User talk:Butwhatdoiknow

notes to self - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Butwhatdoiknow, and welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! --Rubbish computer (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
 * When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~&#126;) and saving.
 * Be bold.

Reverts explained
I have reverted extensive removal of sourced quotes from pages which you have recently made without discussion in recent edits. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And thank you for the heads up. As I explained in my edit summaries, I reverted the quotes because they were, in my opinion, not notable (that is, "no enduring relevance to many people"). Did you consider notability of the quotes (as opposed to the persons quoted) before doing mass reversions of my changes? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been dealing with a vandal here who just migrated to the Commons in his activity — and only have glanced in here before leaving for the day. I do not have time to address your question extensively right now, as I must be leaving immediately, but will address them later. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A short answer to your question is YES, I actually DID "consider notability of the quotes (as opposed to the persons quoted)" as well as numerous other quite evident factors. That I have not yet explicitly and thoroughly addressed some of these is probably to your advantage — because what I perceived to be the extremely biased efforts at censorship of views and statements of notable individuals (even those which I must strongly disagree with), is something that I passionately deplore. I have had limited time to work on this project lately, and that is about all I will state for now, as I again must be leaving. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikiquote
"A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work."

"Can be notable", not "is always notable". The notability of the author can be a contributing factor. And in Wikiquote, quotations are already defined as "the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words" – that's the litmus test. Anyway, because your change to a wording which had stood unchallenged since almost the founding of Wikiquote has met resistance, you should try to gain consensus for it on the talk page, and not keep reverting to get your way. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking the time to provide a substantive explanation of your reversion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's another way to think about it. There are quotes that merely show that author X was aware of and influenced by work Y, which are notable only because of the notability of their authors. If I write in a diary: "25 April 2017. Finished reading The Essays of Montaigne", that is not (and probably never will be) in any way a notable quotation. But if Shakespeare had written that he read Erasmus, Machiavelli, or Montaigne, those few words alone would very much be notable and printed in all manner of articles and books about the influence of those authors on Shakespeare's works. They would be notable quotations only because of the notability of its author Shakespeare. There are other reasons, but this one alone is sufficient to retain that wording, I think. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another example: if I say in some internet forum that the poems of Sappho are "few, but roses", no one will care. No one will pick it up. Because who am I? No one cares about my opinion. It would never become a notable quotation. But Meleager said it, so it became a famous saying about Sappho's poems. People are mostly only interested in what notable people said, unsurprisingly. "Few, but roses" is notable at least in part because of the notability of its author, which is almost always an initial requirement for a quote to become well-known. Countless other examples like this could be provided. Of course I may be wrong about this, but that policy/guideline is something that should be discussed by the community and not changed unilaterally. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * With regard to your first example, I'm sure the quote would be of interest - "notable," if you will - to scholars, but does that make it a "quality" quote? With regard to your second example, the quote clearly is a "quality" quote and, as you point out, made by a notable person. So it has at least two of the seven quotability factors in its favor.
 * With regard to your last clause, it doesn't appear to me that WQ:WQ is tagged as either a policy or a guideline. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me give you a more substantial (this time real) example: Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote in his diary on 27 February 1835: "This day I finished Thucydides, after reading him with inexpressible interest and admiration. He is the greatest historian that ever lived." This is admittedly better than just "X read Y", but it still is only a notable quotation about Thucydides because of Macaulay's notability (and it wouldn't be notable if some non-notable author had written it). ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We're on the same page vis-a-vis statements by notable people have a lower threshold than statements by a member of the hoi palloi. My concern is those who bootstrap that into saying that mundane statements are quotable because they were made by notable people. I think I have a solution for WQ:WQ in this regard. When I have the time I'll propose it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Butwhatdoiknow, User:DanielTom has only reverted you after another editor faslely called User:Beefybufoon as my sock. Notably these two people have a problem with me removing their non-notable quotes. The other editor Beefybufoon also challenged him again.

Even if DanielTom wants consensus or status quo, he has no reason to edit-war. You are right in what you did. For example Trump's comments may not be reported and noted widely if made by someone else. But is every comment of Trump reported widely just because they're made by him? Of course not. That is the gist of what he is misinterpreting. There's also a very important line in Quotability saying: It is the quote itself that must be notable. So your edit was correct.

Regardless, if he wants consensus or not, there is no excuse for DanielTom's edit-warring even if he wants consensus. DanielTom after failing to win through edit-warring has locked you two out. He demands protection even though he hismelf edit-warred. Now I don't care about his motives, but his action is disruptive. Multiple users have been upset with him. DanielTom also persoanlly attacks people. See Administrators' noticeboard where I hope you give your opinion. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, since this was my first edit on this topic I was wondering why he concluded with "and not keep reverting to get your way." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That last remark was admittedly a lapse on my part, though you could take it as a cautionary advice. In response to MonsterHunter32's distortions of me here, for example that I allegedly "have a problem with [him] removing [my] non-notable quotes", I'll just say that I've actually only restored quotes inappropriately removed by him that were originally added by others. That is, quotes added by other editors in the first place, not by me. So they are not "[my] non-notable quotes". And he ended up adding them back later. Sorry you got caught up in this. ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Side conversation
I never reverted User:DanielTom on Wikiquote, so I don't understand what's his problem. While he talks about quotes by other editors, I only removed them under valid reasons. He has kept on edit-warring in the past instead of doing anything else with me. Some examples:


 * On Everybody Draw Mohammed Day DanielTom kept edit-warring and didn't bother to talk until after my last edit. I had already invited him to discussion. Do discussions take hours or days to start? I waited over an hour after his second revert. He only discussed after 3 hours and accepted my compromise.


