Hi, welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! --Tryst (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lucio Dalla edit

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Lucio Dalla, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#### thank you edit

Thank you for adding #### (film) to List of films, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julia Gillard edit

Hi Abramsky, could you add the source of the first quote here in writing?. The current link itself requires people to sign in first, but even so, interwiki links are unstable in time and for that not appropriate as source. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That wan't an Interwiki link; it was a link to the Financial Times. I have changed the link to the BBC site, which is free.--Abramsky (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, it was indeed just an "external link". Now I updated the source data some more, still it is not the original source. Do you know in what media she originally made those comments two days ago? And don't you prefer to add those to the source info? -- Mdd (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't see why the BBC shouldn't be an original source. It was said at a press conference and no doubt there was a BBC reporter there. I could probably find an Australian newspaper but that may be no more original.--Abramsky (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I am not mistaken, the BBC article doesn't mention those statements were made on a press conference, and I also noticed the BBC webarticle is from 26 june 2013 and not 25 june. -- Mdd (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't say that those statements were made in Australia either. If you can find another source that you consider better, please do, but I cannot conceive that the BBC web site is not a perfectly good source.--Abramsky (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the BBC web site is a good source, and I realize that there is not one exact best solution. We can use different sources, and write it down in different styles. I noticed you have your own type of notation, different from mine, and I tried to restore that kind of notation, see here. I do think the source data should be consistent and as complete as possible, and my recent edits have improved both. -- Mdd (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine; thank you.--Abramsky (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats on becoming an admin! edit

Congrats on your recent RfA. If you have any questions about your new admin tools, feel free to give me a shout. EVula // talk // // 16:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! edit

I'm a historian and I've been following Wikipedia guidelines to expand articles and quotes by the Murrow Boy Bill Downs. It is a fun project and even the smallest input from other people feels good. And I fixed the lack of citations.

Votes for deletion edit

Hi Abramsky, since the deadline for discussion has passed, could you close this discussion? BD2412 pointed me to you because you were not involved in the discussion. I must mention that there is a degree of urgency because the deletion of Brimstone's Commons pictures depends on whether there are articles to support the need for the pictures, and the WikiQuote article is the last to host the pictures. Due to the urgency, I have also reached out to Mdd. Thank you very much. Starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection edit

I already left this message before. Can you or another admin please protect my talk page. It is being met with vandalism again and I don't want to consistently revert the gibberish.

Additionally, please protect or semi-protect the following articles as they are being met with vandalism once again:

I would suggest heavy protection. I reverted them to before the vandalism began, but I would highly recommend that they be protected from all new users as most of the vandalism is being done by the same sockpuppets from prior. Reverting the edits only triggers more activity from this sockpuppeteer. I would suggest a checkuser again for all the most recent accounts that have vandalised these articles and my talk page as they are all likely one and the same. Please notify me when the protection has been made. Thanks in advance. - Zarbon (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. edit

I wish to thank you for your recent contributions to this project and emphasize that I appreciate and value your presence here. I do this prior to considering how to respond to some remarks you and others have made in contention with me on a semantic issue, which I will probably develop and post within a few days, to the extent I have the time. I can foresee that I might delay a response for several days or even a week or more, as I remain busy with many other things, but I wish to make clear that I might use harsh terms which I do not direct against any particular persons, but tend to be inclined to use against certain forms of assumptions. I recognize the need to restrain my use of some terms I find appropriate in various ways, so that they are not simply misunderstood by many — but I often have to take time to temper and reduce as well as develop and refine some of the expressions I am prone to use. I again thank you for your contributions, and some of your stimulating thoughts on some issues, even those I will sometimes disagree with. I hope that this project may grow in worth and diversity in the coming years, and I hope to contribute much more in coming months than I have been able to in several years. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 17:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure of Votes for deletion/Sumit Chowdhury edit

I am surprised and disappointed that the outcome of this discussion is to keep an article that quotes from an unpublished or nonexistent work. As you rightly observed, there were not many votes cast. As the closer, would you be interested in reconsidering the result based on the strength of the arguments rather than their small quantity? Consider the instructions at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion#Voting on deletions:

"Sysops have the responsibility of judging the results based on a variety of factors, including (besides the votes) policies, practices, precedents, arguments, compromises between conflicting positions, and seriousness of the participants."

I don't think the nonexistence of the book has been rebutted, and that strikes me as an overwhelming reason not to quote it, notwithstanding any notability of the author. Thank you for your consideration. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mentioned you edit

here. Hope you're doing well, DanielTom (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Master (Doctor Who) edit

Could you please indef block the user, he keeps disrupting the Master (Doctor Who) page and adding quotes from ab entirely different character. He won't listen to me when I point out Wikipedia's policy of canon, he keeps reverting when other users apart from me revert it, he won't discuss it, he won't compromise so there for unfortunately I think this is the only way to stop him.--TBBC (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global auto-block edit

Hello. My account was compromised during my absence. Can you indefinitely block my account globally to prevent damage to all sister wiki projects? Thanks for collaborating! --BScMScMD (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism only account edit

As an en.wikibooks admin, (innocent question) why are you blocking IP vandals with the reason Vandalism-only account? They really aren't accounts, as they are anonymous editors, so I believe a better reason for blocking IP vandals is Vandalism. Take note you may do what you wish, but I thought I could bring this to your attention. Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking my comment lightly! Anyways those IPs might not be always vandals, they could change! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help edit

I want to be admin in wikiquote.Can you help me for this?

Category:Japanese poets edit

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) 01:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? You can read more about it at the link above, and at the other discussions linked in that discussion. Thank you. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am discussing even right now all quotes one by one who Jedi3 says must not be removed, has is not cooperating. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for adminship edit

Please share your support. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions). Thanks. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 00:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]