text:
User talk:Rmhermen

Black Hawk Down

 * You created this page but forgot to put any quotes on it. Rmhermen 17:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I could try to claim it was a work-in-progress, or that I've been so busy with other important projects that I haven't had time to work on it. But the fact is, I created the page intending to put the quotes in later... and forgot all about it. When you have time, take another look at Black Hawk Down; it isn't quite finished, but I've done some work on it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --RPickman 05:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)
Thanks for your work on this page; some very good quotes were left out until now. I did some minor editing: tweaked the format on your quotes so they match the rest of the page removed a couple (omelette sequence, bit about president of Paraguay) that appear elsewhere on the page; moved a couple from "Dialogue" to individual character sections.

You have been nominated for adminship

 * I have recently nominated you, and three other users who have been active at Wikiquote for adminship. The opportunity for voting and comments must last a week before any actions can be taken. Please post your response at Requests for adminship. Thanks for all your help. ~ Kalki 13:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your vote. There are not as yet any bureaucrats on this project, which is why I nominated myself. Things here have been getting much busier lately, and the need for more sysops was becoming obvious. ~ Kalki 17:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think every project should have its own bureaucrats as well as its own admins. Rmhermen 17:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Not sure what the rules are at WQ, I hope it is OK to butt in into an old discussion on someone else's user talkpage?

 * Anyway I found the comment above "every project should have its own bureaucrats as well as its own admins" interesting.

 * I have been participating in several wmf-wikis for years, and have found it rather disturbing to see that almost all of them are governed by the same admins / bureaucrats. Now we also have Stewards, who I understand have more powers than bureaucrats, but apparently not too many people know who and what they are. There is currently a long and complicated discussion, with offshoots, about a related topic at Administrators%27_noticeboard, if anyone is still here and interested. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin overlap
I was amused to see your tagging of You Kicked My Dog for speedy deletion. With the furious cleanup activity you, Aphaia, and I have been engaged in in the past two weeks, I figured it was only a matter of time before two or more of us reviewed a page and took different tacks. ☺ I had just left a Talk-page query for the anonymous contributor to encourage them to replace the test page with useful content, as I suspect it was (eventually) intended to be quotes from a strange web cartoon called "You Kicked My Dog". (This was one of the pages I did some sleuthing on, mostly out of curiosity.) On the other hand, I'll bet there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of pages like this that utterly fail to provide useful content to Wikiquote, so your delete tag was obviously justified.

If I'm not mistaken, I'm the most junior Wikian of the three current Wikiquote admin candidates, so I've preferred to be less bold in my maintenance tasks than I've been as an editor. Kalki's practice of encouraging replacement of junk with good content instead of just deleting the junk has given me pause on deletion tagging. However, I'm concerned that Wikiquote might be becoming a battleground between junk-page creators and serious contributors who follow in their wake to add material. The latter can never win, as it takes one or two orders of magnitude more time to do the job right, especially since such a small crew can't be expected to know each and every subject well enough to do the job well. (I've wrestled myself on this issue over film and TV quote pages. I could just replace or augment junk pages with IMDb quotes, but I'm usually scrupulous about adding only quotes I can verify, especially since IMDb's quotes are massively riddled with errors.) If we had 10 or 100 times the number of serious contributors, that'd make the battle more even.

Anyway, I've been waiting to becoming an administrator so I'd have some additional credibility when I start querying the Wiki community in general about the advantages and disadvantages of deleting pages that may eventually have useful content, but are not expected to anytime in the foreseeable future. (I'm sure there must be some precedents; otherwise, one would be tempted to create a bot to generate empty or minimal pages from huge lists of people, works, and themes that might someday have quotes.) Meanwhile, I don't imagine it makes much difference in the long run that we may do different things. After all, admins are no more of one mind than contributors, and most anything can be undone if people change their minds later, eh? — Jeff Q (talk) 17:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info on page deletion. I knew it was possible to "undelete" a page (not that that's really the issue here, as we hardly need a test page), but I wasn't sure how much it might be frowned upon, or if it would cause any additional challenges when someone created another article with that title. I gather that neither of these is any big deal, so long as people aren't cavalier about what they delete. (And as long as it doesn't involve images, which is largely moot here. I'm still unsure about Categories, one of which I just tagged for speedy delete. If I understand correctly, the main issue is ensuring that no articles link to a Category before deleting it, which is easy to do.) There are some aspects of maintenance that are tied to Wiki infrastructure elements that I'm still learning. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question about length of quotes
I am curious, is there a limit to how long a quote can be? I plan to add a very lengthy quote by Confucius. —JarlaxleArtemis 19:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is currently being debated on the Village Pump but there doesn't seem to be any consensus. Wikisource exists for full texts, though. Rmhermen 21:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Category schemes
Not to be pedantic, but I restored the tag on Category schemes because the vote is still in progress. I think that the notice is the best way for people who don't monitor the VFD page to find out that a page they use may go away, so that they can object. Besides, I just had to revert Mateusc's removal of the tag from Reirom, and I didn't want him/her raising the reasonable objection of unequal treatment. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, perfectly reasonable. Bit embarrassed that I forgot about it. Rmhermen 15:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to thank you for getting that page and its corresponding discussion going! I've been so busy with Deletion stuff that I failed to give credit where it was due. Excellent job! — Jeff Q (talk) 10:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sysop
Congratulations! You are now a sysop here. I've already mentioned to Jeff Q and Aphaia that all of you have been doing great work, and that I am certainly now no longer the most active sysop here. I will be very busy at least a few more days with other projects, and not as active here, but I know there are now many reliable people able to take care of any problems that come along. ~ Kalki 18:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for your promotion. It is a great joy to have an experienced sysop like you on the project. If you find any my tweaks or fault, please feel free to correct them and/or point them out? Cheers, --Aphaia 00:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki histories
Since you've been an admin on Wikipedia for a while, I was hoping you could answer a question I have about page histories that are included in the transwiki process. The one from the Go article I recently completed transferring had the following text:

