Hello, Rupert loup, and welcome to the English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


for your great work on so many pages. I notice you sometimes add more than one quote from the same source, and use separate bullet points for each one, which is fine, but then you only state their source under the very last one. The problem with this is that it makes the first quotes appear unsourced, which is discouraged. All quotes should be clearly sourced; repeating citations is actually not a problem. Of course in cases where the quotes are many, and you don't want to repeat the same citation over and over again, you can create a new section for them (as you've already done in a few pages), to make it clear(er) that they are all from the same source. Ok, thanks again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks for the advice. Rupert loup (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Six weeks after this comment you made seem to have repeated yourself in this edit, but not only that: From this very short online source (about 300 words) you took three quotes (in total 83 words) which is over 25% of the text, which I think is not inline with fair use policy. -- Mdd (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

August 2016Edit

  Thanks for experimenting with Wikiquote. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Wikiquote:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our compendium of quotations. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support. WikiLubber (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiLubber You need to explain why you are deleting the link, if not is vandalism. Rupert loup (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Whilst linking can be useful, it is absolutely unnecessary, especially when it comes to highly common words that have slim to nothing to do with the story in question that absolutely do not need linking. WikiLubber (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
WikiLubber I disagre, its not overlinked and Linking is part of the Wikiproject. You are damaging Wikiquote therefore is vandalism. Rupert loup (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing links, regardless of whether or not they are necessary, is not vandalism. Many articles here have no links (let alone the need for such). WikiLubber (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This is just plain trolling right now, you are deleting links without reason and specific those you don't like. Rupert loup (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No. Linking is clearly unnecessary here (a highly valid reason). WikiLubber (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I must be leaving soon, but will note that providing links to other pages on this wiki is common and approved practice. It is conducive to expanding interest and participation in the wiki and the ideas presentable on it. Removing links needlessly is simply investing in the promotion of ignorance and stupidity and an exercise in controlling and constraining the options of others. There can perhaps be excessive linking of duplicate links in a single section, but generally, the more links between pages of the wiki the better. Linking to Wikipedia for very common words or concepts is usually not necessary, but links to other pages of this wiki should be encouraged. ~ Kalki·· 00:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It must be noted that there were no links before my edits and in no way it is overlinked now. Also with his/her obsession with removing the link "Burqa" (which is not a common term) it makes me wonder if this is some kind of censorship or just trolling. Rupert loup (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Neither. It must also be noted that the term "burqa" is not only uncommon, but also not relevant to the story. WikiLubber (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

François-Noël BabeufEdit

Why do you feel the quotes you removed here are not notable? I fail to see a reason for their removal. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

UDScott, that quotes are not from notable people or works Wikipedia:Notability (people). See WQ:Q. Rupert loup (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I still do not understand your rationale - and I don't agree. These quotes appear to me to be from notable sources and they seem to appropriately relate to the subject of this page. I am quite familiar with WQ:Q and I still fail to see the reason for removing them. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
How are notable? These sources don't have significant coverage to be considered notable. They are reliable to be used as a reference in Wikipedia for it's academic background, but not notable to be quoted in Wikiquote. If so please explain me why because I fail to see it. Rupert loup (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Category removalsEdit

I don’t object strongly to the creation of categories for some of the single individuals such as you have recently created, though I actually do not see a great need for them here, but the removal of most of the categories from an individual's page to that new creation is something I tend to find more problematic than helpful. I don’t have time to discuss it right now, as I will be leaving in about a half hour, and have many other things to attend to right now, but thought I would note this before leaving. ~ Kalki·· 11:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kalki: The removals are because there is already categories in the articles that are subcategories of the removed categories in question. Rupert loup (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kalki: I realized that I didn't left edit summaries, it's a bad habit. Sorry about that, I will try to improve in that. Rupert loup (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I recognized that you are moving the categories you are removing from the article to the "special category" pages you are creating — but I actually do NOT perceive the need or helpfulness of such movings or removals. I believe it tends to diminish the likelihood of them prompting further consideration or exploration by most people, or being seen at all, in regard to the subject or person of the page from which you are removing them. Personally, I tend to find such obscuration of the categories rather unhelpful rather than helpful, and believe such practices should be discussed more with others, rather than simply plowed ahead with. This is just a brief note made as I prepared to leave, having seen further incidents of such actions. ~ Kalki·· 14:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the creation of the Sia (musician) page. It is one of many on musical artists which I had intended to create in recent years, and actually done some work on in recent months, but had not had time to polish off sufficiently, amidst many other tasks. I might add some of the material I had collected to that one soon, and attempt to do a few others in coming months, but I remain so busy that I have had very limited time to spend on sessions here. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 08:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Hi :) thanks for your contributions! When you create a page, it would be great if you could connect it on Wikidata. For example, when creating Andrew Lih you could go on the corresponding Wikidata item (see Andrew Lih on Wikipedia, on the left column, section "Tools", clic on "Wikidata item"), which is d:Q1113332. Scroll down and edit the "Wikiquote" section, adding the new page ;) Of course it is not mandatory, but it would connect the page with all the other pages on the Wikimedia projects, otherwise it will extend the page Special:UnconnectedPages. Thank you, bye ;-) --Superchilum (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not an active editor in Wikidata. Rupert loup (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi there, I've reverted your edit to purpose. Could you explain on the talk page why you think each quote is not about purpose? Thankyou --2001:8003:4163:AD00:385B:DAD8:ABD4:6763 11:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