 * On Tipu Sultan he tried to have his preferred version restored by an admin after edit-warring. But BD2412 simply told him to discuss instead. In the end I was right the quote or at least a part of it was non-notable.

DanielTom needs to apologoze to a lot of people. Even User:CensoredScribe has complained him again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You may not know this, but CensoredScribe is one of Wikiquote's most notorious vandals. He has received long blocks more than once for his disruptive behavior. My opposition to him was necessary for the good of the project. CensoredScribe has since apologized. You have already implicitly acknowledged that I was right to revert you by adding the quotes in dispute back. Maybe someday you'll apologize to me too, if you have any conscience. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It is funny Tom that you omit that BD2412 himself said you ha dbeen blocked for three months in the past. You are merely making excuses fir your behaviour. As for acknowledging User:DanielTom, the only reason I added the quotes back in one cases because even though I though it irrelevant I didn't want an edit-war, in another I simply removed the non-notable part. The edit history's right above you. Apologize? Hopefully, I or someone else can get you blocked again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Butwhatdoiknow, we two get carried away in our disputes. You're right this is not a place for this discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologized for what now Daniel Tom? When and what was this about now? Please remember to use links rather than assume "omniscience" as Peter1c likes to call it. Also MonsterHunter32, you are correct about incivility, however as long as you don't: use an unseen set of black listed curse words that only the admins know definitively, (i.e. use the "alphabet words"), make death threats, spam off site links, or blatantly sexually harass someone in a way that could result in legal or media action; than unfortunately I don't think any of the admins actually care what anyone says outside of mainspace, mainspace edits are the only ones that count. Sounds a bit like, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" if you ask me, which is probably true in this case as well given how geologically long the voting process for anything here is and how few of us really know each other off wiki on average, we are all basically strangers to one another still. I remember how votes on Uncyclopedia would actually take a week, like we claim they are supposed to here, which leads me to wonder if this is actually secretly a comedy wiki designed to waste the time and energy of users who were banned from Wikipedia like me and Daniel Tom. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for adminship
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.|🗣️|📧 00:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Thank you for your recent additions to this page. However, the amount of quotes on the page now far exceeds limits set forth in Limits on quotations. This means that many of the quotes currently on the page will be removed as the page should be trimmed to a maximum of eight quotes based on its 102-minute running time. Do be aware that this trimming will likely soon occur - and I would recommend you not add more quotes. Thanks. WikiLubber (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Says the editor who recently added ("substituted") a quote. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "will be removed" Let me guess, you have set yourself up as the arbiter of what stays and what goes, right? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. We simply cannot have every iconic quote. A lot of other articles here will prove it. WikiLubber (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I look forward to working with you to decide which quotes should be pared. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not rearrange "theme" articles into chronological order
Please do not rearrange the quotes in "theme" articles into chronological order. Though arranging quotes and sections in chronologies is entirely appropriate and recommended within the pages for authors, I believe that there has remained, since the earliest years of this project, a general agreement that arranging quotes in "theme" pages alphabetically by authors or sources is the simplest, easiest, and least problematic arrangement available. It has been discussed at various times in the years, and I believe that other arrangements all tend to create far more problems, disputes and confusion, and I believe that most who have examined the situation have agreed. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to comply going forward. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Turns out, there's a WQ entry on this: Guide_to_layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow messing with the headers of the thread above
Hi Butwhatdoiknow, Please stop messing with the headers. Dibbydib asked for the RfA advice and he got it. If you have comments you are welcome to post in the thread "as a comment" like you have already done. Please stop messing with the headers. They are as neutral as they can be and you should use your time elsewhere to do somthing more productive then messing around with the perfectly valid headers. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What policy, guideline, or essay sets up a "no messing with headers" rule that you are asking that I follow? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Common sense policy? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a while ago, but it looks like I read the heading and then read the post and decided the heading was deficient or worse. (See the edit summaries I provided with my changes.) Why is it common sense to not fix something that is broken? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Common sense and common courtesy. Did you discuss the change of heading with the OP before changing it to something that made sense to you? What about the readers who may have seen the original heading which was replaced by something they may not recognize? What about potential broken links? the list goes on... Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC) BTW nice to see you back. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Your great post at Village Pump
Hi ,This is in regard to your latest posting at the VP - thanks so much for going to all the trouble. I was thinking of adding another heading to make navigation of this thread easier for others, but I would like to ask you if you agree with a title like this : First proposed suggestion?

I hope I am making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)