This page was transwikied from en.wikipedia.org. List of contributors: … *[2004-11-16T08:57:44Z] Hu ( A small raison d'etre ) *[2004-11-16T09:04:52Z] Hu ( "A few moments to learn, a lifetime to master." ) *[2004-11-16T09:07:37Z] Hu ( Cho Chikun quote regarding developing children. ) *[2004-11-16T09:08:42Z] Hu ( Fixed wiki link. ) *[2004-11-16T16:55:05Z] Hu … 216.177.2.121 19:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(I abbreviated and compressed it so as not to take up too much of your page.) Do you know how to easily grab this text from a page history? I can't help but think there's a link or procedure for fetching it in this specific format, which is quite different from the way it's displayed by the "History" tab. Thank you for any pointers you can provide. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No I don't know how that is done and have seen it on other pages also. I note that the example of preserving edit histories given on the Mediawiki:Transwiki page,, gives a result that looks like I would expect it to. So I guess that cut and paste is an acceptable method. Also I note the directions there note that it is permissible to immediately deleted a page once it is properly copied to the transwiki area. Rmhermen 21:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reirom VfD
Aphaia, Kalki, Rmhermen: I'd like to ask you folks to review the Reirom VfD. I think we've given it enough time for a decision, especially since the Wikipedia article has been deleted as well. I'd do it myself, but I've been too involved in researching its legitimacy and policing for sockpuppets and now forged signatures (two of which I just removed). I'd like a more neutral admin to consider its state. Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries in VfD nominations
Could you make a point to include the name of the articles you nominate for VfD in the edit summary when you create new entries? When you add a new entry by editing VFD#Boilerplate or another VfD entry without changing the edit summary, it puts the wrong text in the VfD history, making it hard to determine when a VfD was started. The problem will go away if we adopt the "Add a new deletion request" link in Proposed Votes for deletion, but in the meantime, it'd be helpful to check this before saving. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion archive format
Do you have any objections or suggestions about a quick implementation of the Proposed Votes for deletion archive format? Aphaia and Kalki have said that they're in favor of it as it stands, and with you, we're the four people who are actively maintaining the archive, so I think we can go for a quick decision on this. I've announced that I'll convert it sometime after 0:00 17 April 2005 (UTC) if there are no objections. (I'm not trying to railroad anyone on this; it just seems like there's no controversy about this change. But if you have a concern, please correct my mistake!) Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No objections here. User:Jni has been active in technical matters recently you might ask him/her. Rmhermen 20:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection from move
Just now, I protected your user page and your talk. PusAss vandal, or assumingly WoW moved mine nad Jni's pages. I think the sysops' pages will be most frequently targetted and the effect and confusion from their move on a bad faith is worst to the community, when an editor ask a sysop a help. If you think my protection is inappropriate, please unprotect your pages. I think the pages of other three most active Wikiquoters would be better to protect from move, too, specially if they request. --Aphaia 08:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grosse Pointe redirect
Just wanted to thank you for taking care of this. Grosse Pointe Blank is the first page I ever did any significant work on, and the (1997) tacked onto the title has been bugging me for months. --RPickman 22:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Academy Award VfD
Rmherman, I see you added your signature to the Academy Award VfD, but you didn't mention what your vote was. ☺ Could you update your entry? Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I very much appreciate your confidence in me. It felt nice to gain an unanimous support from all currently active admins. I'll try not to break anything with my new powers! Please let me know if you see something I should (or shouldn't) be doing as an admin. Regards, jni 06:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

U.S.
Could you change United States of America to United States?

Wayne's vs. Waynes
''Since you have done a lot of work on that page can you tell if there is anything on Waynes World that needs to be added to the correct page before it gets redirected? Rmhermen 13:04, 2 May 2005''

Removing the merge tag was indeed a mistake. Sorry. I've taken a careful look at Waynes World. It appears to be identical, down to word order and 1 case of eccentric spelling, to the Wayne's World page before I started fiddling with it. I suspect the original contributor forgot the apostrophe, then he (or someone else) duplicated the page with the punctuation corrected. I'd suggest deleting the Waynes version if practicable; if you do merge the two, please notify me so I can clean the added material up to match my previous work. --RPickman 20:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Replacing sister project images with Commons images
I just received a request from Schaengel89 of Wikimedia Commons to replace the current Wikinews image used by Template:Otherwiki with an image from Commons. (I don't know why they asked me, rather than post it to WQ:AN.) This led me to determine the current state of such images, and I found that you had earlier created redirects for the sister projects' images, apparently to make them clickable. However, when I clicked on the icons on the Main Page, I jumped to the images' pages, not the associated projects' main pages.

I therefore have two questions for you: Thanks for any insight you can provide. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Was this just an idea that didn't work, or am I not getting the purpose of the redirect on the image pages? I want to know, because...
 * 2) Should we hunt down these images with Commons replacements and substitute them all? I see no reason to keep Wikiquote images if Commons has them. (If we do, the purpose and functionality of the redirects becomes important.)
 * I did work initially. I copied the technique from Wikipedia. A few weeks ago it stopped working. I think someone said something about interwiki links being shut off but I don't know how that could be true. Rmhermen 03:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Forgotten Vote?
You seemed to be for deleting Self-proclaimed deities but neglected to vote for it on WQ:VFD. Since I assume it was an oversight, I want to draw your attention to it. Thanks, MosheZadka 04:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Category linking
I was befuddled by the fact that categories with subcategories but no direct entry showed up as red links. Therefore I added a Category:Categories tag to the categories in question. What may I do that is acceptable about making sure that the new categories don't show up as red? Benn M 16:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, dude. I appreciate it! Benn M 16:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hrm...
I used to be able to create entries on Wikiquote. Why can't I now? -- Benn M 17:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind, friend. Problem solved! -- Benn M 17:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikivacation
I will be gone till Aug. 1. Rmhermen 19:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back & request for mail confirmation
Hi, Rmhermen, welcome back to English Wikiquote.

During your absence, Requests for adminship was updated and all active sysops are requested to provide an email address to the community either through wikimail or on their talk (as you may know, now we need to activate and confirm our address before using Wikimail function.

The new rule says: In principle, administrators should register a valid email address and allow other users to send them messages in preferences, or an email address indicated on their user page. For active sysops, as well sysop candidates, it is mandatory. Inactive sysops and guest sysops are recommended to put their wikimail addresson their talk pages. If they are back and become active again, they are expected to activate their mail preferences.

Since we have no way to mail you, I put this message on your talk. Would you please consider the requirement above, and give us an oppoturnity to mail you?

Thanks! --Aphaia 10:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactive?
Hi, I noticed you have not edited here in quite a long time, and are listed as an inactive administrator. Do you think there is any chance you will be back? Cheers! BD2412 T 04:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Japanese poets
Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on MonsterHunter32
I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by  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.

What would be most helpful would be if other editors could add comments to the summary table here Talk:India.

Since you are an admin, I would also welcome your view on the following.

Other editors and me have previously told many times that the following rule based on Template:Remove should be strictly observed by him:

 * All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.

This really is the bare minimum that must be enforced. If MonsterHunter32 as a rule continues to refuse to do this, I don't see how any meaningful discussion of the deleted quotes is possible at all.

Please note that this was asked to him dozens of times, and dozens of times he continues to ignore it.

Can you please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes this? He has been told this dozens of times by multiple users, but I will notify him again about this on his talkpage (my last notification was promptly deleted by him). If he starts edit warring again without observing this rule, he should be blocked, or at least the page be protected.

Please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks.

 * Observing the rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:

 *  has done blanked and censored dozens of quotes, most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary)
 * He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
 *  has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
 *  has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged religious beliefs or opinions or alleged bias, using religious or political smears against me and others.

 * MonsterHunter32 as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that he was wrong, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. Discussion with someone who as a rule and always refuses to make the slightest concession that he might be wrong, or that others may have different opinions than him, is becoming a waste of time. Maybe even worse are the misrepresentations, dishonesty and personal attacks.

