User talk:UDScott/2007 part 1

Add topic
Active discussions
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Help a newbie

Hello! I am trying to add a few new categories, but I cant find the way to do it, please can you help me? Macedonian 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to do it is to simply add the new category to a page (where it will then be a red-link). Then edit the new category and add its parent category to it. For example, if you wanted to create a category called "Ditch diggers" to add to a page for a person, simply add [[Category:Ditch diggers]] to the bottom of the page. Then click to edit the new [[Category:Ditch diggers]] and add [[Category:Occupations]]. Hope this helps. ~ UDScott 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I'll give it a try right away. Macedonian 10:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced, sourced whoes to know?

Dean Martin quotes, I looked them up, is unsourced suppused to mean I just made them up, have I to go to Mr Martins friends and ask them 'Hi do you remember Dean saying this?'--McNoddy 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourced refers to those quotes that cite a specific work that can be checked for accuracy, while Unsourced would be those quotes without a specific source cited. In this case, I would imagine that most of these quotes by Dean Martin will not ever be able to be properly sourced, since they probably were just said in conversation. If, however, they were captured in an article, for example, if you would cite the publication and the date it was said (along with a link to the article if you can), then it could probably be moved to the Sourced section. The point is that just because a quote is pulled from a quote site does not mean that it is a sourced quote. You may also refer to Wikiquote:Sourced and Attributed sections if you have more questions. ~ UDScott 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada

Thanks for the help! I thought I'd have to create the page, since I'm working on making the Wikipedia article into a featured article and thought that if IMdB had a quote page we should too, but it was already there and in terrible shape. It's nice to see someone who knows what they're doing taking an interest. Daniel Case 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. When I'm not creating new pages, I tend to gravitate toward film and TV show pages and I like to see proper formatting of them. Thanks for the additional quotes. ~ UDScott 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Otto HoffmanN

Hi, pls can you redirect Otto Hoffman to Otto Hoffmann (with two 'n') which is the correct spelling of the name? I try and try and I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I can't make it work! Thanks in advance. Macedonian 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual way you would do this would be to move the page to the proper spelling, but the current VFD period needs to end before doing this. Once this period has expired, if the result is to keep the page, it can then be moved to the correct spelling of the name (which will automatically create a redirect from the misspelled version). ~ UDScott 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. Let be what ever is best for Wikiquote. :) Macedonian 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia page

That's a good idea. How can I start it? And under what title should it be? Would just Macedonia be enough? Macedonian 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are a number of similar pages here, in the category of Places - for example, Belgium. You could gather the quotes together on a Macedonia page, and then probably either delete the original people pages, or have them redirect to the new Macedonia page. ~ UDScott 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Macedonian 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry disturbing you, but I’m troubled in what title and intro should the page have. If you see here:, the term may refer to several things. You will probably know there is a naming dispute between Greece and FYROM, see: You have also probably noticed that my contributions are regarding the greekness of Macedonia; however, I will not react against someone on the opposite side who will might want to post there quotes contrary to mine, since that would be nothing other than a good idea: then readers could see both sides of view and can judge for themselves. So consequently simply "Macedonia" is the best for the title, as it covers them all. But what should the intro of the page be? How about “Macedonia, a historical and geographical region on the Balkan peninsula, that is divided between Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, and Bulgaria”? Macedonian 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would probably title it 'Macedonia' and use the intro from Macedonia that you cite. ~ UDScott 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I also think that's the best idea. I’ll start tomorrow though, off to work now. Macedonian 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, how do you like the page? I'll continue tomorrow, off to work again. Macedonian 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good so far. I'm assuming at some point you'll either delete the indivdual people pages or redirect them to this new page, right? But overall, it's looking like a solid page. ~ UDScott 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'll do that as soon as I finish Macedonia page. There is a warning in Macedonia edit page, should I brake the page in two sub-categories, something like Macedonia (Ancient) and Macedonia (Modern) or something like that? Macedonian 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about that warning -- it appears on any of the longer pages. I think you should keep it as one page. ~ UDScott 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Macedonian 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Please do not add {{Cleanup}} to new pages when an appropriate category exists (e.g., {{Game-cleanup}} for video games). Sorting through the jumble of Category:Uncategorized article cleanup was difficult enough the first time. 121a0012 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I usually do -- I didn't realize there was a template for game cleanup. ~ UDScott 13:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

