User:InvisibleSun:Archive 1

Thanks

And thanks for all the alphabetizing you have done at List of people by name; I knew there was a little work to do there, but had no idea that there was so much. ~ Kalki 23:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Signing

Hi. I saw your misattribution information at Kenneth Tynan. Thanks for researching the correct source of the quotation - this is the kind of thing that makes WQ more accurate than the rest of the dime-a-dozen quote sites. I would like to ask you, however, to sign your comments on Talk pages (using ~~~~). This makes it much easier to track the discussion, and as such is the standard on Wikiquote. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sectioning

Hi. Please do not italicize section names (such as "Attributed" and "Misattributed"). See Wikiquote:Templates/People. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Misattribution and sourcing work

Hi! I am sorry to seem to be nagging. I am truly awed by your excellent work in researching quotations' sources, and correctly attributing them. However, consider that most misattributed quotes are popularly misattributed: that means that when removing them from an article, they are likely to be added back by a well-meaning soul. This is exactly why we added the "Misattributed" section. Adding quotes to this section has the dual benefit of benefiting our readership (giving correct source information for quotes where they are most likely to look for them) and helping wikiquote editors (by letting them know that we are aware of the quote). Also, please note that by convention, "minor" edits are those which fix a minor typo, fiddle with formatting or add meta-data (categorization or interwiki links). Sourcing a quote, moving a quote and so on are normally not marked minor. I am sorry if I seem to be nitpicking — you are doing a wonderful work, and I'm enjoying myself immensely reading the histories and proofs of misattribution. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi! Please see my comments on Talk:Voltaire. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Lévi-Strauss

Can you please provide a full citation for the quotations from Claude Lévi-Strauss that you just added? 121a0012 18:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Edition, translators, ISBN and page numbers have now been provided. InvisibleSun 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Interested in being an admin?

I've mostly let others do the nominating since first adding to the roster of sysops here last year, but I just noted that you haven't been asked yet. Are you interested in being an admin? If you are, just answer here, or on my talk page, and I will nominate you at the RfA page, and then you will just have to confirm that you accept the nomination there, and wait at least a week for the polling to end. ~ Kalki 19:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now nominated you for sysop status, please indicate your acceptance on the RfA page, to get things rolling. ~ Kalki 00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator here at Wikiquote. ~ Kalki 20:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my congratulations as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I've reverted your nomination of Michael J. Fox for deletion because you tagged it as a speedy-deletion. If one adds a speedy deletion tag ({{delete}} or {{db}}) to an article, one should not nominate it for WQ:VFD community review. When a sysop reviews the SD-tagged article, if it does not fall under any SD cases, they can either remove the tag or change it to {{vfd}} and post it here. In this case, I judged it patent nonsense from a prankster. (This is a somewhat liberal interpretation of "patent nonsense", as the supposed quote was at least plausible, but with the current spate of bad-faith editing, I didn't want to waste time. This may come back to haunt me later.)

You might want to read the article on Wikiquote:Speedy deletions for more info, as well as Wikiquote:Deletion policy. Like nearly everything else here, they need updating, but it's a start. There is also a wealth of information about being a wiki administrator at w:Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, but you'll probably want to take that in small doses. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-reverting vandals

As it happens, Jeff, Coolidge was born John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. The vandal on his page, after making some edits, had deleted all his actual damage. I had noticed what he was doing earlier, but I haven't been sending warnings to people who vandalize and then reverse themselves. What's our practice about that? Should I be warning them anyway? InvisibleSun 22:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No policy that I'm aware of, which usually means we follow general Wikipedia practice if we know it. What I usually do if all someone does is self-revert nonsense is to assume they were test-editing (however rude or silly the "test") and post them a manual version of {{test}} which says something like "it's not a good idea, even if you self-revert". In fact, I just now decided to get off my lazy butt and make a template of it. Try {{test1-selfrv}} out. In the case where someone does multiple "tests" that include a self-reversion, I typically cite the worst case and/or include links to each edit in a spate, more to warn other vandal patrollers and to make blocking cases than to inform the editor that they're busted. Oh, and I updated the article to show Coolidge's full name. Thanks for the tip. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

When spam vandals strike...