 * This is what other editors have said about :

 * "I believe MonsterHunter32 is being extremely annoying and disruptive."

 * "I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer."

 * " I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. "

 * "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...."

 * "Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ "

 * "I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote." (in response to MonsterHunter32)

 * "No more of this time-wasting dispute here. I don't want my talk page to be used to call people vandals, liars, etc..... "

 * "Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). "

 * "and IF you revert this again you WILL be BLOCKED."

 * "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "

 * "if you keep this up you will be blocked"

 * I have attempted to solve it with discussion with him, but by his refusal of even the most elementary things, like giving full reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage, he is making it extremely difficult. What really is needed, and I asked many times for this, are comments from other users on the quotes. Please see Talk:India for my latest attempt to ask others for comments.

 * Ultimately, I agree with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard:

 * "If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.)

 * Please let me know if you too agree with this.

 * Wikiquote is not prepared to handle persistent, disruptive editors like who by his own admission is "constantly monitoring" me, attacking me for alleged religious bias or my alleged religious beliefs, and reverting all my additions with poor excuses that in most cases he refuses even to discuss. It cannot be in Wikiquotes interest when such editors can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with censoring and blanking quotes. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's disruptive edits
What does User:Jedi3 hopes to achieve by repeatedly complaining instead of any actual cooperation? When I discuss he either abruptly leaves or keeps on repeating the same things. He keeps on edit-warring over and over and even started edit-warring right after User:UDScott block on him expired.

All of the "complains" of his based on poor fact- reading and hiding the truth again. Oh he doesn't mention some of the comments made by other users about him:

 * User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claiming Template:Remove doesn't allow for removal of quotes and mandates moving and discussion. But I found out he hasn't read it properly. Templat:Remove itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. It says: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.
 * Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked.

 * While Jedi3 is talking about "comments against me", jedi3 forgets User:Kalki has criticized his behavior as well.

 * What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
 * He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.

 * While User:Jedi3 talks about "Bare-minimum", he doesn't stop to the do the most disruptive thing: Edit-warring. What's more he resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at, , , ,  and.

 * He has also made some utterly false claims of "blanking", even though my removal of his quotes didn't involve more than 1 or 2 quotes and removed only a small part of the article. Some of his utterly false claims of "blanking" are here, here and here.

 * As earlier mentioned after UDScott blocked him for a week, 'he resumed edit-warring right after the block expired. See here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion.

 * There is nothing wrong in checking another editor when they are being disruptive like User:Jedi3. And what I actually said was me categorically proving I never censored him. I was checking whether his edits are non-notable and non-memorable. "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."

 * He claims I "refused to discuss". This despite me discussing at Talk:Somnath temple, Talk:Aurangzeb and Talk:India. At all of those talk pages my comment is the latest. You can check them.

 * I already suggested at talk:India, let's discuss all quotes one by one at the relevant article talk pages. He refuses to do so.

 * Jedi3 keeps on smearing and making false allegations of "censorship" just because I disagree with many of his quotes being relevant. That too me telling it plainly I have only removed non-memorable/non-notable quotes: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."

 * He says I'm done numerous "personal attacks" against User:DanielTom and User:Kalki. I never committed any personal attacks like Jedi3 who started calling me a vandal and claimed I was censoring baselessly. And Jedi3 doesn't reveal DanieTom needlessly kept on edit-warring with me at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day despite me already inviting him to talk and offering him a compromise. What's more he revealed his reason to be a baseless belief of me attempting to censor even though I already offered to talk right after his first revert.

 * After Daniel Tom reverted me at Talk:India for removing Jedi3's vandal comments of baseless accusations and taking the issue to an entirely unrelated article while the actual discussion should have been at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles where I actually removed his quotes. His actions were very similar to Jedi3 by baselessly accusing me of censorship despite me discussing and compromising despite the quote being not notable, I asked him not to take sides with jedi3 over any ideolgical affinity. I told DanielTom about this and also tried to prevent another edit-war at Talk:India like it happened on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I also told him the same at his own talk page.

 * After Kalki reverted me twice at talk:India and warned me, that was my last revert. I didn't start edit-warring and reverting like Jedi3. At User talk:Kalki I asked him to effectively moderate and enforce the rules by blocking Jedi3 for his consistent disruptive editing. He kept saying he didn't have time but I pointed out I already made Jedi3's disruptive edits clear and if he moderated then this place would have been a much better place as i believe Jedi3 is not fit for here. I asked him to act against Jedi3 as the latter kept edit-warring right after after being warned and blocked by UDScott.

 * Jedi3 has no problem in making false claims about quotes. Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source, even though it isn't about Martand temple.  He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic. He made 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 has no problem in his reverts removing my quotes and later not adding them in "some cases" as he claims, but he only has a problem when I reverted his edits to stop his attempt at edit-warring at Aurangzeb.

 * Jedi3 tried to justify his edit-warring claiming he had no choice as "I wasn't discussing". This despite me telling him that I already tried to discuss. I never said there will be no discussion ever. All i said was I couldn't discuss all of them at once. I have already asked him to discuss the quotes one a time.

 * He keeps on telling me to follow Template:Remove. But when I asked him to follow WQ:WQ, he indicated he won't and said it wasn't a policy or guideline. template:Remove doesn't claim to be a policy or guideline either. Regardless I've posted several quotes and tried to discuss with him, But Jedi3 keeps making false claims and abruptly stops discussion.

 * DanielTom called me "annoying" which is an extremely negative connotation and a real personal attack. I told him about this. Then Jedi3 claims it is not a personal attack and calls my comments annoying. So I told him that annoying means irritating and harassing or making angry. i asked him tocontrol himself if he felt so.

 * Just a Regular New Yorker laimed in his comment that quotes canot be removed if they are sourced. He doesn't seem to have read tyhe policies.
 * Except Wikiquote, WQ:Q and Template:Fame saying this is for notable quotes. And the Template:Remove Jedi3 keeps talking about itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning." I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES?

 * Jedi3 points to the comment "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...." Except I never said such a thing. But I do dislike is Jedi3's disruptive edits and him not giving two hoots about notability.

 * "*"Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). " Jedi3 doesn't explain where it is from. I never made any misleading edit summaries unlike DanielTom's claims. i had plainly explained it was "vandalism" by Jedi3 at Talk:India. I [explained clearly Jedi3's issues were not related to [[Talk:India]] and he was not discussing where the quotes were removed from.

 * "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion " Will Jedi3 say it is Kalki claiming so about me removing his unrelated vandal comments at Talk:India which had nothing to do with India. I had even explained this to him in my only revert of his unlike jedi3 who still edit-wars after being warned or blocked. And I have repatedly said I don't remove any quote I found notable: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."

 * Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes aren't even near to what he claims. This is aside from the fact that especially a user merely calling something as notable or poignant or witty doesn't make it notable. But then again he doesn't even care about the dictionary meaning of the words he's talking about. From Oxford dictionary Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Anyone who reads a dictionary can understand he's making it up about any of his edits being eloquent, poignant or witty etc. yet he makes the same claim at Talk:India yet again despite already being made aware his quotes are not near what he's falsely claiming them to be.