VfD closing

Thanks for helping with VfD closures. A couple of things to watch for, however. First, don't forget to delete the article's discussion page if there is one. In case you don't already do this, another good idea is to check "What links here", especially for people articles, and remove any references in "List of" articles and any quotes from the person in theme articles, if appropriate. (You can do this even on deleted articles, so there's no problem checking later.) Finally, if the vote is to keep (or a no-consensus de facto keep), or to redirect, add a {{vfd-kept|DISCUSSION NAME}} or a {{vfd-redirect|NEW PAGE|DISCUSSION NAME}} to the article's talk page, and don't forget to remove the {{Vfd}} tag. (I forget the last so often that LrdChaos has had to give me a friendly rap on the virtual knuckles for my sins. ☺)

I apologize if I'm repeating stuff you already know or recall. I really appreciate the assistance with closures, and I can do archives until we see how LrdChaos's suggested revisions to the process might change the process. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

VFD question

Jeff, I was about to close the vote on The Secret Show, but the results are evenly split between Keep and Delete. Not a big deal, so I was going to preserve it and post a note on the Talk page, but I realized there's a hole in our recent process of me closing and you archiving votes (since I'm not up on the archiving process). If the vote is inconclusive or is a Keep, I'm supposed to post a link to the archived discussion on the talk page, along with the message that it was preserved after a vote. But, since I'm not sure how to archive just yet, I can't do this. Sorry for being so long-winded, but I guess in the end, I'm asking if you can close out this particular vote (and hopefully we'll have updated instructions soon, or at the very least no more Keeps or inconclusive votes). Thanks! ~ UDScott 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit uncomfortable establishing a link to a yet-uncreated archive page. LrdChaos's VfD process revision may resolve this, because if we start nominations with the subpage, it'll already be there when the discussion is closed. Even now, though, you can still post the {{Vfd-kept}} message, because the archive page title follows a strict form. Just remember that the single parameter of the kept template is the title of the discussion without wiki markup; i.e., exactly how it's displayed in the VfD table of contents or the discussion heading. (For example, if we were to keep either of Hercules 64 or Pro Wrestling from the current WQ:VFD#Hercules 64 and Pro Wrestling, the template to post on the appropriate talk pages would be:
{{vfd-kept|Hercules 64 and Pro Wrestling}}
which will include a link to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Hercules 64 and Pro Wrestling in the text of the post. When the discussion is archived, it'll fix the red link.
But don't worry about it. If you'd rather skip over some votes, someone else will close them. Just do what you feel up to doing. Thanks again. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-Animator Quotes

Hi there. Could you please tell me what kind of clean-up you think the Re-Animator article needs? Because it looks very clean to me, and as far as I see it follows the template quite faithfully. Saying something needs clean-up without giving any information on what needs cleaning up isn't very helpful. I understand the editing of the categories that was done, but I don't understand what else you think needs work. HamatoKameko 13:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, in this case, it is pretty simple. The cleanup I was referring to was to remove the quote marks. ~ UDScott 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, see, I had overlooked that quote marks were discouraged. Personally I find them to make quotes easier to read, but I'm more than happy to change it to better fit the site's general format. :) Thanks for the clarification. HamatoKameko 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about dates and stubs

Thanks for the changes you made to my article on Jay Gould. But I have a couple of questions. I see you wikilinked the dates in the form [[Month DD]], [[YYYY]]. I can see the point of the date link, it leads to quotes of the day for the linked date, many of which come from people whose anniversary fell on that date. But the year links come out as redlinks. What is planned for this?

Also, you marked the article as a stub, presumably because it only had three unsourced quotes. It now has a sourced quote, an unsourced quote, and an (unsourced but attributed) "about" quote. When does it cease to be a stub? --Ubiquity 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You bring up something that is being currently debated here -- the year links, and what to do about the growing accumulation of red links. Check out the Village pump for some conversations about it. I believe the eventual plan is to create pages for each of the years, but it is anyone's guess as to when someone will have the time and interest available to undertake this.

