Thank you for your comment about MonsterHunter on the noticeboard.
But the problem remains and nothing has been done yet.
Just take a look at MonsterHunter32's massive censorship without any talkpage discussion here:
What is this if not vandalism?
If this is not a blockable offence, what has one to do at wikiquote to get blocked?
Other editors have agreed that it is very clear that he should be blocked.
He has been warned enough times already.
He has been told enough times already by multiple editors that he should at the very least observe this rule:
Jedi3's masive disprutive editingEdit
Jedi3 has intentionally overloaded this talk page and I cant even figure pout where to respond. But talking about his disruptive actions and the true reason why his quotes are removed will be reason enough.
Here you can see Jedi3's history of disruptive edit-warring in the past. While he keeps claiming censorship, he deliberately omits I've left many of his quotes untouched as well. This table I tagged earlier, but can come in handy. Some of its content is ouitdated. Theis differfence bvetween his comments and abruptly stopping discussion at It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result.
Also I've given reason for all removals in the edit summary. Also Jedi3 keeps talking about Template:Remove]. but here is actually what 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."
Regardless of it not mandating every time, I still tried to discussed with him despite not being mandatory every time. But he even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.
What "cooperation" and censorship this edit-warring user is talking about? He himself doesn't care to cooperate and "censors" and berates when someone takes action against his disruptive edits. He is the most disruptive person I've ever comer across. The list above isn't complete with many other of his acts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The many disruptive acts of Jedi3Edit
User:Jedi3 keeps on falsely claiming I am "censoring him" despite me leaving intact many of his notable quotes no matter what they are. I've already explained to him that I won't remove any notable quotes. He must stop with his false bad-faith accusations
Jedi3 has been constantly edit-warring despite being warned by admins and told plainly some of his quotes aren't memorable and seem to be only meant for POV-pushing. While criticising me, Kalki criticised Jedi3 as well tating the biases are leading to "lapses of both logic and fairness".
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 don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeos calling them.
Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.
In some of these cases there were only one quote or the quotes were not as Jedi3 had added them. Despite pointing out so, he doesn't accept it.
This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: , , . Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: , 
His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: , ,  and . Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See , , , , , , , . Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: ,  and . I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.:  and . This despite his removed quote only being one in number.
Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "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."
It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: . He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: , . Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.
It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result. He even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.
Please block this disruptive edit-warring vandal immediately. If you find the time please also comment not just on Babur, but also on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. As it Jedi3 who refuses to accept responsibility for wrongdoings on these articles and still refers to them as "content dispute" despite being disproved with original sources: , . MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Comments about Jedi3Edit
Jedi3 (again) selectively omits his own criticism This is what other editors have said about Jedi3:
BD2412, MonsterHunter32 is and will be ignoring your comment.
He has been told this thousands of times:
He just keeps ignoring it.
He was warned enough times. He just ignores the warnings.
See here for the massive list of censored quotes.
In every other wiki he would have been banned long ago. Other editors have also said, "isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes".... It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.
An admin needs to decide what is to be done about this, as this situation cannot continue. The mass censorship and removal of sourced quotes without any explanation and full reasoning on the talkpage is vandalism. And if one restores the censored quotes, he just keeps edit-warring as here and here.
Of the many quotes he has been trying to censor, he only gave some reasoning for TWO quotes on the talkpage, see .
I also agreed with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard (but I am not sure if he would respect it):
BD2412, many editors and admins have told MonsterHunter32 this
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 version should be kept and/or restored, by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion.
but he kept ignoring it and refusing to observe it. And he was told so much also by admins, but the admins are not enforcing it and therefore MonsterHunter continues to refuse to observe it.
But this is a bare minimum that should be observed by him, which should then be the basis for further discussion. Otherwise he will just continue his mass censorship and edit warring, with poor excuses like that his edit summaries for the mass censorship of a massive amount of different quotes are already "enough" discussion, or that he can only do this for one quote at one time and must wait until the discussion is finished before he can do it for any of the other deleted quotes.
