cooperate, You'll search facts at New York libraries. --Risto hot sir (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The burden of research falls on you. It is your responsibility to find out more about the poets before you make the articles. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
In December you wrote "since many users disagree with me, I'll leave this topic alone." This is not Wikipedia, the life of a person is not important; at Wikiquote only the texts matter. If DanielTom, an expert at least in Chinese poetry, wants me to stop writing Japanese poetry, I would obey. --Risto hot sir (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Doyu[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Doyu, 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/Doyu. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And there you have it. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Not quite so: DanielTom didn't vote - and the result was KEEP. I'm very grateful he listed this poet for deletion, 'cause BD2412 found another book that proves Hoffmann has picked up notable Japanese poets. --Risto hot sir (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe the point brought up by BD is not relevant. No one is claiming that this poet did not exist. Daniel Tom, who didn’t vote only because he was the one who nominated the article for deletion, very clearly outlined his reasons for believing these articles should be deleted. I think you should actually take the time to read what he said. The only people who voted against him were you, and someone who misunderstood Daniel Tom’s point. All this is irrelevant however since you stated, “If DanielTom, an expert at least in Chinese poetry, wants me to stop writing Japanese poetry, I would obey.” Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The nominators can vote, too - and BD2412 doesn't misunderstand these kinds of points, look at the edit history! Even you did not vote.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what edit history has to do with this. The points brought up by Daniel Tom were that these poets were so obscure, they don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are based on a single source, they clog up the Japanese poets category, and these articles constitute a copyright violation. Bd2412 responded by saying that Doyu existed and that there is evidence of his poems. Unless I am missing something, that doesn't in any way argue against Daniel Tom's points. You of all people should agree to this, seeing as you believe Daniel Tom to be authoritative enough on this topic that you said you would "obey" his request to halt the writing of these articles. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's wait what DanielTom and BD will write. There's not a single source anymore.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I have just contacted Daniel Tom now regarding this issue. Hopefully, he will respond soon. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
First, I'm not an "authority" on anything. Second, BD2412 made a good point about that particular poem being quoted in a secondary source. As far as I can tell, most others aren't. Needless to say, the page Doyu may be kept, and the others not. It's just that they may have to be nominated for deletion and considered one by one (if we ignore the copyvio issue, that is). ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe DanielTom has made it abundantly clear that these articles should not be created unless you can find an additional source for them. Any disagreement on your part can only be the result of stubbornness, and not rational reasoning. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps BD2412 will help me at finding new sources.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I just asked him. - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Fine!--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the vote you requested.[edit]

Wikiquote:Village pump#Category:Japanese poets - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I found this on another user's user page. "Wikiquote is not a compendium of song lyrics or entire poems, and there are definite copyright issues in using more than a few lines of modern songs or modern poetry, even under fair use provisions. The same applies to dialogue from films, TV shows, and video games. While there are no legal impediments to using entire poems or lyrics that are in the public domain, the use of entire poems or the full lyrics of any songs are not encouraged, and a selection process of significant statements within a poem or a song should generally occur. Postings of copyrighted works on the internet does NOT place them in the public domain. See Wikiquote:Copyrights.". Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, in that case there's a lot to clean up at Wikiquote! - entire poems up to 250 words, long dialogues, etc.--Risto hot sir (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lot to clean up, but why make them to begin with if you have been told not to expressly. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It's better not to begin cleaning up. Once upon a time I wrote here that "it's hard to find the golden needles from hay", but I was wrong - it's better to have too much articles than no articles at all. Our copyright law says that the writer (or translator) must have been dead 70 years. Many sites have been deleted, mostly unlogically, 'cause there's still Donald Duck, for example. Walt Disney died less than 70 years ago. But I can write new Finnish poems translated here. At fi-Wq I've managed to write parts of poems in the form X = Y (democracy is...), then they are opinions or statements - and the poets have the right to have opinions. The longest this kind of site is Käsitteiden määritelmiä. Do you want the same kind of Big Brotherism at en-Wq?--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please be more clear. As a side note, Yoel Hoffmann is still alive. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
We should follow the Fair Use principle. It doesn't matter here if the author is still alive. I'm just warning where cleaning up can lead to.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair Use does not apply here. Fair use is the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder. I don't believe your 102 articles can be called "brief excerpts", and you made them for the purposes of educating the public, and not for criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research. Therefore, you are using them for the same purpose that the book was written, which is a violation of the author's copyright. Furthermore, it does not matter what you believe the rules should be, it matters what the rules are. The official page on copyright policy (see above) says, "It is important, especially when quoting from things such as movies and television series, but also other published works, to make sure that there are not too many quotes from any single copyrighted work. Be especially careful not to take too many quotations from a single television or movie series (which could potentially be held under one large copyright claim as well as per-episode copyright claims)." Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