As for the stub designation, this is also a fuzzy area (I have seen some users liken it to the famed "definition" of pornography - I know it when I see it). But in general, the common form is to require around 4-5 sourced quotations. This is by no means a hard and fast rule, but when I look at Jay Gould, it still strikes me as a stub article.

Sorry to be so vague in my answers, but you've hit on a couple of non-definitive parts of WQ. ~ UDScott 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with Bob Dylan

I was thinking about organizing the vast list of quotations on the Bob Dylan page, but I'm not certain it would be an improvement. One possibility is to organize by song, and list the songs alphabetically. Another is to organize by album, and possibly song within album. The latter has some problems, since some songs appear on more than one album, and since some of the albums (like "The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3 (Rare & Unreleased) 1961-1991") were compilations made long after the song was written. So I'm leaning towards doing it by song, but that almost seems arbitrary— not shedding any real light on his work (just organization for the sake of organization). Perhaps if the songs were listed chronologically? Any ideas? Do you think it matters? Thanks in advance for your opinion. --Ubiquity 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a "wrong" way, but what I would do is to organize by album, then song within the album. I would use the first occurrence of a song on an album to place it in the chronological order. I think the default with any set of quotes (assuming they are sourced) is to place them in chronological order, based on the first time they appear. If you felt strongly enough about it, you could always place a note after a given song that stated that it also appears on other albums (and list those albums). But I think that if you organize it by album, then song, it would make it easier for people with an interest to find them (rather than just a list of songs) - I think having the context of the album on which a song first appears is better. ~ UDScott 14:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Take a look at it now. I looked at the Led Zeppelin article and agree that it's very nice, but I like the context that the dates on my page give, I like quotes rather than italics around song titles, and I liked organizing the quotes using songs as headings, because they show up in the table of contents, and it's slightly more efficient. I'd like to represent the lyrics in verse form, but many people contributed to this page and the style seemed to be to write everything out in a line. It would be a lot of work to redo them all. But I'd still be happy to have further comments. --Ubiquity 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikiquote vandalbot

You should probably block him indefinately, because of his username (says that he will use a bot for vandalism...). Cbrown1023 talk 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Nye

I noticed your removal of a Bill Nye quote, "Science rules", from Science as "from non-notable". Bill Nye is a quite-notable popularizer of science — like a wacky Carl Sagan — and had an Emmy-winning TV series, Bill Nye the Science Guy. But I didn't restore the quote because it didn't strike me as particularly memorable. (It may be a catchphrase, which might justify its inclusion, but I'd want to see a source anyway — like a citation from an episode of Science Guy). I just thought you might want to know. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I erroneously cited him as non-notable - I guess I am just used to using that description. I removed it as I was removing a nonsense page for Bill Nye (when I checked 'what links here'). I just thought that the quote was pretty inane so I removed it at the same time as I deleted the page. ~ UDScott 15:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sicilian scene 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is a famous scene, but we don't use those kinds of headings in our film template. ~ UDScott 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing that out UDScott, I've seen how its done how, [[. Cheers mcNoddy

Extra Spacing for Plays and Poems

I'm currently working on the Shakespeare pages, adjusting them to a standard format, doing cleanup, etc. One of the things I've been doing with Wikiquote pages of plays or of poems is providing an extra space between quotations. I know there is nothing in our guidelines about this, but I've been doing it because the lines just seem cramped to me when grouped without the spacing. It's all a matter of individual judgment, of course; but I just wanted to let you know that I've been deliberately making this change to all the Shakespeare pages as I've been working on them. - InvisibleSun 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering about that. No worries - I'll leave them when I come upon them. As you've probably seen, I'm in the midst of an effort to better classify the Literary works we have here. ~ UDScott 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "The Hours"

Could you explain why you deleted The Hours after moving it The Hours (film) to match the WP article? Normally, one would expect the redirect to be left in place until someone wished to turn it into either a quote article about the book or a disambiguation page (like w:The Hours). In this case, it also looks peculiar because this article is currently featured on Main Page. Thanks for any info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right Jeff that I should have created a disambig page for this, rather than just delete it. I was in the midst of recategorizing the Literary Works into more specific categories and I guess I just didn't want someone who was searching for the book to think that the only page available for 'The Hours' was for the film. I erred on the side of caution that a user might not know how to change the redirect page to a new page for the book, if that was what they wanted to do. I will create the disambig page and in the future, either do this or leave the redirect page. Sorry about that. ~ UDScott 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

no disrespect

Hi. I meant no disrespect. I wrote the same thing up on my talk page. I don't want to create a problem where there isn't one. I just want you to help me maintain the page the way it is without deleting from it (sopranos). - Zarbon

