User talk:Spannerjam

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hi, welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking for proverbs?[edit]

Wikiquote:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations/Proverbs has a listing of several hundred fully formatted proverbs, reported as such in Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations (1922), p. 639-43. Please feel free to copy these over and stick them in the English proverbs page; quotes that have been moved, or are duplicates of existing material, can be deleted from the project page. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish proverbs[edit]

Great work on resurrecting these proverbs pages! As to your question regarding the previously deleted material, I'm not sure how to restore them once you recreate the page. Unless someone more technically-savvy than I can explain, another approach would be to request the reinstatement of them onto a Talk page prior to you recreating the page. I would be happy to do so in this case (and I would have also restored the Spanish ones as well, but I can't see how to get to that history). Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just undelete the underlying history. Then anyone who wanted could look at a prior version and copy its contents to the talk page. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I am sure you are right (I knew there had to be a way), but I just didn't see the link - my bad. I will restore these to the Talk page. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've restored the deleted quotes to Talk:Spanish proverbs and Talk:Polish proverbs, awaiting sourcing. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Could you please do this with Latvian and Danish proverbs as well? --Spannerjam (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of newly created proverb articles[edit]

Hi Spannerjam. I replied to your enquiry on my talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting deletions[edit]

I have deleted the pages Dominican proverbs, on which you wrote "This page can become deleted," and Ingush proverbs, on which you wrote "This page can be removed." There may be others that I did not notice.

In the future, please use the {{delete | reason}} template to request deletion. That way it will show up in the appropriate maintenance category where the request will be noticed. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Aramaic proverbs[edit]

I'm afraid that the one proverb on that page is Hebrew, not Aramaic. (The whole of the Mishnah is in Hebrew.) I'll move it, and find something really in Aramaic.--Abramsky (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

English proverbs[edit]

Hi Spannerjam. Please consider joining a discussion about changes to the English proverbs article at Talk:English proverbs#Subject headings and Talk:English proverbs#Removal of historical citations and proverbs. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

English proverbs redlinks[edit]

Hi. Rather than unlinking the redlinked section headers in English proverbs, please consider helping to create topic pages for those links to lead to. For example, Eggs has four proverbs listed, which would be an excellent start to a page on that theme, and would be helpful to anyone looking for quotes about eggs. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit late for that; I have already deleted all redlinks. --Spannerjam (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I intend to restore them. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have you ever had a look at the Hoyt's proverbs page? I messaged you about it above. The quotes are fully sourced and formatted. Obviously some will be duplicates to what you already have. Cheers again! BD2412 T 02:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did! Way back in february. --Spannerjam (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due[edit]

In your recent addition to Wives,[1] the source you cite clearly attributes the quote to Lord Burleigh. Why would you omit information about the origin of the quote? It only takes a minute or two on Google to identify the exact origin and give credit where credit is due.[2] ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cattle[edit]

Hi Spannerjam. Your request for clarification here has been answered by providing a historical quotation with context. Regards, Ningauble (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ningauble! Thank you for your swift and ambitious help. --Spannerjam (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On serpents and dragons[edit]

Hi, Spannerjam. "A serpent, unless it devours a serpent, does not become a dragon" probably has the same meaning as "The great fish eat the small." See here:

A serpent, unless it devours a serpent, will not become a dragon. The powerful grow at the expense of others, and the fortunes of the nobility would not increase as they do, had they no victims whom they can suck dry. Just so, among fish and beasts, the larger live by butchering the smaller.

P.S. Let me take this opportunity to thank you for all your work on proverb pages. It doesn't go unnoticed! Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Humanity quote.[edit]

The quote from The Event is a good quote, but every quote has a (non-fictional) author. There must be a screenwriter to whom that episode is credited, and they should be acknowledged in our citation. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Proverbs[edit]

I realize you have worked extensively on the proverbs pages, probably to a greater extent than anyone, but I cannot understand why you are removing so many recently. I am only briefly checking in today, and am not concerned enough to get too involved in the issue, but as these seem to be well-cited proverbs, I can't perceive any clear reason for their removal. ~ Kalki·· 09:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The reason for the deletions is to make sure the proverbs here on Wikiquote got the most possible brevity. For example, only having variants of "Well begun is half done" instead of also having variants of "A good beginning makes a good ending" is better, in my opinion. This is because "Well begun is half done" is more rhytmical, and therefore more easy to remember. "Well begun is half done" is also closer to the meaning of both these proverbs, which is that having made the right preparations will make a project half as laborious. --Spannerjam (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I had not responded earlier, because I had lost track of this discussion, amidst other concerns, but now resume with some comments. Though I appreciate that it might often be you who had added the quotes in the first place, I actually cannot agree with such rationale for the removal of quotes, and believe we should collect and maintain quotations, especially those that are widely published, and I am not particularly prone to remove material primarily because of any perceptions of the worth or brevity of one quote relative to any other quotes upon a subject. I believe variants of specific quotes should be gathered and retained, and especially believe variant and differing expressions on themes should be retained, and that some should not be excluded primarily or merely because others are perceived as "better." I much prefer there be broad diversity of options available to human thought, rather than overly rigorous constraints placed upon opportunities for expanding many forms of awareness and appreciation of often subtle nuances of expressions or even conceivably vitally important discernment that can be awakened in some people by some cues, and not by others. ~ Kalki·· 05:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I have now restored all the proverbs I removed on 22 May 2013. Then, I was carried away by my love for this proverb hobby of mine, so I did not see things clearly. Also I have learned that "there is no changing horses in midstream". I agree with your notion that content here on Wikiquote should be allowed to be diverse. --Spannerjam (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