When I look at your editing history, it's obvious that it's useless to continue the discussion here; I'd like to read opinions from experienced people.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As you wish... " It is wrong that "only experts can evaluate which poets are notable". See Wikipedia:Notability and WP:AUTHOR. It is not a matter of evaluating the poets or poems, but of simply observing how they are regarded in reliable sources. You should know all about the WP:GNG by now Risto hot sir. Please follow it." That is a quote from Ningauble. You may check his edit history if you like. Also, please refrain from using disparaging remarks as a defense against a user attempting to enforce policy. It comes across as arrogant, and shows that you have no other means of defending your point. Now my experience in life, not Wikiquote, has taught me that when someone uses insult as a means of continuing an argument, it is because they have nothing to say back. This is not a palindrome contest. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's wait what wise women and men will say. I'm not going to study your complicated laws, those who know it surely will advice me.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, let's wait. On a side note, how should we go about alerting people to the existence of your "vote" on the village pump? It seems to have gone unnoticed. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
There's no voting going on, I suppose. The "vote" has been gone unnoticed, because the topic might be not interesting.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to help by adding {{checkcopyright}} to Category:Japanese poets Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Please do not continue the argument on the Village Pump. If you are right, than they will agree with you without your snide comments. Remember, I made the post to fulfill your request. Thank you - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Could we discuss on the Village Pump in the future?--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of the Village Pump. If we need to discuss things, we can do it on either off our talk pages - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
We can't solve these problems, we're like mosquito's fart in Sahara. The main editors decide.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I am no longer trying to solve these problems myself. My comment was in response to you when you said, "Could we discuss on the Village Pump in the future?". On a side note, that was an amazing simile. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Understood.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC) - That mosquito phrase is a Finnish proverb. We've endless rude sayings, like "eating iron, ######## chains." (Väinö Linna)--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC) - Actually, I enjoy conversating with you - though my lacking skills in English. At fi-Wq I'm so all alone, and the editors there probably want me to get stoned.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Woah. That was crazy. I didn't know what I was going to do until Kalki stepped in and took charge. I think we all owe him/her one. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, God bless Kalki!--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Finally, something we agree on ;) Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
We have very many same opinions, I think.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It would appear most (if not all) of these poets and their poems come straight from Japanese Death Poems. Compiled by Yoel Hoffmann. ISBN 978-0-8048-3179-6, which makes it a flagrant violation of collection copyright AND of the copyright on the translations. I would strongly recommend that all of the pages listing this as their source be removed before legal trouble ensues. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 19:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Legal trouble? - let me laugh! These Japanese poets' sites have been visited about once per day each. Would you drop an A-bomb on innocent Japanese flies? I again ask why Top Gear (160 visits per day) isn't a copyright violation. I've nothing against that side, but it's more than 600 000 bytes long, and the longest sites make the rules what can be quotated.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The frequent visits to these pages is exactly why they may cause "legal trouble". The more people see the page, the more you are harming the copyright of the book. Protecting a copyright is not "drop[ing] an A-bomb on innocent Japanese flies". If you want the quotes to be available for Japanese people, consider doing research, finding the quotes in their original language, and adding them to Japanese Wikiquote. Furthermore, I was the one that added the quotation limit banner to the top of Top Gear (with help from Whaledad). The problem with the page is that it has too many quotes, not that it is a copyright violation, since the page does not contain any actual audio visual content from the show, and even if it did, that would be allowed as per Fair Use. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
