Open main menu

Wikiquote β

User talk:Rmhermen

Black Hawk DownEdit

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)Edit

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 adminshipEdit

  • 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 Wikiquote: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)

Admin overlapEdit

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 quotesEdit

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 schemesEdit

Not to be pedantic, but I restored the {{vfd}} tag on Wikiquote: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)

SysopEdit

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 historiesEdit

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, [1], 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 VfDEdit

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 nominationsEdit

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 Wikiquote: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 formatEdit

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 moveEdit

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 redirectEdit

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 VfDEdit

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 ThanksEdit

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.Edit

Wayne's vs. WaynesEdit

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 imagesEdit

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:

  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.)

Thanks for any insight you can provide. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

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?Edit

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 linkingEdit

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...Edit

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==Edit

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

Welcome back & request for mail confirmationEdit

Hi, Rmhermen, welcome back to English Wikiquote.

During your absence, Wikiquote: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?Edit

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 poetsEdit

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 MonsterHunter32Edit

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.

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

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

Other editors and me have previously told MonsterHunter32 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:
  • 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.
  • MonsterHunter32 has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
  • MonsterHunter32 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 MonsterHunter32:
  • "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#Summary_table 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 MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 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 editsEdit

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.
  • 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 [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7].
  • 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.
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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 [8] 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#What censorship at Talk:India 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.
  • 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.
  • 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: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.
  • "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 - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced. 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." 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)

Return to the user page of "Rmhermen".