should we let the admins weigh in on this? --2001:8003:4163:AD00:21C9:3750:D096:9FD4 11:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You are not explaining your rationaly and keep warring, can you give an explanation on how are about "purpuse"? Rupert Loup 11:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The Eisenhower quote is about the purpose of strength and willpower in defending US liberty, the Abelard quote is about the purpose of God, the Morris quote is about the purpose which Roosevelt pushed fprward with and worked as president. Something like this. --2001:8003:4163:AD00:21C9:3750:D096:9FD4 12:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
will we wait for an admin or will you just keep reverting me?
So you will keep warring despite don't having consensus for your changes, ok. Those quotes are not about purpose itself, having the word doesn't mean that are about the issue. And you know it, you just want to warring. Please stop. Rupert Loup 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
who would be fool enough to choose war instead of peace? Let's leave it and let some third party admins decide.

You should go to the talk pages and respond in them instead of edit warring. -- 09:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You should gain consensus instead of warring, until you don't gain consensus your edits will be reverted. Rupert Loup 09:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Socialism and its different variantsEdit

As quotes by Adolf Hitler on National Socialism were removed from Socialism and put on Right-wing socialism because they were a variant of socialism and not socialism proper, should quotes on Leninist Socialism and Marxian Socialism be removed from Socialism for the same reason? --2001:8003:412B:6300:9C1:5968:1D8:CC27 22:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

    • There were not put in that article. Rupert Loup 13:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
      • There are Leninist and Marxist and Maoist quotes in socialism. How is it that "right wing socialism" quotes by Hitler are removed, but not Marxist socialist quotes, Leninist socialism quotes and Maoist socialism quotes? Is my question. --2001:8003:412B:6300:3C4B:1C9:E7ED:6B36 06:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
        • No removed, quotes are moved to more specific articles all the time if needed. There were not moved because nobody wanted to move them yet. Rupert Loup 10:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

the link redirects to 3rd millennium BCEdit

If you click on third millennium BCE, the wiki page is third millennium BC.

Doesn't matter the name of that article, the quote is not of Christian or Western origin, BCE and CE is a neutral term. Rupert Loup 05:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
irrelevant, the wiki page is BC for this. Aren't you pushing a non Christian non Western POV?
This is not Wikipedia, your edits fail WQ:NPOV. Rupert Loup 05:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a wiki and its bound by the same rules


What are your disagreements with the edits on capitalism, equality and markets?

also, what are your disagreements with. all these edits? Your edit summaries were insufficient.
Gaing consensus and stop warring. Rupert Loup 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Eisenhower's quote on PurposeEdit

It is not off topic, read the article's lead: "Purpose is a term having various meanings involving intentions, targets, aims, goals, and objects or results which are desired."