One visit per day is not a frequent visit.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Atsujin has 6 pageviews. Assuming the same applies for all 102 articles in Category:Japanese poets that's 612 views of copyrighted material. "Frequent" is in fact, quite subjective. However, all this is admittedly irrelevant, since the legal issue of violating a copyright would still be present even if none of the pages had been viewed. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, 6 pageviews, that could really cause a bankrupt! Could you please finally tell me about the copyright situation of Top Gear? Fair use? And the process you've started may lead "prods" to hundreds of TV-series and film sites.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You clearly did not read anything I just wrote, so I'll say it again. Assuming the same applies for all 102 articles in Category:Japanese poets that's 612 views of copyrighted material (not 6). However, all this is admittedly irrelevant, since the legal issue of violating a copyright would still be present even if none of the pages had been viewed. Furthermore, I was the one that added the quotation limit banner to the top of Top Gear. The problem with that page is that it has too many quotes, not that it is a copyright violation, since the page does not contain any actual audio visual content from the show, and even if it did, that would be allowed as per Fair Use. I didn't need to message every sysop about it, because it is only one article, not 102. As for your request, Fair Use is the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder. Lastly, I would have assumed that you would be happy about "hundreds of TV-series and film sites" being prodded since you wrote on Talk:Main Page, "You should consider what's the purpose of the en-Wikiquote! I can see that 70% of the longest sites are purely entertainment. Whole seasons of TV-series are represented. Do You really think that Shrek's and his donkey's opinions are as notable as those of Nietzsche or Oscar Wilde? Now the Wikiquote is like a shack full of hay, and it's difficult to find the golden needles. If someone wants to give a lecture about the ice age he/she probably doesn't benefit from the animated Ice Age!". Your welcome. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I've wrote after that that I was wrong. It's better to have too many articles than no articles at all. Quotations from Top Gear are hardly for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research. The point is that your practice of copyright law is a spider's web where only small ones (like Japanese haiku poets) get caught while the big ones not (Jonathan Swift's idea).--Risto hot sir (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Quotes from Top Gear don't need to uphold to the rules of Fair Use. I've tried explaining this to you before but it didn't work, so I'll try to dumb it down for you. Category:Japanese poets contains 102 transliterated haiku, 102 translations of those haiku, and 102 explanatons of those haiku. All are from the same copyrighted book. That is a total of 306 pieces of copyrighted material. The article Top Gear contains 0 audio/visual content from the show Top Gear. That's 0 pieces of copyrighted material. Top Gear doesn't need to uphold to the rules of Fair Use because the words spoken by people in the show, aren't copyrighted. The show itself is. The problem with Top Gear is that it has too many quotes. That is why I added a quote limit banner. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Just A Regular New Yorker: They do because scripts are protected under copyright. @Risto hot sir: See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Some nuance here: Certainly the quotes in Top Gear have to adhere to the rules of Fair use. Those rules are: max. 5 quotes for an hour-long episode. Each quote can be up to 7 lines of text or up to 10 lines of dialogue. There are several episodes where the 5-quote rule has been violated. If you violate fair use rules, you violate copyright. So, The Top Gear article needs to have some culling done. This still has nothing to do with the Japanese poets articles. It is very bad form in the Wikimedia world to try and deflect a discussion on a article (or in this case a range of articles) by comparing it to another article (w:WP:WAX). Please try and keep discussions clean and pure. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 17:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that this rule applies to Top Gear since the show is reality TV, and as such, does not have a script in the traditional sense of the word. Although the people in the show are probably not just saying whatever comes to mind, there is no real written script. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Even when completely without a script, there would still be copyright. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 17:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Mea Culpa. However, this isn't relevant here. Either way, we all can all agree that the articles in Category:Japanese poets needs to be taken care of, regardless of what is on Top Gear. - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's necessary to compare sites - like you compare different crimes in the court. One tiny crime can lead to severer ones.--Risto hot sir (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
You are wrong. For information on why, you may read these; w:WP:WAX - Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