I notice you reverted the spam vandalism to The Muppet Show and then used {{test2}} to warn the user. Shortly after I was promoted to sysop, UDScott gave me this advice about spam vandals: "Usually, when a person adds spam such as this, it is an automatic blocking, rather than the usual series of warnings. The length of time may vary, depending on how often the user has done this." I figure you might find this helpful, too. —LrdChaos 18:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dave

… that I didn't think of your friendly quip in WQ:VFD#Fast Lane. But now that it's out there, I have to resist the overwhelming temptation to follow it up by responding to the new Keep vote with "I'm sorry, Digital, but I'm afraid we can't do that", and if we get fervent support for it, reply with "Look, Beanland, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over." [grimacing to self] Must… not… mock… the newcomers… ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

Hi ! Thanks for tidying up the Browne quotes page. That's an interesting user-handle you have there. What made you choose it ? Any idea of its source or what it possibly means?? Norwikian@Wikipedia

Marvell's Coy Mistress

"Thorough" isn't a typo: it's an older version of "through." It would appear that Birrell was modernizing the line to make it more understandable to more modern-day readers. It's always debatable how much the spelling of earlier authors should be modernized for the reader (I was thinking, in fact, of making a Village Pump topic about this). In some older writers I've been working on, like Thomas Browne, I've gone along with changing "mee" to "me," for example, since it doesn't really do anything to compromise the original. (For an example of how things would look if we kept to the complete archaic spellings, see Talk: Mary I of England.) On the other hand, I'd stick with forms like "dost" and stopp'd," for instance, since I think it's going too far to change them and it's not all that hard for us to see what they mean.

In this case, though, I'd argue for staying with "thorough," since changing it to "through" lops off a syllable and alters the meter, each line requiring eight syllables. - InvisibleSun 03:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A-ha! Thanks for the etymological lesson. You bring up another interesting issue that has yet to be explored at Wikiquote. I'm not sure how I'd want to represent this, myself. I tend to favor original texts, but I haven't really thought about English so old that its meaning ends up obscure or even misinterpreted. (I'd never even looked at our Geoffrey Chaucer article until this made me think of it.) For now, I concur with your preference. I've reverted my change to "Coy Mistress" and posted a note about this to the reference desk. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi InvisibleSun,

My name is Scott Timothy Mullenix.

Thanks

Thanks for your replying to satisfy my curiosity about your user handle . I guessed that The Police might be your source of encountering this image, but perhaps Sting had been reading the psychologist C.G.Jung who also mentions this image/symbol. It's certainly an image of transcendence! But more like the old alchemical belief in a World-Soul or the anima mundi! In fact it goes back to those early pioneers of the psyche, notably Paracelsus and his side-kick Gerard Dorn.

ER yes my user handle is just my clumsy way of stating 'from Norwich' should really be Norvicensian, but 'cos Thomas Browne wrote an encyclopaedia and the Wiki is such a great project i conflated the City name with the 'pedia. I believe i bopped along to the Police in the early 80's when they first hit the music scene. Guess old Sting's reading tastes are quite eclectic . Incidentally , take care when editing the text of Thomas Browne , sometimes the original spelling may not be quite what you think it is. Best wishes, keep on a'editing bhoy. Reply via wikipedia if you like, i've no user page here 82.31.176.160 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Mind if I ask you a joke? Wazzawazzawaz 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dog

Thanks for the block. The last thing I needed tonight was some WoW asshole with no admins around. You stoped him in his "Tracks." No pun intended :) Wazzawazzawaz 02:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

News

The official Riley on Rails is back and unblocked! Riley on rails from {{PAGENAME}}

¿Pregunta?