"Purpose" is not the subject nor center of the quote, it's about freedom. It was already explain to you and you agreed about this. Rupert Loup 10:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Dawn (newspaper)Edit

I'm not sure I see the point of this page - I believe the lone quote is more properly placed on a page about Economics. A page for this newspaper should only contain quotes about that newspaper, not quotes that appeared in that newspaper. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The same point with pages The Times and The Sun (United Kingdom). I think that quotes from an editorial piece made by an notable outlet are wordy of being here. Rupert Loup 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
See my response at Talk:Dawn (newspaper). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello; I am not quite experienced with Wikiquote, and saw you put a deletion template on Albert Ellis. I mean, "no sources", what does that mean? Thanks for an answer. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Josephine W.: See Wikiquote:Quotability#Verification factor and Wikiquote:Wikiquote#What is Wikiquote?. Rupert Loup 09:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Josephine W.: See also WQ:SOURCE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war with that IPEdit

It's quite annoying that there's no admins on to deal with this, eh? It's probably best to notify an admin and to stop reverting, lest you continue the edit war. They'll give up once you stop reverting, and you can speak about it with an admin later. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Vermont: admins are aware of the IP, see above. They were notified already. And the IP doesn't stop, we already tried to engage with the user before and keeps pov pushing and censoring. Rupert Loup 23:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Although maybe you are right, I will come tommorrow and see if they do something about it. I have better things to do. Rupert Loup 23:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
you do no stop either, and you make no justification for your edits or reverting. -- 23:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
We already talked about your edits, me and many other users and admins, you keep doing it and already had been blocked before. You keep deleting things because you don't like it, censoring and pov pushing, you don't respect consensus and keep warring. Rupert Loup 23:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Vermont: see, they won't stop. They will continue with their tendentious editing for the sake of it. I already notified an admin so I will wait for a response. Rupert Loup 00:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
you have also been warned for edit warring. When an edit is made that you don't like, you call it pov pushing, yet you do the very same thing you allege I do. -- 00:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
On Nanshe, you believe she is a goddess of social justice. ‎ A goddess of social justice? I hope you can prove that. If you can't stop reverting my edit. -- 00:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I can prove it very easely, your POV shows and your edits will be reverted later because you are trying to damage the WQ project and cause disruption. Rupert Loup 00:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Very good, the source says it. It would have been better if you had addressed this in the edit summary. -- 00:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
it is you comrade who is trying to damage this project and cause disruption with your pov pushing. -- 00:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't have "comadres" and Wikiquote is not censored. You don't have consensus and you are not acting in good faith. I already enganged with you and you disregarded my comments and the warning of admins completetly, I don't have any reason to think that you going to listen to me now and I won't going to lose my time with a vandal. Rupert Loup 00:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
you have shown yourself to be someone who acts in bad faith and censors. Here is an example. There are plenty more. -- 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
That was already explained in its talk page, you don't have consensus and because you don't like the consensus and the rules of WQ you are disrupting it and targeting those who challenged your edits. Stop warring and POV pushing. Rupert Loup 01:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
you did not get consensus here, here, here, and you had no contentions about pushing these edits. Yet when I add quotes here you are suddenly deeply concerned with consensus. You're bias is showing. -- 01:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Tendentious editing is vandalism WP:TENDENTIOUS, you are reverting my edits to make a point WP:GAME. You are not enganging in good faith and admins already told you about this. I won't going to explaing it to you again. Rupert Loup 01:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
having only one person agree with you doesn't equal consensus. Address the other examples I listed. -- 03:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
You reverted Kalki's edit to Purpose even though Kalki and I agreed with the edit and apparently according to you had consensus. Address this as well. -- 03:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is not democracy. Rupert Loup 11:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not say consensus is democracy. But, when Kalki and I agree on one thing on Purpose, and you and peter1c agree on another, you do not have consensus. -- 10:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
you did not get consensus here, here, here. Address this. -- 10:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Your edits were reverted by other users, you are who don't have consensus and keep warring. Since you are not acting in good faith, I won't going to go further with the discussion here. Stop posting in my talk page. Rupert Loup 00:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The BibleEdit

Hi Rupert loup. Regarding edits on Ruler, the question of whether Bible quotations should be alphabetized under "Bible" or under the traditionally attributed author of the specific book was discussed on Village Pump. I would be interested in your thoughts. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Confused by your editsEdit