 * All policies say this website is about notable quotes. Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced. WQ:Q - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Not to mention the quote itself being notable criteria mentioned by it as well.

Jedi3 needs to be blocked for his constant disruption, caring for nothing except POV-pushing at all costs even if becomes disruptive, bad faith edits and accusations as well as false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Your advanced permissions on en.wikiquote
Hello,

A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on this wiki. Since this wiki, to the best of our knowledge, does not have its own inactivity policy, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your advanced permissions, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. A community notice about this process has been also posted on the local Village Pump of this wiki. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at the m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights.

If you wish to resign your rights, please request removal of your rights on Meta.

If there is no response from you at all after one month, stewards will proceed to remove your administrator and/or bureaucrat rights. In ambiguous cases, stewards will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact the stewards.

Yours faithfully, --MarcoAurelio (questions) 09:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2020/Wikiquote/Fix rev parent id for some specific revisions
Currently, one of your edits to the page Amitabh Bachchan shows the wrong size diff number because rev_parent_id is wrong.

 * 22:04, 10 April 2005 shows (-11,884) when it should instead be showing (+236).

The linked proposal on Meta will fix rev_parent_id for the above edit to make the size diff number correct.

Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rmhermen


text:
Rob Malda

Rob Malda (born 1976) is the founder and editor-in-chief of technology website Slashdot.

Quotes

 * No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
 * Talking the launch of the Apple iPod
 * Posted on Slashdot, October 23, 2001

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rob Malda


text:
Mumbai

Mumbai, previously known as Bombay, is the capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra. It is the most populous city in India, and the fifth most populous city in the world, with a total metropolitan area population of approximately 20.5 million. Along with the neighbouring urban areas, including the cities of Navi Mumbai and Thane, it is one of the most populous urban regions in the world. Mumbai lies on the west coast of India and has a deep natural harbour. In 2009, Mumbai was named an alpha world city. It is also the wealthiest city in India and has the highest GDP of any city in South, West or Central Asia.

The seven islands that came to constitute Mumbai were home to communities of fishing colonies. For centuries, the islands were under the control of successive indigenous empires before being ceded to the Portuguese and subsequently to the British East India Company. During the mid-18th century, Bombay was reshaped by the Hornby Vellard project, which undertook reclamation of the area between the seven islands from the sea. Along with construction of major roads and railways, the reclamation project, completed in 1845, transformed Bombay into a major seaport on the Arabian Sea. Upon India's independence in 1947, the city was incorporated into Bombay State. In 1960, following the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, a new state of Maharashtra was created with Bombay as the capital. The city was renamed Mumbai in 1996.

Quotes

 * Leaving aside the Presidency and confining oneself to the City of Bombay, there can be no doubt that the record of the city is the blackest. The first Hindu-Muslim riot took place in 1893. This was followed by a long period of communal peace which lasted up to 1929. But the years that have followed have an appalling story to tell.... Taking the total period of 9 years and 2 months from February 1929 to April 1938 the Hindus and Muslims of the City of Bombay alone were engaged in a sanguinary warfare for 210 days during which period 550 were killed and 4,500 were wounded. This does not of course take into consideration the loss of property which took place through arson and loot.
 * B. R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or The Partition of India (1946)

 * Bombai also used to be considered a pearl of the Orient, with its necklace of lights along the corniche and its magnificent British Raj architecture. It was one of India's most diverse and plural cities, and its many layers of texture have been cleverly explored by Salman Rushdie—especially in —and in the films of . It is true that there had been intercommunal fighting there, during the time in 1947-48 when the grand historic movement for Indian self-government was being ruined by Muslim demands for a separate state and by the fact that the Congress Party was led by a pious Hindu. But probably as many people took refuge in Bombay during that moment of religious bloodlust as were driven or fled from it. A form of cultural coexistence resumed, as often happens when cities are exposed to the sea and to influences from outside. —former Zoroastrians who had been persecuted in Persia—were a prominent minority, and the city was also host to a historically significant community of Jews. But this was not enough to content Mr. and his   movement, who in the 1990s decided that Bombay should be run by and for his coreligionists, and who loosed a tide of goons and thugs on the the streets. Just to show he could do it, he ordered the city renamed as "Mumbai," which is partly why I include it in this list under its traditional title.
 * Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great, Chapter Two: Religion Kills, p. 28

 * Architecturally, Bombay is one of the most appalling cities of either hemisphere. It had the misfortune to develop during what was, perhaps, the darkest period of all architectural history.
 * Aldous Huxley, (1969). Jesting Pilate. The diary of a journey.

 * The name of Mumbai is also connected in the spiritual tradition of the city. In the Sanskrit Sthala-Purana or local history, as related by city historian K. Raghunath in his book Hindu Temples of Bombay, published in 1900, it is explained that there was once an island in the city’s vicinity where lived a powerful giant named Mumbarak. The island was named after him. After engaging in great austerities, Mumbarak pleased Lord Brahma who gave him a blessing that he would be free from death at anyone’s hands, and would be successful in his undertakings. Upon receiving such a blessing, Mumbarak became a source of trouble to the people and the devas or gods. Therefore, the gods and people went to Lord Vishnu for a solution, that they be protected and the demon destroyed. Thereafter, both Vishnu and Shiva extracted a portion of their luster and made it into the Goddess Devi to destroy the giant. The Goddess beat the demon almost to death, and threw him on the ground and told him to ask for one last blessing. He begged that she join his name with hers and perpetuate that name on earth. The Goddess agreed and named herself Mumbadevi. In this way, the name Mumbai is connected with that tradition. “Mumbai” is the invocation of the Goddess for protection of the city.
 * Knapp Stephen, Spiritual India Handbook (2011)

 * Bombay was central, had been so from the moment of its creation: the bastard child of a Portuguese-English wedding, and yet the most Indian of Indian cities. In Bombay all Indias met and merged. In Bombay, too, all-India met what-what-not-India, what came across the black water to flow into our veins. Everything north of Bombay was North India, everything south of it was South. To the east lay India’s east and to the west, the world’s West. Bombay was central; all rivers flowed into its human sea. It was an ocean of stories; we were its narrators, and everybody talked at once.
 * Salman Rushdie, The Moor's Last Sigh (1995)

 * Bombay was the safest city in the world and it continues to be the safest.
 * Bombay Joint Commissioner of Police D. Shivanandan, August 25, 2000.

