This is UDScott's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to UDScott.


More anti-American pov pushing images+quotesEdit

Hello UDScott, could you take a look at these edits I made? I removed anti-American pov pushing images, and I suspect RupertLoup and peter1c will be reverting them soon, so if I could get your opinion on whether or not they should be on these pages that would be very much appreciated. Thanks again. -- 07:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I took a look - and reverted two of them. But others I think are OK, as they more closely pertain to the topic of the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of the United StatesEdit

Thank you for dealing with the Pov pushing. Unfortunately - peter1c has reverted your edits on Founding Fathers of the United States. I've reverted him in turn, but he will probably revert it again. -- 01:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Rupert Loup has reverted them as well. --2001:8003:4085:8100:2181:D7FB:6C7F:2106 03:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
My objection was related to placing specific images at the top of the page, thereby imparting some level of emphasis on them over others - which to me demonstrates a pushing of a POV. I do not advocate the removal of properly sourced quotes from a page (if it is relevant to the topic of the page) simply because one does not like or agree with them. Sorting the images alphabetically in order to place them within the relevant letter section alleviates my concern. Please let's try to remain neutral about all this and stand down from the ongoing edit wars. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that is in their interest to remain neutral. Rupert Loup 21:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please range blockEdit

The turkish IP LTA has returned, please block this range and yank talk page access. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi, can I have an answer to my question about the ip. I feel that this is not going to stop any time soon. Rupert Loup 10:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

About the Thomas and Friends articles you put under protection...Edit

We cannot take chances that IP vandals will be after them again once the protection expires in two days. I say protect them all for another year or two. DawgDeputy (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


Excuse me, can you block DawgDeputy, please? That is because, he's messing up everything at Wikiquote. 02:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ignore this hypocritical vandal. It just wants an excuse to vandalize. Block this IP indefinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. It is blocked for a week for now. But I suggest no less than a year, considering this IP's incessant lack of conduct. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

sourced quotes?Edit

iam new and would like to contribute. Any help/Ideas? PoolsHaza181 (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The best places to go to learn about how to properly add and edit pages are the following: Wikiquote:About, Wikiquote:How to edit a page, Wikiquote:Guide to layout, Wikiquote:Manual of style, and Wikiquote:Templates. Or simply click on 'Help' in the menu on the left side of the page. If you have any questions or need further help, feel free to reach out to other admins as well - or better yet, you can post a question on Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard or the Wikiquote:Village pump (which is a place for general questions that any user can respond to. Best of luck. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Request protection reductionEdit

@UDScott: Please reduce the protection on Template:QOTD Ranking and Wikiquote_talk:Quote_of_the_day to semi-protected or unprotected (currently they are fully protected). These are project pages. They are not policies or guidelines. There may be some disagreement among some editors regarding the content of parts of these project pages. There is no existential threat to Wikiquote in reducing the protection of these pages. Thank you for your support of developing consensus on content through the bold-revert-discuss cycle and to fostering broad participation in our project. JessRek6 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I, of course, object to any reduction to the protection on these pages. I also have posted some remarks on the Admin noticeboard regarding recent actions of JessRek6 which I invite you to examine and discuss. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott: Thank you for your service as an administrator of Wikiquote. Please reply to a legitimate inquiry from a non-admin editor regarding a recent administrative action of yours. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding sooner - but I am not inclined to reduce the protection at this time, as it appears that your dispute on this topic is not yet settled. I am not saying whether or not there is merit in your arguments, but until there is resolution, I do not see the need to reduce the protection. Please continue dialogue to come to some resolution. If you still disagree, feel free to appeal to other admins and argue your case. But at this time, I believe that further discussion is the way to go, rather than opening up pages for potential edit wars. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, no apology necessary. Yes, one editor is opposed to documenting our QOTD processes toward widening participation. May I respectfully ask, what would satisfy you that there is resolution? The only way forward I can imagine is wider participation, perhaps eventually a request for comment, but in the mean time, I am an editor in good standing, and I am due the privilege of using our bold/revert/discuss cycle to hone successively more acceptable text in preparation for a request for comment. The protections are delaying resolution. Again, the two protected pages are not policies or guidelines, this is a content dispute regarding project pages, there is no threat to the project, there has been no vandalism, there have been only good faith edits. There has been no edit war; I have no doubt I will be routinely reverted, but there will be no edit war. I feel the tools are being used inappropriately here. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I guess I fail to see how the protections are limiting you in trying to resolve the issue. Nothing prevents you from making proposals for general discussion. It is in such discussion that the text could be successively honed. This is not meant to be a slight to you or your standing in the community, but I don't see the need to relax the protections - I don't see how that would change anything in your discussions. Rather than alter such a central part of the project in a hasty manner, I would rather leave things as they have been for quite some time and let the discussion carry on to its conclusion. Then when, or if, there is consensus, the changes can be made. As the discussion progresses, I may change my mind about that, but not so far. Again, feel free to reach out to another admin if you continue to disagree. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again for your reply. Respectfully, let me turn the question around: what is the basis in policy or guideline for protecting these two pages? no vandalism, no edit war, no threat to the project, so...what? The BRD cycle is our main tool for iterating toward consensus, the protections take BRD off the table. After all, the two recent edits to these two pages that have survived, so far, were both bold edits that were partially reverted and partially refined by another editor, products of a BRD cycle, this needs to continue. We have a rampant problem with talk page rambling and lack of focus on content; the BRD cycle helps promote focus on content by advancing a series of concrete texts for discussion. The protections are preventing progress. JessRek6 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I have always been partial to the process of discussing proposed changes to project pages (more so than content pages) before enacting them. Yes, of course it can be effective to allow users to boldly change pages and then have others object, revert the changes, and then discuss. But again, and especially for pages like this one that are so central to our project, I feel that a better course is to make proposals first, discuss them, and then put them into use when consensus is reached. This feels like a situation that is already so inflamed that should the page be opened up, I suspect that an edit war would occur - I would rather see some consensus be built around your arguments before making substantial changes. But, as I've said, I am just one person - and I really don't have any illusions that I have a standing greater than yours. I suggest you reach out to other admins (perhaps on the noticeboard) to see if others agree with your views. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Thank you for explicitly stating your concern regarding the possibility of future edit warring. There will be no edit war. I feel the possibility of an edit war in the future is an inappropriate use of protection. After all, we do not generally protect project pages. However, in order to accommodate your personal view, and to accommodate another editor's pattern of involvement, I will voluntarily limit myself to ONE edit per day (counting uninterrupted consecutive copy edits as one as per the usual) at each of the two project pages (perhaps slightly more than one per day at the respective talk pages). If there is edit warring, we can protect the page and I will support the protection. Please my first preference would be to resolve this between us. Please reduce these protections. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
You wrote above: "Rather than alter such a central part of the project in a hasty manner, I would rather leave things as they have been for quite some time and let the discussion carry on to its conclusion." The QOTD is not "central" to Wikiquote. The QOTD is Wikiquote content, more visible than most, but fundamentally content. The two pages you protected are not the QOTD, they are two project pages related to the QOTD. We do not routinely protect project pages. We do not even routinely protect Main page content; for example, any confirmed or autoconfirmed editor may edit "New pages". May I respectfully ask again, with specific reference to Wikipedia:Protection policy, what is your basis for protecting these two pages? Thank you for your careful consideration. JessRek6 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism afoot; immediate action requested against all partiesEdit