To make Wikiquote better and legal the people should not close their eyes but report of the rule breakings.--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
But Risto hot sir, just yesterday you called such reporting "vandalizing" and "censorship"! W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 19:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not "vandalizing" and "censorship" when all sites are treated equally.--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that. However, one must look at the bigger picture. There are 102 articles in Category:Japanese poets. That's why they got prodded. There is one article on Top Gear. It doesn't need to get prodded, because it can be easily fixed by removing quotes. That's why I (with help from WhaleDad) added a notification to the page. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Let's see who's going to "easily" fix Top Gear, which includes more copyright violations than those 102 articles together. That's the bigger picture. And after Top Gear we must prod the next long TV-show, and so on...--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I’m not an expert on copyright law, but I can try. So can you. That’s the beauty of a wiki. Either way, the 102 articles need to be taken care of. Granted, others do as well, but that doesn’t change the reality of those 102 articles. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 21:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Good luck! But the fixing must be done by native English speakers.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC) - I'm afraid You will have a lot of enemies. I tried to clean some clear copyvio's at fi-Wq and got banned for a week.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
"But the fixing must be done by native English speakers." - Why? "I'm afraid You will have a lot of enemies." - Why? - W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

'cause many editors have done a lot of work writing these quotations. I've also no interest to tell what English Wikiquote should be, it's you concern, and have no idea what Top Gear, for example, is.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC) - Actually, everything essential of human life has been written more than 2000 years ago. Novels of today with hundreds of pages can be expressed in a couple of quotations, they're just been decorated to sell to people who don't know this. All's loan. That's why I love haikus. Short and simple!--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC) - The Death. In ancient Egypt and Japan all living was preparing to die and live after that. Nowadays people don't want to think about it. Artists who can make the folks to forget this get a lot of money. The universe is billions years old - what is human life compared to it?--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

”I've also no interest to tell what English Wikiquote should be, it's you concern”. For someone who is so afraid to edit, you seemed to have no problem adding 102 articles even when you were told not to be multiple users. Don’t pretend that you want to help, but are afraid because the native English speaking “tyrants” will block you. You don’t want to help, because you don’t want to be bothered to have to do something that requires effort. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
It would be crazy if I'd edit TV-series I don't have no idea. Hoffmann's poets were easy to copy. Just follow your own rules!--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you reading what you yourself are writing? “...I don't have no idea. Hoffmann's poets were easy to copy.” Think about what you just said, and then look back at your talk page. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
So what's the problem? Quoting is copying.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You just admitted that you have no idea how to edit, rather you were just copying. Yet, when you were expressly told that that was a copyright violation, suddenly you had a vast resource of editing knowledge to draw upon in you defense. It appears that you alternate between knowing how to edit and not knowing anything in order to fit your agenda. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You're very brave at editing Top Gear! In my opinion the quotations of Japanese haiku poets is Fair use. At Wikiquote you can't write sentences out of your head, they must be exactly the same as the source - at Wikipedia the thing is different.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
An editor editing isn’t bravery, it’s him doing his job. Furthermore, whether or not something is allowed to be copied because of Fair Use, has nothing to do with your opinion. It depends on what the objective law is. Lastly, no one is saying that the 102 articles are bad because you didn’t come up with the quotes. We are saying that they are bad because they all come from one source which makes them a copyright violation. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The laws are subjective: if you have money enough, you won't get caught. There are no objective laws - and never has been. Just let the people vote! And Germans at concentration camps "just did their job".--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that you are allowed to violate a copyright because there are wealthy people that use their influence to avoid being caught? Either your not making sense, or I’m missing a step. What exactly do you mean by a vote, and lastly, what does any of this have to do with the Holocaust? J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 02:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No, no! "Just did their job" means not only Holocaust but following orders without thinking. If your opinion is that those Japanese poets' haikus are against copyright laws we must vote, of course.--Risto hot sir (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
What the Germans did during World War II has nothing to do with Category:Japanese poets. No one is saying that those haiku are against the law. We are saying that your articles are a copyright violation. Please try to keep up. There is nothing to vote about. Everyone but you, who said that you have no idea how to edit, agrees that the articles are a copyright violation. The only exception is Doyu. - J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 02:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Who are "we"? All the votings have ended to "KEEP"! And I'm saying again it's Fair use. "There's nothing to vote about" is like Putin's talk.--Risto hot sir (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
All the votings were on the article Doyu. That’s why I wrote that it’s an exception. Technically, the vote didn’t even end, since although the voting is over, the moderators haven’t come to a decision about the article. 306 pieces of copyrighted material spread over 102 articles is not brief, and it has to be for Fair Use to apply. Lastly, there is nothing to vote about because no one has contested the prods. All the administrators seem to be fine with the prods staying and having the articles deleted on March 22. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 02:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been many votings, but I can't remember all of the 102 ones. Let us see what happens on March 22! Who are the moderators? Are they elected by democratic votings? If not, we're rapidly running to Brave New World...--Risto hot sir (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There has not been other votings. You don’t need to try to remember, you can just look at the Votes for Deletion Page. Furthermore, your criticism of the system does not allow you to violate copyright law. There is nothing you can say that will make it legal. Besides, I think any admin can be a moderator if they want, and admins are chosen “democratically”. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 11:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
My opinion is that I am not violating copyright law.--Risto hot sir (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that you would have no problem with a terrorist being sent free, because in his opinion he wasn’t violating the law? J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The community decides what's the law. No lynching! Japanese haiku poets were not terrorists, quite the opposite. - By the way, have you noticed that all the time new possible copyright violations pop up at Wq, Beavis and Butthead for example?--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. When did I say that Japanese haiku poets were terrorists? What does any of this have to do with lynchings? How does the creation of bad articles pardon your illegal copyright violation? Please try to be more clear. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair use! Those are not bad articles and not illegal copyright violations. You've done excellent work with Top Gear, but after cleaning all TV shows you will have more edits than anyone else.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. Think about what you want to say in defense of the articles in Category:Japanese poets, and then say it clearly and concisely. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Quotation marks around entire quotation[edit]