 * When we talk of a resurgent Asia, people think of the great changes that have come about in Shanghai. I share this aspiration to transform Mumbai in the next five years in such a manner that people would forget about Shanghai and Mumbai will become a talking point.
 * Manmohan Singh, as quoted in "Mumbai struggles to catch up with Shanghai", Asia Times (16 March 2005)

 * This is indeed India! the land of dreams and romance, of fabulous wealth and fabulous poverty, of splendor and rags, of palaces and hovels, of famine and pestilence, of genii and giants and Aladdin lamps, of tigers and elephants, the cobra and the jungle, the country of a hundred nations and a hundred tongues, of a thousand religions and two million gods, cradle of the human race, birthplace of human speech, mother of history, grandmother of legend, great-grandmother of tradition, whose yesterdays bear date with the mouldering antiquities of the rest of the nations — the one sole country under the sun that is endowed with an imperishable interest for alien prince and alien peasant, for lettered and ignorant, wise and fool, rich and poor, bond and free, the one land that all men desire to see, and having seen once, by even a glimpse, would not give that glimpse for the shows of all the rest of the globe combined. Even now, after the lapse of a year, the delirium of those days in Bombay has not left me, and I hope never will.
 * Mark Twain, Following the Equator (1897), Ch. XXXVIII

 * The kolis who succeeded the stone-age men on the island brought with them from Gujarat their patron goddess Mummai [sic] whom their descendants still worship in Kathiawar. The name of Bombay is derived from this koli goddess.
 * R. N. Mehta, Bombay – An analysis of the toponym (1983), p. 138–140

 * Hark! from Salsette's once fair and flowery shore The jackall's cry, the tiger's hollow roar; Where dark-eyed -girls danced in beauty's pride, The toad spits venom now, and serpents glide.
 * Nicholas Michell, Ruins of Many Lands, 2nd ed. (1850), Book I, Part 3, p. 111

title: Mumbai


text:
User:Nichalp

Active on the English Wikipedia. Please use the en Talk page.

See: w:User:Nichalp

Nichalp

title: User:Nichalp


text: Category:Places

title: Category:Places


text:
Erik Naggum

Erik Naggum (June 13, 1965 – June 17, 2009) was a Lisp programmer.

Sourced

 * [translated from Norwegian with google] Some people are not much more than herd animals, which rot together when the world becomes uncomfortable… I am not one of them. If I had a motto, it would probably be: The herd over there, I here
 * Kranglefant på nettet (Publisert lørdag 09. januar 1999 - 09:18)

 * Some people are little more than herd animals, flocking together whenever the world becomes uncomfortable for any reason, seeking the comfort of those who agree with them, do not contradict them, and take care of their emotions. I am not one of those people. If I had a motto, it would probably be Herd thither, me hither.
 * Ungregarious News

 * People search for the meaning of life, but this is the easy question: we are born into a world that presents us with many millennia of collected knowledge and information, and all our predecessors ask of us is that we not waste our brief life ignoring the past only to rediscover or reinvent its lessons badly.
 * "Knowledge and Information".

 * Just as other information should be available to those who want to learn and understand, program source code is the only means for programmers to learn the art from their predecessors. It would be unthinkable for playwrights not to allow other playwrights to read their plays, but only be present at theater performances where they would be barred even from taking notes. Likewise, any good author is well read, as every child who learns to write will read hundreds of times more than it writes. Programmers, however, are expected to invent the alphabet and learn to write long novels all on their own. Programming cannot grow and learn unless the next generation of programmers have access to the knowledge and information gathered by other programmers before them.
 * "Programming", cited in the preface of Physically Based Rendering (2004) by Matt Pharr and Greg Humphreys.

 * Short of coming to their senses and abolishing the whole thing, we might expect that the rules for daylight saving time will remain the same for some time to come, but there is no guarantee. (We can only be glad there is no daylight loan time, or we would face decades of too much daylight, only to be faced with a few years of total darkness to make up for it.)
 * The Long, Painful History of Time.

 * Constructing a social system that tends to those who agree with it is a piece of cake compared to constructing one that makes those who disagree with it want to obey its principles.
 * Erik Naggum on Atlas Shrugged

C

 * Well, take it from an old hand: the only reason it would be easier to program in C is that you can't easily express complex problems in C, so you don't.
 * Re: new to lisp (3rd time lucky) (Usenet article).

 * C is not clean – the language has many gotchas and traps, and although its semantics are simple in some sense, it is not any cleaner than the assembly-language design it is based on.
 * Re: teaching and learning with LISP/Scheme (Usenet article).

 * … so as long as you do The Right Thing and forget how you would do it in C, you should be able to get a good grip on this.
 * Re: Allegro CL foreign function interface (Usenet article).

 * C being what it is lacks support for multiple return values, so the notion that it is meaningful to pass pointers to memory objects into which any random function may write random values without having a clue where they point, has not been debunked as the sheer idiocy it really is.
 * Re: Allegro CL foreign function interface (Usenet article).

 * Getting C programmers to understand that they cause the computer to do less than minimum is intractable. … Ask him why he thinks he should be able to get away with unsafe code, core dumps, viruses, buffer overruns, undetected errors, etc., just because he wants "speed".
 * Re: Lisp advocacy misadventures (Usenet article).

C++

 * In C++, reinvention is its own reward.
 * Re: wretched C++ (Usenet article).

 * C++ is a language strongly optimized for liars and people who go by guesswork and ignorance.
 * Re: is CLOS reall OO? (Usenet article).

 * Life is too long to be good at C++ – if you had spent all that time to become good at it, you would essentially have to work with it, too, to get back the costs, and that would just be some long, drawn-out torture.
 * Re: "Well, I want to switch over to replace EMACS LISP with Guile." (Usenet article).

 * … it's just that in C++ and the like, you don't trust anybody, and in CLOS you basically trust everybody. The practical result is that thieves and bums use C++ and nice people use CLOS.
 * Re: is CLOS reall OO? (Usenet article).

 * aestheticles: n. The little-known source of aesthetic reactions. If your whole body feels like going into a fetal position or otherwise double over from the pain of experiencing something exceptionally ugly and inelegant, such as C++, it's because your aestheticles got creamed.
 * Re: Learning curve for common lisp (Usenet article).

 * I believe C++ instills fear in programmers, fear that the interaction of some details causes unpredictable results. Its unmanageable complexity has spawned more fear-preventing tools than any other language, but the solution should have been to create and use a language that does not overload the whole goddamn human brain with irrelevant details.
 * Re: Checking for Errors Before Run Time (Usenet article).

 * I may be biased, but I tend to find a much lower tendency among female programmers to be dishonest about their skills, and thus do not say they know C++ when they are smart enough to realize that that would be a lie for all but perhaps 5 people on this planet.
 * Re: In praise of Java. (Usenet article).

Perl

 * Excuse me while I barf in Larry Wall's general direction.
 * Re: Some more misc. Lisp queries (Usenet article).

 * A novice had a problem and could not find a solution. "I know," said the novice, "I'll just use Perl!" The novice now had two problems.
 * Re: How is perl braindamaged? (was Re: Is LISP dying?) (Usenet article)
 * Paraphrasing Jamie Zawinski, and also formulated as "The unemployed programmer had a problem. 'I know,' said the programmer, 'I'll just learn Perl.' The unemployed programmer now had two problems." in his famous "Perl treatise", Re: can lisp do what perl does easily? (Usenet article).

