Open main menu

Please consider accepting BD2412's invitationEdit

@UDScott: On December 26 you posted in favor of taking the permanent edit protection off of WQ:WQ, BD2412, who placed the protection and declines to unprotect the page, invited you to unprotect it, saying "if you want to unprotect the page, you have that authority." Would you please consider accepting this invitation? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have considered it, but this is still a site based on consensus and it seems that this is not a settled topic. Just because I do not see the harm at the moment in removing the strict protection level does not mean that I act on my own, which is why I have hesitated. As a compromise, I will lower the protection below admins, but this page will be closely watched and is subject to further protection in the future. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my request. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The West WingEdit

The Pilot episode wasn't the only one with more than five. There are several others with at least six, so I'm going to trim them. Fair's fair. Joe Bethersonton (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Hiǃ For some reason I can't undo vandalism on Albert's site.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Hello UDScottǃ Have you noticed this?w:Wikipedia talk:External links--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please edit protect Ferris Bueller's Day OffEdit

As you may recall, a couple months ago @WikiLubber: and I had a lively discussion regarding Ferris Bueller's Day Off. During that discussion WikiLubber made frequent edits to the page itself, constantly moving the goal post. I would like to resume the discussion but fear it will not be productive if WikiLubber continues to "edit while discussing." Would you please temporarily edit protect Ferris Bueller's Day Off so we can focus on the discussion? (Note: I made a previous request to Miszatomic but received no response.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why protect it if there has hardly been an edit on that page over the past few months? And why bother continuing that already-resolved discussion when the page is all right as it is now? WikiLubber (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The edits, mostly yours, stopped when our discussion stopped. Our discussion stopped because you kept editing (making it impossible to resolve one issue before you created a new one) not because the original discussion was resolved. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any proof that was the reason? Because there was (and still is) nothing worth editing if I could not remove quotes to keep within the quote limitations, regardless of the discussion. And the discussion was resolved. End of this discussion. And I did not start that issue. You did, adding absolutely unnecessary information that even IMDB does not need. WikiLubber (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see an immediate need to protect the page, but if you two try to resolve your differences, please refrain from doing so through edit-warring. Instead, I suggest you use the article's talk page or the Village Pump (if you need others to comment). I will keep an eye on things as I am able, so I will step in if it becomes necessary. Thanks ~ UDScott (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Toy Story vandal lingers on in the Shrek franchise...Edit

As this remorseless edit will prove to you. WikiLubber (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, protecting Toy Story for one month was not going to stop the vandal. I recommend a year's worth of protection at least, and the same goes for all of its sequels. WikiLubber (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues in the Shrek franchise. I request no less than a year's worth of protection on each Shrek film. WikiLubber (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This IP vandalism epidemic...Edit getting out of hand, especially on admins' (and my) talk pages. One day, we have to put a stop to this permanently. I request that all our talk pages be protected indefinitely (because shorter terms will not stop the vandals). WikiLubber (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And why is no one putting their talk pages under indefinite protection? Blocking the IPs will not stop them. WikiLubber (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


Helloǃ Someone reverted the Wq-link at Wikipedia (Lodi dynasty). Could you put it back, 'cause I don't want to start editwarring? This subject has been discussed before - either we use link boxes or don't use boxes at all (including Commons).--Risto hot sir (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added it back - although I'm not sure if they will keep it. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanksǃ It seems that that editor is nearly always the troublemaker with boxes.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


There's a category Peligious leaders from the United States. Could you fix it pleaseǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Fine, a lot of workǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sitush has reverted two Wq-links at Wikipedia, again.--Risto hot sir (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC) - Well, now I can't link Indian articles anymore...--Risto hot sir (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


Please, block Vandalism. Tks! Stanglavine (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars and theme pages.Edit

My recent edit to betrayal was reverted, and rather than edit war, I was wondering if Peter1c is correct, and whether more should be done regarding the removal of Star Wars quotes from theme pages. For example, would you consider it appropriate to remove the rather simplistic "Don't give in to hate. That leads to the dark side." from the page for hate? The quote does basically amount to "X is bad", although that's true of the Ten Commandments as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that the removal of that particular quote was because it was from a Star Wars film, but rather because the quote itself is not really about the topic of betrayal (despite the quote including the word betray, it is not really about the topic). Your example about hate however does appear to be on-topic, and I would not remove it from that page. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification, I would like to learn more about which quotes to delete, as I tend to overwhelmingly just add them. Only time will tell whether it has improved my editing of theme pages any, however I'm going to avoid adding quotes about particular instances of themes, such as the many songs/poems about having love for a specific person, i.e. "I love the way you X" (where X is, for example, "Don't lie to me") that I'm guessing would be inappropriate to add to the love page. Now if the song/poem goes, "Love is X" (where X is "not lying to those close to you"), I still I might add it. Unless of course both of those examples would be appropriate, would they? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I think you had it right - only the second would be appropriate. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again, you've been very helpful.
On an unrelated matter, I saw your edit to Mean Streets and at a later time would like to discuss about sections with you in some detail, should I eventually go back to making those kinds of additions, which I'm guessing I will when I get bored of reading medical journals and want to read something more entertaining and less depressing. For now however, the last question I have is it possible to edit war on your own talk page? I chose to stop bothering Daniel Tom on their talk page when they told me to go away, and I assume if I hadn't I would have been blocked for edit warring, but were I to do that to Peter1c, on my own talk page, to get rid of what I consider to be soap boxing against Hollywood, disguised as (admittedly somewhat justified) criticisms of my editing, could it still be construed as edit warring still? CensoredScribe (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
First, I do not consider our talk pages to be something that each user owns, but rather they are pages for the community to discuss issues with users. This is why I do not support the removal of any comments from them (unless they are obviously vandalism), even if I do not agree with them. State your argument and let others do the same. So, yes edit warring can certainly occur on one's own talk page and I would discourage you or anyone else from engaging in this. If a disagreement or discussion becomes heated, I would appeal to the larger community (either on VP or to Admin's) rather than edit war. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "UDScott".