Hi User:Risto hot sir. Thanks for your work on Wikiquote. I just wanted to touch base about a recent edit. For the most part, Wikiquote doesn't have quotation marks around entire quotations. I'm wondering why you added them in this particular case. Best regards, Peter1c (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for information! At fi-Wq some editors want quotation marks around entire quotations, but that's not a rule.--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Most articles in Category:Japanese poets[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article [[Most articles in Category:Japanese poets]], 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 [[Talk:Most articles in Category:Japanese poets|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. - W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 20:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove boldface from most "Last words"[edit]

Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on User:MonsterHunter32's massive censorship of sourced quotes without discussion[edit]

I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? You can read more about it at the link above, and at the other discussions linked in that discussion. Thank you. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The user User:Jedi3 keeps falsely blaming me of censorship and keeps edit-warring. He is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source. He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that wasn't about the topic.

Or making up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

He falsely keeps saying I'm censoring him when all I've done is remove those quotes which aren't notable in any manner. Not those which are notable and i've preserved many of the quotes he has added. also removed the subsection of my complaint here. He himself censors me here and here in the past.

I've warned him several times including here, here and here. He doesn't listen and has removed my comments several times from his talk page.

Not to mention this person has also insulted me by terming me annoying after another user called me so, besides also calling me a vandal, when he himself can be indicted for edit-warring and vandalism. please block this user. I've been trying to cooperate with him, but it is clear he only wants his ideology imposed here. Their is no bar on any person of any ideology, even though Wikiquote is about neutrality but he doesn't care about anything and is being unprofessional.  and it is clear he doesn't care what he does to get his edits here at all costs.

Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revert is a revert whether partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. I would first like to check all his quotes and then discuss them one by one.

I am discussing even right now all quotes one by one who Jedi3 says must not be removed, has is not cooperating. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The first of your points is a content dispute, the place to discuss these is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes). These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles.
When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you. --Jedi3 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Aurangzeb. But like other articles you stop discussing. I haven't opposed discussion. It is you who is refusing to cooperate.
You keep repeatedly making false claims. Oh and I have not said I will never discuss. It is you who is refusing cooperation by making false claims again and again. It is you who has added or removed quotes under false reasons. Removal of quotes is censorship. Didn't you first realise those quotes will be removed? Anyone can. Add that to your already made false claims regarding quotes, it is clear you are only interested in disruptive edits with malafide content.
While you claim I censored you, I have already said i am not removing anything because of your views but simply because your quotes are not memorable and in some cases added under false claims. I added the quotes at Talk:Aurangzeb and you picked one from Will Durant. We are discussing it. If you refuse to continue discussion, then that is your fault.
Also please note that User:Jedi3 has tried to wriggle out of any attempts at discussion by demanding an interaction ban. I can understand a block. But it is clear this person is making all attempts to stifle discussion so he gets what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my English is not good enough to take part in this complex "conversation".--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Descriptive text for video games[edit]