I am confused on two aspects of your recent editing: you are removing properly sourced quotes that definitely seem to pertain to the subject of the page on which they resided. Why? Just because you don't like them? That is not the way this site works. Second, you are elevating quotes that drive a certain POV by placing them with images on the page, thereby highlighting them. This is also not the way things work here as that drives a POV. I do not mind them being on the page, but presenting them with images, especially at the tops of such pages is inherently POV driving. Please refrain from both of these behaviors. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@UDScott: "removing properly sourced": Quotes need to meet WQ:Q to be in Wikiquote. There as much elevated as the other opposed quotes. Why are you deleting those and not the others? If the problem is the place of the images why are you deleting them? Rupert Loup 21:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
And what is not quotable about them? Please see my response on Talk:United States as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Who are them? There are no evidence of notability that I can find. Rupert Loup 21:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to removal of quotes of clearly notable people - for example your removal of a quote from Dwight Eisenhower from the Liberty page. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that one, it was a mistake. Rupert Loup 22:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@UDScott: I reverted this to the last accepted version because the IP is censoring the quote of Bertrand Russell. The IP has been making stealth edits deleting quotes that they don't like with others, Kalki already warned them about that. Rupert Loup 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

Please refrain from edit warring - it really is not constructive. Instead, if you have issues with another user, please begin a discussion (or call in an admin). If the edit warring continues, it will likely result in blocking. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

UDScott: We already have a discussion with this user and refuse to stop warring and they had been blocked before for that, they continue to keep pov pushing. See above. I keep finding deletion of content in several pages, this user doesn't have consensus and several others already reverted their edits [1][2][3][4][5], even you did it [6]. Rupert Loup 13:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I haven't had time to look through all the edits, and I am not saying your changes were wrong. But the point is that once an edit war begins (even if you are right), it is best to cease and alert others about it. Persisting in back and forth reversions really doesn't do a lot of good. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC
UDScott: the ip dint't stop even if we already discussed it and keep censoring and adding irrelevant content, they are being WP:TENDENTIOUS. Rupert Loup 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
UDScott: now the veil is off and the IP shows their full WQ:VANDAL nature, I can't assume good faith anymore. Rupert Loup 10:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
UDScott: Nothing has been done and the IP keeps with its tendentious POV pushing and warring. I'm still waiting for a response. Rupert Loup 23:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked you and another user because you both seem intent on continuing edit warring without any signs of stopping and discussing your differences. Please take this time to reconsider and instead seek to build consensus - I would recommend opening a discussion on Village pump or on the individual talk pages for the pages in contention before continuing the edit wars. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@UDScott: what do you mean by "any signs of stopping and discussing your differences", I discussed several times in different talk pages with the IP, like above as example. The IP keeps warring no matter what, this user is hounding me and Peter because they don't like our edits. [7][8] I talked with the IP every time that I could and asked you for intervention , you ignore me completely. WQ:AGF states: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. what evidence of good faith this IP has showed in the past months? Rupert Loup 03:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about re-adding these images without discussing it. I don't think that is WQ:CIVIL to accuse User:Peter1c of POV pushing because their placement. Rupert Loup 04:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
UDScott: so the ip will Wikihound me and Peter1c forever or something will be done about it? Rupert Loup 04:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

American BenevolenceEdit

Hello, you reverted me edit on American benevolence. IF you could show that the quote was explicitly about this topic that would be nice --2001:8003:4085:8100:247D:4D7A:7DA4:F5AB 04:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of the United StatesEdit

You are reverting UDScott by making those changes to this page. If you have a problem with it, take it to his talk page. --2001:8003:4085:8100:247D:4D7A:7DA4:F5AB 04:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

War crimesEdit

Hi Rupert Loup. Thank you for monitoring War crimes and reverting IP vandal. I think it will be better if we report these cases on Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard rather than edit warring. Vandals have nothing valuable to do and can waste an infinite amount of our time. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter1c, I reported the IP again. Nothing has changed despite the numerous reports, maybe we should take this to meta. Rupert Loup 19:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi Rupert Loup. Just wanted to apologize that I handled edit conflict on Socialism with lack of diplomacy. Your work on Wikiquote is excellent. Best regards, Peter1c (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Jarvis LorryEdit