Veo que has corregido recientemente. ¿Cómo me consigo el espaciamiento apropiado en la versión española del artículo de George Bush tener hecho? Mi nombre es Heraldo 17:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

¿Estás utilizando la computadora? Mi nombre es Heraldo 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Blocked

I have blocked the vandal Tawkerbot2 and have reverted the damages. - InvisibleSun 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. -- CALQL8 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know what it was

oops —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanetEric (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken

Hello, I saw your reply to the Puritan quote I commented about on the H. L Mencken talk page and I would like to say it was a very intelligent reply. It clarified many misconceptions I had regarding this project. See, I am a regular contributor and editor over at the English Wikipedia, but I only read here, and edit very seldomly, so I know little about policy. ^Kinneyboy90

FU

Fuck you bigboy!! CrestvilIe 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone is obviously trying to have us on here. You will notice they were clever enough to use a capiltal I in place of a lower case L so as to assume my identity. just to let you know.--Crestville 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Not sure if this is how you send a message to someone i dont know

but sorry for not adding quotes for those shows i was trying my best trying to find quotes for them thats why they had nothing in them. There was no need to put them in the deletion page.

Just to let you know i have added quotes to all of them. Just needed time to find quotes. I think i know what im doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paranoid1 (talk • contribs) 9 July 2006, 11:55 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no choice but to assume that what we see is what we get when it comes to pages without quotes. Every week we get a lot of new pages that end up deleted because they are posted and then abandoned without any quotes. Some of the new pages we delete immediately when they look like nonsense or vandalism; others, like the ones you created, we wait to vote on when it looks like they might be salvaged. If we assumed that all these new pages might be worked on later, we would soon end up with a situation out of control for the limited number of editors who do this work on Wikiquote. The best thing for everyone involved is not to post new pages until they're ready to go. When I'm making a new page, for example, I'll set it up on Notepad until I have it completed. - InvisibleSun 13:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot

What is the resoning behind moving all the quotes from a work to the author's page? I'm pretty new here, though I've been on WP for a while, and so I'm not sure how things work, but this seems a little bit counter-productive to me. If I'm looking for quotes from a play, song, or book; I would look first for a page on the work, not the author. Authors make a lot of statements that are usually completely unrelated to their works (or possibly to all of them at once) and that is what I would expect to see on the author's page.

Maybe I just don't know the policy, (if there is one, can you link me to it?) but the logic just doesn't flow for me. If we applied this policy across WQ, then the Isaac Asimov or Robert A. Heinlein articles would be gigantic! You also can't say that the article was too short or not complete. I guess mainly I'm confused about an apparent lack of discussion before (what appears to be) a unilateral deletion of a pretty good article. Isn't this why the {{merge}} template exists? Maybe you can clear this up for me. Z4ns4tsu 17:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikiquote is only about three years in existence and has a very small number of administrators (of which I'm one), we're still working on the formulation of many official policies. What we've sometimes been doing in the mean time is using a workaday consensus on what seem to us to be the most sensible and practical ways of editing articles. One such consensus is that all the quotes of a person should be collected under that person's name. In the case of authors, the author should take precedence over the works by that author. The only reason a separate article should be created for a work is when the author's page is already so large (as with Henry David Thoreau) that a separate page is both justifiable and convenient for a work with a good many quotes (i.e., Walden).

One practical reason for an emphasis on authors over works is that it makes editing a lot easier: having an author's name on a editor's watchlist is better to deal with than having a dozen titles for works by that author. But it's also for the sake of Wikiquote readers as well as editors that an author's words are all located in one convenient place. It's a more rewarding and enriching experience for a reader to see an author's words all at once, especially in order of chronology — whether in books, letters, interviews, etc.— than to have to keep jumping from one page to another. Someone may want to check out an author's page because of interest in one particular work but may end up taking an interest in other works that are on the same page. It's also convenient for readers who want to know if an author wrote or said a particular remark but are not sure in what work it would be found. Since Wikiquote is, among other things, a resource for quote-hunters, it's better for them to have an emphasis on writers rather than their works because it condenses and simplifies searching.

Another practical reason for having all of an author's words on one page is that when a separate page is created for a literary work, people who view the author's page will inevitably start adding what they see as missing quotes from the work which now has its own page. People will do this even when the author's page specifically states that the work in question is on a separate linked page. If we then transfer these redundant quotes to the other page, someone else is sure to come along and add more quotes from the work, etc. What we end up with is that the book in question will have two sets of quotes, some on its own page and some on the author's page, and by no means all of them the same. This means that people who want to find quotes from a work will have to check out two pages rather than one.