(The only exceptions should be the removal of vandalism or other uncontroversial matter that is not challenged.)
I think more measures would be necessary, and more than well justified, but this is really the minimum, that should be observed by MonsterHunter and enforced. Can you agree on this?
I also agree with what another editor has proposed 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"
This second proposal goes a bit further, and might be a better solution than the minimum proposal above, however, we can also discuss this second proposal at a later stage, if it would be needed. --Jedi3 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "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." Also it clearly says, "It is the quote itself that must be notable". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. Look at it again. On 5 March, I made the comment and you took a "vacation". There are no discussions on the issue because you didn't bother with them. You also falsely accused me of censorship on quotes including the original one by Wilkie Collins. Try reading your own comments. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
DanielTom's edit-warring and accusationsEdit
It is easy to see why DanielTom is making comments against me. He has displayed the same behavior of edit-warring and bad-faith accusations in the past. He has been complained in the past by User:Prinsgezinde, at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom and by me too. I will like to invite him to address his behavior.
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.
Nobody will consider the quote "Yeah, I want to water down the targets..." as worth censoring. Not to mention his baseless accusations of me censoring quotes critical of Islam when most of my edits are not about Islam and even about other religions like Christianity and Hinduism. These actions are quite similar to that of Jedi3. Most articles are about Muslims or Christians, rather than their religions.
As to the other charges levelled by him of me "turning the tables", I'll like to ask whether any of this is made-up:-
Jedi3 resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at , , , ,  and . Jedi3 resumed edit-warring after his week-long block expired. These are only a few examples: here, a here, here. Jedi3 again resumed edit-warring today. Already three reverts made recently by him: , , 
I already warned Jedi3 against his constant edit-warring stating it will result in a block for us. He still doesn't listen. Have I made it up?
Also here's what I didn't do like Jedi3: Use a false reason to remove quotes, add made-up quotes copied from Wikipedia as admitted by Jedi3, add quotes not about topic at articles like Muhammad bin Qasim or Alauddin Khalji. And Jedi3 deliberately refuses to accept this wrongdoing by calling it a "content dispute": ,  despite being shown the original sources in last part of my comment here.
Nor I insult others by calling them annoying. It was Jedi3 who baselessly started calling my edit vandalism. He had made similar accusations of vandalism against another editor too.
After all this evidence of Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, can it not be said with confidence that Jedi3 has no interest in discussion or honesty or good faith assumption? I asked DanielTom to not make baseless accusations but he doesn't listen. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, User:Jedi3's sole purpose in his edits has been POV-pushing to spread hatred against non-Hindu religions even if his quotes are not memorable. This is why nearly all of his quotes are crtical against Muslims, Christians, and their religions. Please be careful of his intentions and edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Please let me commentEdit
I promise I won't comment on Jedi3 and his reasons on AN regarding Template:Remove. I will only given my reason why it is unwise to make the change. I hope you agree and allow me. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll be backEdit
Based on your and mine moving at 20+ articles each, I think near half maybe done. Based on this, I think at most it will take 3 days if I alone edit 2 times a day. So I don't think you'll need to move them. I'll be back in probably 12 hours and resume moving. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Corrected one wordEdit
I have been moving the quotes and reached a compromise with DanielTom, but he still doesn't stop attacking me. He insults me as johnny-come-lately by making a baseless claim that the discussion about notability already took place on his talk page. The discussion in question is actually about whether the quote is of the subject "Tipu Sultan", not notability. He again attacked me as [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=2394949&oldid=2394936 annoying. I'm not the only user he has abused: . Please don't allow his behaviour with others to continue and at least warn him. He is trying to incite me and others and I cannot focus on the job of moving and discussing quotes like this. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Seeing my block over a name, I hoped he would be restrained. But anyway I'm sorry. I will be back in half a day to continue moving others. Likely will be done in 2 or 3 days. Have a good day. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