No offense taken, but as I wrote on your Talk page:
The point is that there isn't anything I can do to allow more than acceptable fair use of a copyrighted work. There are no "necessary means" to allow all of what is currently on the page to remain. The figure of less than 10 quotes per episode is not an average, but a discreet limit - i.e. you can't have 20 quotes from one episode, and 2 quotes from two other episodes and say that it is an average of 8 for the three episodes. It doesn't work that way. Each episode should contain less than 10 quotes. I'm sure that will be frustrating to you, as you have gathered a lot of material, but I can't change how copyright laws are written. ~ UDScott 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright checking

Thanks for tracking down some of our worst-offending articles. I haven't been doing as much content editing as I'd like, but I'm beginning to start trimming (sometimes arbitrarily) quotes from articles (especially for TV shows) that are likely copyvios. It's best to warn folks ahead of time, of course, but I have seen little evidence that such warnings are even read, let alone followed, by most articles' editors. That means it falls to those of us who worry about copyvios to take direct action. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I'll be more punctilious in future :-) --Poetlister 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for all your additions. ~ UDScott 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

VfD nominations

Could you include the name of the article(s) you are nominating when you add them to WQ:VFD, as requested by Step 3 of the new system? This allows us to see in the edit history when specific articles were added. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sorry about that. I neglected that - I was getting confused between steps. I'll remember next time. ~ UDScott 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template question

Jeff, something came to mind when you recently created a couple of templates. For those of us who are not quite so sure how to use templates, can we make it a suggestion (if not a rule) that any template show an example of the markup that would be added to a page? You did this on the Template:Unsorted, but I don't always see this in many templates that are created here. This can leave some with the task of trying to figure out how to use it. Thanks. ~ UDScott 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The main reason {{Unsorted}} has an example, I'm afraid, is that I copied it from a Wikipedia template that had an example I could easily adapt. ☺
I totally agree that we need clear examples for templates, especially since our editors are less likely to be wiki-savvy than WP's. Given our recent experiences with Fabartus's messy template work, a rule would be useful. I'm tempted to encourage folks to nominate undocumented templates for deletion just to push this, except we probably have so many right now that it'd cause us serious problems. So far, adding examples to existing templates is still one of my hundred-or-so long-delayed to-dos, which I'm hoping to tackle if we ever get enough folks doing basic maintenance.
One thing I would like to push is the use of inline documentation instead of those klutzy "/doc" pages some WP templates are now using. Although I can see an argument for the latter, the former is much simpler for the vast majority of active templates here, I think. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thank you for your nomination of Rainer Maria Rilke to WQ:GOOD. I confess we have this poet's article yet ... I have no good English translation and hard to contribute, but he is one of my favorites. I'll try to find sources for the unsourced part.

By the way, we have now poem extention ... have you consider to apply it to such articles?