As for the Merge tag, the reason for using this tag is when people see that two articles need to be merged (one, for example, has a correctly spelled title and the other does not), but they don't think they have the time or ability to do the merging themselves. The Merge tag, in other words, isn't a request for consensus, asking whether two articles should be merged. It's more like a recognition that the merge should be made by someone who feels capable of doing so. - InvisibleSun 18:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that I've restored the deleted revisions of the Waiting for Godot page, but have redirected it to Samuel Beckett. This was done to preserve the edit history for the merged material, which otherwise would not have been publically available.

In the VFD for the book "First Things First", Jeffq had this to say:

With book articles, editors have a tendency to assume no further source information need be provided, which requires verifiers to read the entire work to find the quotes cited. (Proper sourcing should include page numbers and ISBNs.) Besides, they needlessly invite copyright infringement by practically begging to be expanded beyond a select set of quotes.

I happen to agree. Merely giving the title of a book is not a sufficient source, and it's rare for more than that to be provided for most book articles. The potential for copyright violation is also very high for individual book articles (much as it is for video game articles, but that's another issue).

In some cases, it makes sense to split a book from its author, but it's rare, and should usually only be done for multi-volume works. —LrdChaos 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You do have valid points, and I can see your reasoning, but if this is done in the future, please remember to create the re-direct. Just deleting the article does not fix the double-quoting issue that InvisibleSun brought up, but only exacerbates it by creating a situation where editors looking for the work first, as I would do, find that there is no page and then create it for what they think is the first time. Thanks for the clarification of your resons. Z4ns4tsu 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism vandal

Hey invis thanks for getting that guy. He was ruinning wrestling for some damn reason which i love hehe. Oh and I'm back...I was gone for three days..but now im back..yay me Paranoid1 12:19 PM CST

Adding Nonsense

I am transferring this note placed on my user page:

"I will tell everyone what a great administrator you are if you allow me to write whatever I want." - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006, 15:06 (UTC)

well

well, what do you say. can you add my nonsense back in and I will put in a good word for you throughout wikiquote and wikipedia. ;) - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006, 15:20 (UTC)

who cares whether or not you're actually a good administrator as long as you got people who got your back claiming you are - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006, 15:23 (UTC)

I care.

FYI: If you should be writing to any other administrator with the same sort of message, you should know that what you write to one person can be read by everyone else; which makes your proposal not only unethical, but quite pointless as well.

Not only that, but any nonsense or vandalism allowed by one person will be disallowed, and rightly so, by other people. We all do the same patrolling of the Recent Changes page. So you really can't hope to get anywhere by doing this. - InvisibleSun 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hanna Montana VfD

Since the Hanna Montana VfD should be closing within a day, and the explicit votes are split evenly between delete and redirect, could I trouble you to make an explicit vote? Ordinarily I assume that your nominations imply that you wish to delete articles, but when there are reasonable alternatives that aren't addressed by the nomination or vote comments, it can be difficult to decide close calls. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking IPs

A permanent block on an IP address, unless it is known to be a single user's permanent address, is usually not a good idea, as they could be used by others. I would suggest anywhere from 3 days to 2 weeks in most cases. ~ Kalki 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

reply to your criticism

i've only ever removed quotes that's already occured elsewhere on the same page. i don't think the same quote needs to be repeated. 203.206.217.45 12:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the error, which I've corrected. It may be helpful in future if you could explain in the Editing Summary comments why you have deleted a quote. We're so used to seeing quotes deleted for no reason that we get in the habit of treating a deleted quote as vandalism unless an explanation is provided. - InvisibleSun 12:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing my mistakes, as you could see I am a terrible Speller, The Stevie Ray Vaughan article was the first article I created here on Wikiquote so of course it wasn't exactly top notch. You have done alot of great work here on Wikiquote have a nice day---Seadog.M.S 14:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quotes