 * This is your brain. This is Perl. This is your brain on Perl. Any questions?
 * Re: can lisp do what perl does easily? (Usenet article).

 * It's not that Perl programmers are idiots, it's that the language rewards idiotic behavior in a way that no other language or tool has ever done.
 * Re: can lisp do what perl does easily? (Usenet article).

 * Part of any serious QA is removing Perl code the same way you go over a dilapidated building you inherit to remove chewing gum and duct tape and fix whatever was kept together for real.
 * Re: can lisp do what perl does easily? (Usenet article).

 * I guess there are some things that are so gross you just have to forget, or it'll destroy something within you. Perl is the first such thing I have known.
 * Re: can lisp do what perl does easily? (Usenet article).

 * If Perl is the solution, you're solving the wrong problem.
 * Re: Q: on hashes and counting (Usenet article).

 * The ultimate laziness is not using Perl. That saves you so much work you wouldn't believe it if you had never tried it.
 * Re: Lisp as glue language? (Usenet article).

 * I have actually programmed a fair bit in Perl, like I have C++ code published with my name on it. Other things I have tried and have no intention to do again if I can at all avoid it include smoking, getting drunk enough to puke and waste the whole next day with hang-over, breaking a leg in a violent car crash, getting mugged in New York City, or travel with Aeroflot.
 * Re: How is perl braindamaged? (was Re: Is LISP dying?) (Usenet article).

 * What I actually admire in Perl is its ability to provide a very successful abstraction of the horrible mess that is collectively called Unix.
 * Re: Using Lisp to Call another program in linux? (Usenet article).

 * Let's just hope that all the world is run by Bill Gates before the Perl hackers can destroy it.
 * Re: perl embedded in emacs (Usenet article).

Lisp

 * Common Lisp is a big-city language. Spit out the hayseed, pronounce "shit" with one syllable and "shotgun" with two. You're not in Kansas, anymore. C is the language of the poor farmer village where the allocation of every seed and livestock matters, where taxes are low and public service non-existent. Appreciating the value of a large language is evidently hard for many people, just like many people find themselves miserable in the big city and go to great lengths to create a small village for themselves in the city where everything is like it used to be where they came from.
 * Re: two questions about strings (Usenet article).

 * If you want to know why Lisp doesn't win around you, find a mirror.
 * Re: Java is really convenient. Re: Sun thinks about switching Java to S-expression syntax: Lava (Usenet article).

 * Well, I think comparing Common Lisp to Scheme is prima facie evidence of ill will, even if Common Lisp wins. It is somewhat like a supposed compliment like "man, you are even smarter than George W. Bush".
 * Re: Setting a property in a symbol (Usenet article).

 * So pardon my cynical twist, but what are you doing with that 20,000×20,000 double-precision floating point matrix you say you need to invert today? If you answer "nutt'n, I jus kinda wondered what it'd be like, you know", you should be very happy that I am most likely more than 3000 miles away from you, or I would come over and slap you hard.
 * Re: Upper limits of CL (Usenet article).

Miscellaneous

 * The secret to feeling great about yourself is not to be found in searching for people who are less than you and then show yourself superior to them, but in searching for people who are more than you and then show yourself worthy of their company.
 * Re: CLL statistics for 2002 (was: Looking for Lisp compiler) (Usenet article).

 * The very word "exist" derives from "to step forth, to stand out".
 * Re: Lisp advocacy misadventures (Usenet article).

 * A word says more than a thousand images. Exercises for the visually inclined: illustrate "appreciation", "humor", "software", "education", "inalienable rights", "elegance", "fact".
 * Re: Emacs inferior to XEmacs? (Usenet article).

 * Languages shape the way we think, or don't.
 * Re: Search & Replace in sequences (Usenet article).

 * Enlightenment is probably antithetical to impatience.
 * Re: *Why* is LISP better? (Usenet article).

 * Contrary to the foolish notion that syntax is immaterial, people optimize the way they express themselves, and so express themselves differently with different syntaxes.
 * Re: S-exp vs XML, HTML, LaTeX (was: Why lisp is growing) (Usenet article).

 * Elegance is necessarily unnatural, only achieveable at great expense. If you just do something, it won't be elegant, but if you do it and then see what might be more elegant, and do it again, you might, after an unknown number of iterations, get something that is very elegant.
 * Re: Filk, puns, and other time wasting. (Usenet article).

 * The clumsiness of people who have to engage their brain at every step is unbearably painful to watch, at least to me, and that's what the novice-friendly software makes people do, because there's no elegance in them, it's just a mass of features to be learned by rote. However, this suits people a hell of a lot better than setting out at age 6 to become a great ballet dancer and achieving their goal 20 years later after every tendon and muscle and joint has been asked to perform just a little bit more than nature ever intended over and over and over again. To most people, this is insanity. But in reality, it's art, and it's the art in what we do that makes us human.
 * read the fine manual, please (Usenet article).

 * You become a serious programmer by going through a stage where you are fully aware of the degree to which you know the specification, meaning both the explicit and the tacit specification of your language and of your problem. "Hey, it works most of the time" is the very antithesis of a serious programmer, and certain languages can only support code like that.
 * Re: Implementational Portability (Usenet article).

 * The theory is the result of listening to the problem. When the theory acquires a life of its own because some people like it more than the real world, all kinds of uninspiring, uninteresting things happen, so the key is both to listen to the problem and to study the theory. But always remember that just as much theory is bunk as there are buggy solutions. There is nothing more wrong with "theory" than "solutions" – both their quality and their applicability are orthogonal to their existence.
 * Re: "Choose the Right Language" in "Tutorial" by Norvig and Pitman (Usenet article).

 * All experience has taught us that solving a complex problem uncovers hidden assumptions and ever more knowledge, trade-offs that we didn't anticipate but which can make the difference between meeting a deadline and going into research mode for a year, etc.
 * Re: is CLOS reall OO? (Usenet article).

 * More and more, people see that solving any problem is a question of acquiring knowledge and having respect for the cognitive and epistemological processes involved in the human brain: use what you know, learn what you can, and if you have to guess, be aware that you do so you can go back and update your guesses when you (hopefully) learn more.
 * Re: is CLOS reall OO? (Usenet article).

 * Computer programming is like the ability or skill to see what Picasso saw from all the different angles at once. If it is an art, the crucial element of art is to look at things from an angle that produces new insight or at least has that potential.
 * Re: Guide to Lisp, v1.20 (Usenet article).

 * Sometimes, the only way to learn something really well is to revert to the state of mind of a novice and reawaken to the raw observations that you have accumulated instead of relying on the conclusions you have reached from the exogenous premises absorbed through teaching and bookish learning.
 * Re: Guide to Lisp, v1.20 (Usenet article).

 * The Web provided me with a much needed realization that information cannot be fully separated from its presentation, and showed me something I knew without verbalizing explicitly, that the presentation form we choose communicates real information.
 * Re: S-exp vs XML, HTML, LaTeX (was: Why lisp is growing) (Usenet article).