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for having this page - aren't ll of the quotes already captured on the page for [A Tale of Two Cities]]? This page seems redundant. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The quotes in the book's article are not sorted by characters, I made it for readers who are searching specifically for his quotes. Is there a policy that says that I can't create that article? Because Category:Fictional characters is full of similar articles. Rupert Loup 17:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I would rather solve this issue by creating a redirect for Jarvis Lorry that points to the page for the novel. I'll have to look through the archives because I believe we have discussed this issue before, but in general the practice of having additional pages for a work's characters (particularly a literary work) is discouraged. Many of the pages in the Fictional characters category are those that appear in multiple works (although I would argue that it's still best to not create redundant pages containing quotes that also exist on pages for the works from which they came). For a character such as Jarvis Lorry, all the quotes come from a single work and it has been our practice to keep such quotes on a page for the work, rather than repeating them on a page for the character. I think one potential consequence of the practice could be that users might add quotes to the character page and not the page for the work (or vice versa), always an issue when there is redundancy. If you disagree, feel free to open it up for discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
This character also appear in multiple works, there are several adaptation of the book like films and musicals. Rupert Loup 20:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
UDScott: Are you going to do something about the disruptive IP? 04:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Aslo can you explain the rationale to claim that this image/quote is "pov pushing" whey the article already have an irrelevant and sole image of the US President Roosevelt? How adding that image for balance is POV pushing whem you seem to try to detract that point of view WQ:NPOV, the point of view that this IP is trying to censor. This very IP that was hounding me and Peter1 for two years at least and that I reported several times before withouth respone. Rupert Loup 07:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
And now is trying to censor another user. Rupert Loup 08:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Naxalite terrorismEdit

Hello, have you seen this on wikipedia before? The wikipedia page on Timeline of the Naxalite–Maoist insurgency is worth reading to see how they are a terrorist organisation, and their members are terrorists. Let me know your thoughts. --2001:8003:4085:8100:9410:C762:E058:B084 05:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


Hi there,

A short global block of the IP range has been made upon my request. Please restore the pages to the state they were in before the edit war began and seek mediation from an admin. Unfortanutely, I am not an administrator on this project so I cannot help. ~riley (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I already reported it in the Administrators' noticeboard. Rupert Loup 05:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes; that doesn't seem to be a very monitored place though unfortanutely. Have you tried directly contacting one of the active admins? ~riley (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, several times. They don't respond me. Rupert Loup 06:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


Are you an admin? --Technoquat Quotation (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, if you need to contact an administrator see Wikiquote:Administrators#List of administrators. Rupert Loup 21:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020Edit

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions to Wikiquote. If you want to appeal this block, add the following tag: {{unblock|your reason here ~~~~}}
If using the above tag does not help, either an administrator may have declined the request after the unblock request was reviewed by an administrator or you may have been blocked from editing your talk page.

Edit warring is not appropriate, whether right or wrong, and is disruptive to the project. You have been previously blocked for edit warring and are aware of the rules. ~riley (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|[[User:~riley|~riley]] if [[Wikipedia:WP:WAR]] finally will be enforced from now and on in WQ I'm okay with that and will follow it. Glad that we have you here. How I should proceed since the IP is not willing to (or can't) follow our policies and norms like i.e consensus and quotability? Rupert Loup 05:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)}}
I fully support you upholding policy, but back and forth reverting is not benefical. Taking a look at just one of the recent pages, i.e. SARS-CoV-2, there are nearly 150 revisions of edit warring. If you need to revert more than once, turn to the discussion page and keep discussing until it is resolved. If that does not work, and you need to revert more than three times, turn to an admin for protection or mediation. Continuing to revert only adds fuel to the fire. I brought this to the attention of admins last week, and none intervened, which is disappointing but that does not mean it can continue. I have removed the content (restoring pre-edit war) and protected all pages for one month so that the IP cannot edit them any further. The IP can file a request on the talk page and it can continue from there. As this is not your first block for edit warring, and it is only a 24 hour block, I am not inclined to undo or shorten the block. Another admin can if they feel it is appropriate. ~riley (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It's fine. I can wait. Rupert Loup 06:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I will weigh in on the talk pages tomorrow. ~riley (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 blockEdit

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikiquote for abuse of editing privileges. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@UDScott: I didn't war after this warning. This revert was made at 17:32 and your comment was made at 17:59. I stoped editing after that and I didn't broke the 3RR. I'm sorry if I didn't make my self clear that I understood the warning in my comment, I will take the block. UDScott and @GreenMeansGo: It's difficult to engage in converstion if the user is uncivil. So how is supposed that I should procced? You are already aware since I already posted my thoughts in the noticeboard so what more I can do? Rupert Loup 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with some of the changes the other user has made, your reaction was to again revert all changes they made (with respect to the stripping of quotes, ostensibly for copyright issues). I also saw again some reverts within the Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in India page after I had cautioned against this. I'm not saying there is fairness in all of this, but it makes it nearly impossible to address any issues when there is constant back and forth between two users that disagree. That's why I placed this short block on you both to hopefully create a cooling off period. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It's OK as I said, I just wanted to pointed out that after you said that the warring should cease, I indeed ceased since this is my last revert, which is before that warning. It's not that I didn't care for the warning, as my comment imply since I didn't make it clear. That's all. I'm more concerned about the uncivility, the houdning and accusations of bad faith. Rupert Loup 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Why are you accusing me of copyright violation? How do you know that it's a copyright violation? Why instead of doing something about the incivility you are taking part of it by that Ill-considered accusation? @UDScott: this is not only unfair but it doens't solve anything. I'm taking my block, why am I being shamed by an admin while I'm under it? Rupert Loup 04:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing Deletion notice templatesEdit