Please stop removing attributed and sourced quotes from Sigmund Freud. It is considered vandalism and censorship. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox; elsewise, disciplinary action may be taken against your account by Wikiquote administrators. --64.141.104.2 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Note sent to 64.141.104.2 warning against vandalism and impersonating an administrator. - InvisibleSun 14:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in here, but you had posted the warning to the IP user page, not the user talk page. I have posted a more specific warning to the talk page and removed the misplaced one. (One hopes it will further discourage the editor from such bad-faith editing by hearing the warning from a different sysop than the one who they posted to.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your assistance was much appreciated. I had posted my message to the user when the system was moving ultra-slow. I was evidently getting too impatient to pay enough attention to what I was doing. - InvisibleSun 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong

I didn't add nonsense to wickipedia. I insulted a loser 65.31.100.170 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of The Homework Diary Company Ltd

I noticed that you are supporting the deletion of the above article, and of a few affiliated articles. I have given some information on the deletion page, and, after seeing your user page, thought that you might be interested in a project to try and find sources for these quotes. Please see the deletion page for more information. Also, please read this notice which I placed at the reference desk. -- R160K 19:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see your Reference Desk post for my reply to this. - InvisibleSun 21:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Imposter on en:

Hi, I have blocked someone claiming to be you on the English language Wikipedia, see [1]. Please let me know if this really was you (preferrably on my en:User:Konstable account)--Konstable 11:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice Job!

Nice one! 65.78.87.120 01:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Another nice job chronologically reordering Judith Krug. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You?

With all the cross-wiki trolling going on, I just wanted to make sure this is you. Nyarlathotep 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't me. I've never made any posts on Wikinews. - InvisibleSun 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You better go post that here before that one starts vandalising too. Nyarlathotep 23:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an account on Wikinews. Since the impostor has already taken my name, how would I go about announcing myself on Wikinews as the real deal? - InvisibleSun 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just create an account called, Wikiquoteverify Nyarlathotep 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

MAJOR ALERT JEFFQ BEHING WAZZAWAZZAWAZ ATTACKS!

Looks like an alternate account of his was behing the most recient Wazzawazzawaz attack.! Request immediate Checkuser! Lord have mercy!!! 4201Erifnogard 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Adi Gill

Please have a look a his contributions list, he may be a part of the recient multiple user disruption scheme. Thanks. Nyarlathotep 22:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims to have repented. Nyarlathotep 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource

Did you create an account on Wikisource today? Please reply here.--70.241.196.125 16:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I created an account there to prevent the impersonation of my name which has already occurred on Wikinews. - InvisibleSun 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Great news.--70.241.196.125 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest cross wiki attacks

I apologize if you were involved in the attacks on Wikinews-en the other day. It turned out your account that was created there was an imposter account and I was under the impression that you had come to WIkinews to accuse me of multiple sock puppets and open proxies. I am sorry if you got involved and I hope you accept my apology. It seems some users have some issues with Wikis and have too much freetime ;) DragonFire1024 17:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems we have another attack/vandal going. DragonFire1024 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza

I know you are against me making a Esperanza on wikiquote but I am wondering why? What do you think wikiquote Esperanza is? I think you do not understand what wikiquote Esperanza is. Can you please tell me what you think Esperanza is on my talk page. I want to make sure that you have a good understanding what it is. Have a nice week.--Sir James Paul 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

List of people names

You wrote:

I was curious as to why you reverted all the work I had done to repair the red-linked names on the list. I had corrected misspelled names (Laveter -> Lavater, James Fennimore Cooper -> James Fenimore Cooper, Pierre Corniel -> Pierre Corneille); had created separate links for William Pitt the Elder and Younger instead of the one red link for William Pitt; and created parenthetical additions to titles, e.g., Robert Herrick -> Robert Herrick (poet) to match the article titles. - InvisibleSun 17:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that! I didn't realize I had done that. I was just looking at what you had done, and must have hit the wrong link. I appreciate you doing the corrections. ~ UDScott 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)