Thanks for your help with the births categories, they should have never been deleted. I recently started a discussion on the village pump and have had some of my very brief one sentence descriptive texts reverted and was wondering if I could get your opinion and possibly assistance with the matter. I was told my description made the page ugly and that this was not en encyclopedia in the edit summary. Luckily I've no more to add in this evidently controversial field, and I don't think I am likely to be banned, simply for good faith edits to Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! and The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, though I could be wrong. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! My language skills in English are'nt not good enough for these kinds of discussions.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

Hello, there is a discussion about categorization that maybe is of your interest because your involvement with such. Rupert loup (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop crowding the category people with circular subcategories, is not helpful. Rupert loup (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminship[edit]

Please share your support. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions) Thanks. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 00:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

contributing?[edit]

any tips or refs? places i can find quotes. Noal29 (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Noal29! I'm not a native English speaker, so haven't many tips. But "1001 quotations to inspire you before you die" includes many ones not existing at Wq - and 50 Philosophy classics by Tom Butler-Bowdon.--Risto hot sir (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks! For all your adding of the Categories, on date and location! FotoDutch (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata[edit]

Hi :) thanks for your contributions! When you create a page, it would be great if you could connect it on Wikidata. For example, when creating Category:People from Galicia you could go on the corresponding Wikidata item (see Category:Galician people on Wikipedia, on the left column, section "Tools", clic on "Wikidata item"), which is d:Q8480016. Scroll down and edit the "Wikiquote" section, adding the new page ;) Of course it is not mandatory, but it would connect the page with all the other pages on the Wikimedia projects, otherwise it will extend the page Special:UnconnectedPages. Thank you, bye ;-) --Superchilum (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia images[edit]

I would like to use Raymond Chandler's image which you also recently edited. But it's only on Wikipedia and it doesn't show up no matter what I do. Do you know any workaround? Thanks in advance. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No longer needed. BD2412 informed me. I only messaged you in case he wasn't active and since you edited it too. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your encouragement! Good work on categorising articles. I will have a look at the list and will try to add some more.--Britannicus (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Redundant categories[edit]

Hi! If a page is in Category:English singer-songwriters it should not be anymore in Category:English singers and in Category:English songwriters, because Category:English singer-songwriters is in both of them.--Spinoziano (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! There are already categories American songwriters AND American singer-songwriters. The practice should be the same. All songwriters are not singers, and all the songwriters should be found at one place, I think.--Risto hot sir (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC) - And I won't categorize more songwriters 'till there's consensus.--Risto hot sir (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It would be useful to hear the opinion of somone else on the matter. However thanks for your great work with categories. --Spinoziano (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for Your excellent work also! Yes, this must be discussed - the same problem exists with academics etc.--Risto hot sir (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Whether Hong Kong is "among the big cities of the world" has no bearing on whether Category:People from Hong Kong belongs in Category:People. None of these city categories belong in this category at all. As such, I am removing them all. A city goes in a territory. A territory goes in a country. A country goes in larger generic categories. GMGtalk 17:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I wrote before of the psychological point: the main cities must be on one site to compare. One may wonder "why has my city so few notable people?" - and do something to it. So please do not remove them without general discussion and consensus!--Risto hot sir (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
There has already been general discussion. The result was that we should not capriciously and redundantly add pages to parent categories. GMGtalk 17:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Ask UDScott, Ningauble etc. before ruining my works!--Risto hot sir (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What are you doing?[edit]

See [1]. Vermont (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, this site has been vandalized so many times that it should be protected.--Risto hot sir (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how that explains why you re-added a category that's quite obviously vandalism by reverting my edit, twice. Vermont (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read carefully.--Risto hot sir (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)