James Russell Lowell[edit]

Regarding your question:  He refers to great books that have stood the test of time, in contrast to new stuff of unknown quality. Bear in mind that literary "criticism" is not necessarily negative. (I have a number of friends who avidly read everything that comes out in certain areas of interest; but I am more like Lowell myself – I think that too much new stuff is a waste of time, and would rather wait to see what endures.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for taking your time. --Spannerjam (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

John Dryden additions reverted[edit]

I have reverted your additions to John Dryden because those quotes do not appear in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919). Please check your sources carefully before adding quotes asserted to appear in those sources. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What about these http://www.bartleby.com/100/777.68.html http://www.bartleby.com/100/777.70.html? --Spannerjam (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I hadn't thought about the appendix (I had worked that group into X me no Xs years ago, and not considered their suitability for author pages). Cheers again! BD2412 T 01:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I hereby award you this Barnstar for your extensive work on proverb-related pages, the latter being not only popular among Wikiquote readers, but also (I find) very enjoyable. Cheers! ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! It is always a pleasure that you are being showed appreciation for the huge amount of time and effort you put into something. I have to ask out of curiosity, how do you now the proverbs are popular among Wikiquote readers? --Spannerjam (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. See here (most viewed articles in April 2013). The English, Latin, and Chinese proverb pages, in particular, have ~400 views a day, which is quite high. (See, e.g., [3].) ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

QOTD[edit]

I moved your proposal for the 18 January QOTD into the section for other suggestions to be ranked. Though not an absolute requirement, suggestions should have some relation to the date, and though Richard Francis Burton is one of my own favorite 19th century personalities, most quotes by him stand their best chances on 19 March, his birthday. ~ Kalki·· 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference to me if it is suggested for his birthday – or any other day for that matter. --Spannerjam (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

how to move pages[edit]

Hi Spannerjam. At your top right, where you can see the star to watchlist pages, there is also an arrow pointing down, and if you click it, the option "Move" appears. Then all you have to do is say what you want the new title to be. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --Spannerjam (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Revertions[edit]

I'm sorry that I had to revert your removals, but you see, I added those quotes because I thought (and still think) they are worthy of inclusion, so of course I was going to restore them. In any case, edit warring is never good, and I really don't want you to take the revertions personally. Just a minor disagreement. Take care, DanielTom (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! There is no need to apologize. I believe a certain amount of brazen opinions need to be delievered, so that we can get our points across (though it might be wise to avoid doing so when it comes to newcomers). What I am worried about is that En Wikiquote becomes unreadable since every contributor have their own differing plan, albeit I am at least as guilty of this as anyone else. Therefore I don't see the point of adding exclusively humorous content when it is not practice after over 10 000 articles. But as I now have learned your contributions quotes about Alex Jones were not intended for humour. On the other hand I am sympathetic with you and UDScott:s apparent vision of a broad scope of notable quotes. After all, who knows where it will lead us? I guess what we must think about is: What is it we want to tell our reader? --Spannerjam (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject[edit]

Hello Spannerjam. I think you would be interested in Wikiquote:WikiProject Weekly Cleanup, since you relatively work on articles and a highly knowledgeable user in the "pages on Wikiquote field". --~~Goldenburg111 22:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am indeed interest in WikiProject Weekly Cleanup. However I have much going outside cyberspace and on Wikiquote, so I will not sign up for now. The proverb pages need a lot of clean up. I will leave a note about it in the projects discussion page. If there is any technical questions or if you would like to hear my opinion on matters do not hesitate to ask. --Spannerjam (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

proverb pages[edit]

References for proverbs are not so important, (not just because there are so many of them, but because the proverbs don't originate from them,) so perhaps a better format would be to present them like Wikipedia does, at the end of the page. They would still be necessary, to establish the existence/notability/quotability of the proverbs, but that way they would be less distracting (visually) to readers. Do you agree, that this would improve the presentation of the proverb pages? [Oh, and one more thing. You may wish to visit Wiktionary, and see their collection of English proverbs (with explanations).] Cheers. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think references for proverbs are important, see Wikiquote:Sourcing#Proverbs. It is not easy to research them well, but the result is quite valuable. See also the extensive discussion at Talk:English proverbs#English proverbs "cleanup"-sign. I spent many hours working on the cleanup last year, but only got half way through step 4 before setting it aside for later. If nobody else does so, I will eventually get back to completing the work. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It has always been a hunch of mine that the inline references are in the way somehow, but no one has pointed it out to me untill now. The more experienced user Ningauble is strongly against footnotes here on Wikiquote so therefore I have avoided using this seemingly controversial citing method. --Spannerjam (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Even Homer nods. Ninguable is wrong, and I'll show him why, when I have the time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)