We have another persistent and unrepentant vandal on our hands, with sockpuppets to boot.

Mario Loud 70 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
Spongebob Loud 1999 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

I request serious action be taken against this unrepentant vandal, and that all pages it vandalized receive indefinite protection.

Meanwhile, another vandal is back in the form of this IP: (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) I request this vandal be blocked for no less than two years (since it learned nothing from the trouble it got into previously), and all pages it vandalized be protected for no less than that same period of time.

I tried reporting them to the noticeboard, with no response other than an LTA vandal (who should have been banned permanently in the first place) trying to remove the reports. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Mario Loud 70 just refuses to stop. Action requested. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little confused on this one - I looked at this user's most recent edits and I really don't see anything that was objectionable about the edits. What vandalism has occurred? In one case, I saw that WP links were added - nothing wrong with that. In another, I saw some emphasis added to a quote - nothing really wrong with that. So could you be more specific about what problems you are seeing? Based on what I saw, I am not inclined to block this user. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessarily excessive emphasis, for one. That was beyond objectionable. There was everything wrong with that. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Review help requestEdit

Hello greetings,

I had created a stub article named Aurat, wanted and want to expand it further. I had already given my justification of creating separate article Talk:Aurat#Intended article scope(further updated talk page comment today).

Some one deleted my earlier content claiming to be non notable and redirected the article page to women which is already overflowing beyond 134000 bytes. I am not sure the user who deleted my content checked my talk page comment.

For example today I wanted to add a relatively recent much debated quote from Pakistan ""Jo aurat hoti hai woh bewafa nahi hoti, aur jo bewafa hoti hai woh aurat nahi hoti’ (A woman is not a cheater, and the one who cheats, is not a woman)." Ref [1] But more than this cultural experiences of Women are much associated with word 'Aurat', though I am not a old generation or far from being conservative but I do not want to suppress PoVs and life experiences do not match with mine. As student of south Asian studies I feel it would be justifiable to have a separate article for Aurat though I am not sure how much Wikiquote rules allow for the same.

This is a kind request to review possibilty for indipendent article for word 'Aurat'; if that is not at all possible I will start adding those to Main article Women

Please do keep me informed

Thanks and Warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


Hi please block this Ip. Thanks --Samuele2002 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Assistance requestedEdit

It concerns one Pratap Pandit (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

It constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup, დამოკიდებულება, and myself, and refuses to admit defeat.
Plus, it has a history of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. We cannot take any chances that it may take its frustration out on Wikiquote.
And in this edit, it claims დამოკიდებულება has a "weird name", and it demanded დამოკიდებულება add an English name in his signature, just because it claimed it would be "easier to communicate". I request action be taken against this user immediately.
Plus, it falsely accuses me and Rupert loup of harassment and edit warring (which it started while we tried to stop), but it has provided no sufficient evidence. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


Can you please delete Mass deletion of pages added by Wikinews? Thanks--ValeJappo (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this was already taken care of. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. Why drop the dialogue subsections in the Princess Bridge quote page?Edit

Hello. Just wondering why you thought the subsections were unnecessary. It's helpful in my opinion to be able to jump to a specific dialogue quote, rather than scrolling through the somewhat lengthy list. I had put a comment in the talk page already :-) Cheers - Xanderox (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I did not have any particular objection, but had reverted simply because it did not match the template. But, of course we do have a similar layout for the Monty Python and the Holy Grail page, and upon further reflection, I can see the appeal for pages such as this that have a number of classic quotes. I would not object if you were to bring it back - I might make one stylistic suggestion: as on the MPATHG page, I might remove the quotation marks in the subsection titles (just think it looks better). Cheers. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey cool! Thanks for the tip. I'll get right on it! Best. Xanderox (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)