VfD is still open. An admin will remove it, not you. Please do not remove the deletion notice yourself. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

For further context, even if the voting time is closed, it's still an administrator's job to change the page according to consensus and remove the VfD template. It's rather common for VfDs to go over the time, mainly due to lack of administrators. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Dibbydib: in which policy that is stated? Templates are not badges of shame, the discussion is over and people can't vote so that is of no use now. Rupert Loup 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
UDScott, ~riley: I request please that the VfDs Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Neethi P., Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Mekhala Krishnamurthy and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Armin Rosencranz be closed. Rupert Loup 19:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Hello! Why did you move [9] page Theosophy to Theosophy (Blavatskian)? Corresponding wikipedia article is named just "Theosophy". Can you move it back? -- 16:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done Rupert Loup 17:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Primo LeviEdit

My goodness, you seem to be right about Primo Levi's sci-fi and about the Action Party. But is his sci-fi or his activity in the Action Party really notable enough to justify putting him in the categories?

Still, a very good catch on your part. Thanks! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have to make a confession: when I saw that someone had put Primo Levi into the "Science-Fiction Authors" and "Liberal Socialist" and "Politicians" categories, I thought "These false classifications must be the work of an anti-Semitic Holocaust-denier, who is suggesting through categories that PL's Holocaust memoirs are fiction and that PL was just a liberal politician making up a fake story." So I wrongly suspected you. I'm very happy to see that I was wrong about that!

Thanks again, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I'm the one whose deletions you reverted. I do admit I went overboard and I apologize, but I still think there are two quotes that should be candidates for deletion. Firstly, the quote "Hell is paved with good intentions" is there twice, once attributed to Baxter, once to Johnson. There is no reason to have there the very same quote twice, the only difference being its supposed author. Secondly, the following quote from Paradise Lost "Hell grew darker at their frown" is very unfortunate because unless the reader is well familiar with Paradise Lost he/she will have no idea what this is referring to. Who is frowning there, do you know? I looked up the passage and it seems like it's Satan and some monster who are about to fight each other over the control in hell. I'd guess that 99% of folks won't know what this quote is referring to. Besides, it doesn't really express any idea about hell, but rather has to do with how terrible and angry Satan and his opponent are. Not every sentence that mentions hell should be quoted on the page with hell quotes. Otherwise we might end up with a tedious list almost as endless as hell is said to be.

  • The repeated quotes should be fused in one with the variants in Chronological order as a note. About the Paradise Lost's quotes also a note clarifying the context could be addded. I don't think that the rationale presented is good enough to delete the quotes. Rupert Loup 09:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the edits, Rupert!

FIFA pagesEdit

Question: why have you been adding categories related to history for these pages (or in some cases also cats for where the event was located)? Just because these events occurred in a certain place and at a certain time does not seem to point to a need for these categories. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what do you mean. History is the study of past events. Rupert Loup 15:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but that does not mean that every event that has occurred in the past should be in the History category. Instead, these categories should rather include things about the history. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I really don't see what's the problem here. Rupert Loup 15:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
If we follow your logic, every event that has occurred before today should have some sort of history category added to it. Just because something happened before today does not mean it should have a history category. That is the problem - miscategorization. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, I don't see nothing wrong in having history categories for such events. Rupert Loup 16:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
And now you've added Category:Women to the page for 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup‎. This doesn't make sense either. That category is for pages about women or about women's issues, not for pages where the topic happened to be performed by women. There seems to be a misunderstanding about how categories should work. I could see it having a category for Women's sports, but not for Women in general. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
If you want I can create the category Category:Women in sports. Rupert Loup 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 Y Done Rupert Loup 16:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)