BD, if the quotes are too much, you can let me handle them. It's not impossible to move, though will consume time. Simply open the older version of the page before removal, find the quotes from the current version and remove them. Then simply move all the quotes that are left to the talk page. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikiquote:Wikiquote should be restored to its over a decade old established version and fully protected to stop the edit war currently raging, initiated by "editors" with suspicious motives and with very little edits/contributions here. They should be allowed, and are in fact welcome, to start a discussion on the talk page and try to gain consensus for their wrong-headed changes at any time, if they so wish, but not change the wording unilaterally. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I was here for another issues but BD2412, DanielTom has omitted he has edit-warred with three users including me, User:Butwhatdoiknow and User:Beefybufoon on Wikiquote:Wikiquote. Are you going to let him get away with his wish and do nothing? He is also making bad-faith suspicions against them? Even User:CensoredScribe has complained of his behaviour. When I told you about his attacks you still did nothing. You blocked me for mentioning of a name. Are you going to stand by and let him do what he wants. He can edit war and insult others. At least give him a punishment. What are you doing? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this a joke? As usual you do nothing. For edit-warring and attacking, you warned me. For mere mentioning a name in another context, you blocked me. But when DanielTom who has been edit-warring and attacking for long, you do nothing instead of focusing on edit-warring you shift to dispute. What I complained about was edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether it is standard practice to block editors without any notice to those editors. Had another editor not told me abut this page I would still be in the dark that charges had been made against me by DanielTom or that I had been convicted by you. By the way, I dispute DanielTom's charges and would be happy to respond should you decide to reopen the case. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
User:DanielTom has been edit-warring with many. First the one who accused Beefybufoon of being my sock reverted User:Butwhatdoiknow saying he needed to be reverted first, then DanielTom came in when Butwhatdoiknow reverted. Then when Beefybufoon reverted them both, he revrted him and locked the artcile down. It is strange DanielTom is lecturing others even though he has made many reverts himself on the article of two users, three actually. He uses excuses for edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Butwhatdoiknow Wikiquote:Wikiquote doesn't call itself a policy or guideline. The one who called Beefybufoon my sock also claimed it is not a policy or guideline earlier. But I guess since it is talking about what Wikiquote basically is, it might be a policy. That's the best I can answer. An admin will know better. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Nearing completion - maybeEdit
I think I'm nearing completion. Maybe not, but then again I have finished a lot. I regret ever having to volunteered because you are not fair. Your severe action against me over a name in another context and blaming me of edit-war and attack, but you said none who started it all and didn't even actually discuss until much later on. Personally I should have let the block remain or let you finish it by yourself. But regardless, I have come so far so no point in turning back now because of it. I'll try to finish it tomorrow. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Completed and a requestEdit
I think I've completed moving all. Some articles where I was reverted. or my removal of quotes wasn't correct, I've let go of them and won't be contesting those disputes.
However, I have to verify all are done and if any remain missing. I'll be back tomorro to verify all articles.
I'll also make a request if you're not going to take action against DanielTom, simply close the complaints at Administrator noticeboard. It's nothing but repetitve useless arguments. Also if you can, archive my past complaints and the ones against me as they're no longer required and completed, except the one with interaction ban. Much of the content in them is repetitve anyway. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to respond to the countless defamatory attacks and distortions by MonsterHunter32 against me in so many public spaces, which now extend to bringing up old and irrelevant disputes all in an effort to provoke me and ultimately getting me blocked. Maybe ignoring his provocations and not feeding the troll (as an admin told me privately) is the best strategy. Still, I'd like to know what you think. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to provoke you DanielTom. As I said I'm always willing to cooperate if there's a will to cooperate on the other side. I can see you'll never admit to any wrong. I asked BD2412 to shut my complaints against you as nothing has come out of them except arguments. I could keep blaming you too. But it will be useless, let's drop it. MonsterHunter32 (talk)
Return to the user page of "BD2412/Archive 7".