 * The fundamental deficiency in HTML is that it reduces hypertext and the intertwinedness of human communication to a question of how it is rendered and what happens when you click on it. … HTML is to the browser what PostScript is to the laser printer.
 * Re: LISP and AI (Usenet article).

 * If GML was an infant, SGML is the bright youngster who far exceeds expectations and made its parents too proud, but XML is the drug-addicted gang member who had committed his first murder before he had sex, which was rape.
 * Re: S-exp vs XML, HTML, LaTeX (was: Why lisp is growing) (Usenet article).

 * XML is a giant step in no direction at all.
 * Re: Q: parsing strings (Usenet article).

 * Structure is nothing if it is all you got. Skeletons spook people if they try to walk around on their own. I really wonder why XML does not.
 * Re: The horror that is XML (Usenet article).

 * They are not identical. The aspects you are willing to ignore are more important than the aspects you are willing to accept. Robbery is not just another way of making a living, rape is not just another way of satisfying basic human needs, torture is not just another way of interrogation. And XML is not just another way of writing S-exps. There are some things in life that you do not do if you want to be a moral being and feel proud of what you have accomplished.
 * Re: S-exp vs XML, HTML, LaTeX (was: Why lisp is growing) (Usenet article).

 * A "new" language that differs from the rest of the crop by one or a couple features is proof positive that both what it came from and what it has become are mutations about to die. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of such "languages" that people have invented over the years, for all sorts of weird purposes where they just could not use whatever language they were already using, could not extend it, and could not fathom how to modify its tools without making a whole new language. They never stopped to think about how horribly wasteful this is, they just went on to create yet another language called Dodo, the Titanic, Edsel, Kyoto-agreement …
 * Re: Representing code as XML: the Flare Programming Language (Usenet article).

 * A system needs to be alive and workable even when other people than the first enthusiasts start using it. Reinvention and revolution are enthusiast stuff. Invention and evolution are engineering.
 * Re: "Well, I want to switch over to replace EMACS LISP with Guile." (Usenet article).

 * The Novice has been the focus of an alarming amount of attention in the computer field. It is not just that the preferred user is unskilled, it is that the whole field in its application rewards novices and punishes experts. What you learn today will be useless a few years hence, so why bother to study and know anything well? I think this is the main reason for the IT winter we are now experiencing.
 * Re: "Well, I want to switch over to replace EMACS LISP with Guile." (Usenet article).

 * The novice-friendly software is more like a misbehaving dog: it shits on the floor, it destroys things, and stinks – the novice-friendly software embodies the opposite of what computer people have dreamed of for decades: artificial stupidity. It's more human.
 * read the fine manual, please (Usenet article).

 * Is it still "artificial intelligence" when the task is to model human stupidity, or would only preventing its devastating consequences get an "AI" rating?
 * Re: Harlequin was: Re: Is LISP dying? (Usenet article).

 * Rewarding incompetence and ignorance increases the number of incompetent programmers. Designing programming languages and tools so incompetent programmers can feel better about themselves is not the way to go.
 * Re: New Lisp ? (Usenet article).

 * If I sound grumpy, it is only because I have come across too many idiots of the "it can't be done" persuasion lately, the kind of managers who have an aquarium in their office because fifteen brains think better than one.
 * Re: Upper limits of CL (Usenet article).

 * Unfortunately, nigh the whole world is now duped into thinking that silly fill-in forms on web pages is the way to do user interfaces.
 * Re: Pause for keystroke.

 * I have come to believe that large print, thick and heavy paper, and wide margins and oversize leading is indicative of the expected intelligence of the reader. … Compare children's books and books on Web Duhsign or other X-in-21-days books. If the reading level of a specification is below college level, chances are the people behind it are morons and the result morose.
 * Re: "Well, I want to switch over to replace EMACS LISP with Guile." (Usenet article).

 * Ignoring for a moment the power of the American Medical Association, we still wouldn't see a huge amount of books on neurosurgery for dummies in 21 days or whatever. It's just plain inappropriate, and it's intentionally out of people's reach.
 * Re: Is LISP dying?

 * Would you buy a book proudly stating on the cover that its reader is a dummy? Or would you think "of course it's ironic"?
 * read the fine manual, please (Usenet article).

 * "Code sharing" is an economic surplus phenomenon. It works only when none of the people involved in it are in any form of need.
 * Re: realistic but short and simple LISP examples? (Usenet article).

 * The currency in the developer community is enthusiasm.
 * What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community (Usenet article).

 * Like many older fans of Free Software and Open Source, I have discovered that it is really only free in the sense that the time you spend on it is worthless.
 * Re: The Next Generation of Lisp Programmers (Usenet article).

 * The Internet will not become a money machine until the banking industry figures out how to transfer money for free so you can charge USD 0.005 (half a cent) for some simple service like, say, reading a newspaper article you have searched for. With today's payment system, the cost of the transfer of the funds completely dwarf the cost of the service paid for. … This situation, however, is what acutely prevents the Internet from taking off as a network for paid services.
 * Re: is it ok if I quote?

 * Note that ANSI standards also cost way too much compared to toilet paper, and they're pretty bad quality as toilet paper goes, too.
 * Re: free lisp compilers? (Usenet article).

 * Companies that go bankrupt are a danger to healthy competition. They are able to make their creditors and shareholders pay for their losses and bad management and then to start anew with assets that they essentially got for free, quite unlike the competition that has not gone bankrupt, who have to pay full price for their assets, but quite similar to how their customers have wanted their products, for too little money.
 * Re: ...and even for those _NOT_ interested... (Usenet article).

 * Look at Unix. It was essentially open source before anyone invented the term, and that caused a large number of ways to solve the same problem and left the market to sort them out, which they didn't (the market never will sort out bad quality in anything but the single most important property of the products), and Unix got itself into a position where some horribly demented crapware from Microsoft could compete with it and fool a whole bunch of people for a while.
 * Re: source access vs dynamism (Usenet article).

 * They don't make poles long enough for me want to touch Microsoft products, and I don't want any mass-marketed game-playing device or Windows appliance near my desk or on my network. This is my workbench, dammit, it's not a pretty box to impress people with graphics and sounds. When I work at this system up to 12 hours a day, I'm profoundly uninterested in what user interface a novice user would prefer.
 * Re: Why lisp failed in the marketplace (Usenet article).

 * What people "want" is a function of what they learn is available. If you wish to sell something, you'd better understand that you can't give people what they want in the market today, because what they want today is what they can already get. You have to discover what they really want, and find some way to give that physical shape.
 * Re: creation of lisp machine/lispOS (Usenet article).

 * Optimization is generally detrimental to future success, but it is the only way to accomplish present success in competition with others who are equally interested in short-term results.
 * Re: O'reilly subjugated to the Lisp juggenaut (Usenet article).

 * If, however, one factor is too successful, it will continue to be the winning factor regardless of the variation in the other factors over the range of variation in the conditions, and therefore will stifle the development of other advantageous factors until the conditions change sufficiently that it no longer is the winning factor. At this point, the whole population is ill prepared for the change, and may well perish entirely if the winning factor accidentally becomes the matching factor for a disease or a predator.
 * Re: O'reilly subjugated to the Lisp juggenaut (Usenet article).

 * When all actions are used for feedback, the consequence of making mistakes will be a corrective and appropriate response, because everything everybody does matters. … The more selective you are in the feedback you accept, the more insane your reasoning will become as you will necessarily reject corrective feedback that would have led to better reasoning.
 * Re: Lisp's future (Usenet article).

 * I have argued that a religion or a philosophy cannot speak about facts of the world – if it does, it is now or will eventually be wrong – but it can and should speak about the relevance and ranking of facts and observations.
 * Re: Philosophy of Lisp programmers (Usenet article).

 * Suppose you want to convert a bunch of pictures into icons. Suppose you know how to do that with one picture: you click on the file, "drag" it over to the icon-generating program, then "drop" it there. Repeat until thoroughly disgusted with the idiocy of the paradigm of direct manipulation. Suppose instead you were able to communicate your actual desire to the computer, in (gasp!) a language!
 * Re: RFC: Lisp/Scheme with less parentheses through Python-like significant indentation? (Usenet article).

 * If car manufacturers made cars according to spec the same way software vendors make software according to spec, all five wheels would be of widely differing sizes, it would take one person to steer and another to work the pedals and yet another to operate the user-friendly menu-driven dashboard, and if it would not drive straight ahead without a lot of effort, civil engineers would respond by building spiraling roads around each city.
 * Re: What obstacles do Common Lisp programmers face? (Usenet article).

 * Historically, labor unions arose when people had gotten a taste of a different lifestyle and were willing to pay a lot more for their basic livelihood and had gotten into a fix they couldn't get out of – because they had accepted the unacceptable to begin with. Accepting something you have to form a labor union to fight after the fact only tells me that people were acting against their own best (or even good) interests for a long time. I don't see any rational, coherent explanation for this sort of behavior in humans, but it's all over the place.
 * Re: source access vs dynamism (Usenet article).

 * Unformed people delight in the gaudy and in novelty. Cooked people delight in the ordinary.
 * Re: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot with latest paper (Usenet article).

 * For some reason, the United States is the only country on Earth where accidents don't happen – it's always somebody's fault, and you can sue that somebody for neglect.
 * Re: About the usage of throw/catch (Usenet article).

 * From the Latin word "imponere", base of the obsolete English "impone" and translated as "impress" in modern English, Nordic hackers have coined the terms "imponator" (a device that does nothing but impress bystanders, referred to as the "imponator effect") and "imponade" (that "goo" that fills you as you get impressed with something – from "marmelade", often referred as "full of imponade", always ironic).
 * Re: Polymorphism in Common Lisp (Usenet article).

 * In Norway, we have a community of people who prefer to use a version of Norwegian that looks very much like lutefisk: Dug up remains from the garbage heap of history and dressed up to look like a tradition.
 * On nynorsk, from Re: Irish road-signs are now metric (Usenet article).

 * Norway did not even have a revolution at the time the rest of Europe was busy figuring out human rights and stuff, because we were busy fighting over how to spell it.
 * Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp (Usenet article).

 * We have no mom-and-pop oil rigs in Norway.
 * Re: Upper limits of CL (Usenet article).

 * The only important property of evils of the past is that they not be repeated in the future, in any way, shape, or form.
 * Re: Stalin is not a cool name for software (Usenet article).

 * Gotos aren't damnable to begin with. If you aren't smart enough to distinguish what's bad about some gotos from all gotos, goto hell.
 * Re: destroying CLOS objects (Usenet article).

 * Whoever decided to use the semicolon to end something should just be taken out and have his colon semified. (At least COBOL and SQL managed to use a period.)
 * Re: Read table modification question. (Usenet article).

 * I have a cat, so I know that when she digs her very sharp claws into my chest or stomach it's really a sign of affection, but I don't see any reason for programming languages to show affection with pain.
 * Re: defmacro question (Usenet article).

 * Like so many other things in life, you rarely get only what you optimize for.
 * Re: Programming Style (Usenet article).

 * If the syntax is good enough for the information, it should be good enough for the meta-information.
 * Re: XML and lisp (Usenet article).

 * Shed the idea that you were programming in an OO style. There is no such thing. You were only programming a particular object system. Now you get to program a different object system.
 * Re: How much use of CLOS? (Usenet article).

 * I believe that structure is a product, not a process.
 * Re: In- and Out-of- core editors (Usenet article).

 * A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I regret that this isn't fatal.
 * Re: unibyte (Usenet article).

 * I'm bothered by the fact that stupid people don't spontaneously combust, which they should.
 * Re: A draft business plan for free software LISP vendors (Usenet article).

 * You have failed to consider the ramifications of the solutions and pose a problem that simply would not exist if you did. This taxes my patience, which is already legendary in its general absence.
 * Re: XML and lisp (Usenet article).

 * Have you considered the option of getting the joke? If not, try it now and redeem your soul.
 * Re: Lisp Machines considered Inferior (Usenet article).

 * Please note: if you think the above is offensive, it is of course a joke and you did not get it. If you do not find it offensive, it is of course not a joke, and you did not get it. This is not a joke. Get it?
 * Re: Preventing a class from being instantiated (Usenet article).

 * Once we were Programmers. Maybe our last best hope is a movie.
 * Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp (Usenet article).

Usenet signatures

 * Intellectual laziness is punishable by brain death. It is a natural law.

 * God grant me serenity to accept the code I cannot change, courage to change the code I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

 * Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the answer.

 * In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.

 * Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.

 * The past is not more important than the future, despite what your culture has taught you. Your future observations, conclusions, and beliefs are more important to you than those in your past ever will be. The world is changing so fast the balance between the past and the future has shifted.

 * NETSCAPISM /net-'sca-, pi-z*m/ n (1995): habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from the realization that the Internet was built by and for someone else.

 * 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine – a basic ingredient in quality software.

 * My other car is a cdr.

 * If you think this year is "97", you are not "year 2000 compliant".

 * If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.

 * Sufficiently advanced political correctness is indistinguishable from sarcasm.

 * Environmentalists are much too concerned with planet Earth. Their geocentric attitude prevents them from seeing the greater picture – lots of planets are much worse off than Earth is.

 * Suppose we blasted all politicians into space. Would the SETI project find even one of them?

 * If you are concerned about netiquette, you are either concerned about your own and follow good netiquette, or you are concerned about others and violate good netiquette by bothering people with your "concern", as the only netiquette you can actually affect is your own.

 * Travel is a meat thing.

 * Member of AAAI AAAS ACM AMS APS ASA ASL IEEE IMS MAA NYAS PSA SIAM USENIX The United States of America still symbolizes individualism, rationality, and intellectual achievement to me — even though most Americans disagree.

 * Life is hard, and then you die.

title: Erik Naggum


text: Category:Cartoonists

title: Category:Cartoonists


text: Category:Television personalities

title: Category:Television personalities