Cheers, --Aphaia 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - he is also one of my favorite poets. What do you mean by poem extension? ~ UDScott 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
She means m:Poem Extension. I haven't looked at it myself yet, but it may hold some promise for simplifying some of our formatting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Just a note of thanks for fixing up my errors on the Wishmaster page. :) -- Flummery 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Jeff, I want to be sure that I did not overstep my bounds as a sysop in my recent exchange with User:EHStories. This user seems to be blanking pages so that he/she may recreate them in a style different than out templates. I warned time and again, and tried to help by creating a sub-page to the User page for this user to work on their pet project. But with no return dialogue, the changes kept coming from this user. This was followed by an attack on my userpage. I've blocked EHStories for a couple of weeks, but I'm not sure that this user can be classified as a vandal as we usually see them. I'm just not sure where to go with this one once the block expires. Any advice? (I also posted this on Kalki's talk page for another opinion) ~ UDScott 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you displayed patience with a stubborn and uncommunicative new editor. Cbrown1023 provided them with useful welcome links 3 weeks ago, so they had ample time to learn Wikiquote basics and ask questions. They also could have asked questions after any of your posts, but instead ignored them and even vandalized your page for all your trouble. I've posted on their user talk page a warning about a permanent block should they choose to return with the same disregard for cooperation, communication, and courtesy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello folks. UDScott, thank you for your patience for those folks. I appreciate your attitude as experienced editor. It is sorry to see however you bothered so badly and I support your action of blocking.
I think it is hard to say the users were vandals as far as we are talking on the article edits. I agree with Jeff they are uncommunicative but reckless newcomers are not automatically vandals by definition.
However if they are persistent not to follow the project way which reflects consensus and forced the community to accept their way without discussion and building a new consens. But even in this case, I think it would be nice for us to put blocking on them in a limited term - some months or years, but not permanent one. Please note our current policy says the longest block duration is one year.
As for the edits on your user page, it is vandalism in my opinion. It would have been principally better for you to have another sysop to deal with the situation for avoiding misunderstanding of sysop power abusing, but in a small community like ours it is hardly to find another hand in the most of cases, and regarding your patience until then, I support UDScott's action firmly. --Aphaia 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey

Thank you for your constructive response to my recent changes to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I replied on Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey#Sub-section headings in the Dialogue section with an invisible alternative that does what I want. On another subject, you may want to add {{Talkheader}} to the top of this page. Or not. --Teratornis 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion on the header. I don't necessarily dislike your additions - they just are a differnet look than I am used to here, and represent a departure from the templates. I wanted to offer it up for discussion. Should it be felt that the changes are intrusive, the invisible tags might be a better way to go. Thanks. ~ UDScott 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your kind words (I was half-expecting to get banned!); it's a bit laborious changing all the "-men" to "- people", it'll be especially hard if I try to change all the Category:Englishmen/Category:Englishwomen to Category:English people! Cheers - Verantwortlich 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think it is a worthwhile effort. I did this in the past when I changed "Clergymen" to "Clergy" and this is long overdue. ~ UDScott 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
One comment on your latest category additions: I don't think that most people associate Jamaicans with Central America. I would recommend that you add a category for Caribbean people, with subcategories for the island nations within the Caribbean region. I would reserve Category:Central Americans for people from the mainland nations (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatamala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama). ~ UDScott 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right about Category:Central Americans (Cubans and Jamaicans could be placed in Category:Carribeans maybe?) Verantwortlich 14:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I think (although it should be Category:Caribbeans - spelled correctly, right?) :-) ~ UDScott 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote links in Wikipedia

How do I post a Wikiquote link in Wikipedia? Just like any other external link? Or is there another method?--Premkudva 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as we merely add a {{wikipedia}} to one of the pages here, all you need to do is add a {{wikiquote}} to a wikipedia page. ~ UDScott 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah okay thanks:-)--Premkudva 10:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

VFD closures

Jeff, looking at how you just closed a VFD vote, the process looks pretty easy, but I wonder if the steps are documented anywhere (as the steps for nominating a page are). I'm not sure where to place them - I don't know if it is appropriate to put them on the vfd page, but maybe on the Admin's page. ~ UDScott 17:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit easier than before, given our new system. Instructions for closures are in Wikiquote:Deletion policy (as we don't have a "deletion process" page like Wikipedia), but they haven't been updated with the new process, which hasn't been finalized yet anyway. I've been dragging my feet on raising the issues I alluded to at Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion#Deferring official VfD change, which are what motivated me to delay the review for acceptance that I myself had recommended. It's time I get serious about this, so Wikiquote isn't held up by my concerns. I look forward to your input and efforts to help us get caught up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Much appreciated.--Poetlister 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cleanup

I have a quick questions. Under each character arent we supposed to link the name ? Vinch 14:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, first since each character section shows the name of who is speaking, it is not necessary to again put the name in front of each quote in that section. Second, we usually only link to the actor in the cast list. If the character is notable enough to have a WP page, that can also be linked in the cast section. Generally the only time you will see any WP links in dialogue is in TV show pages, where the first occurance of a character in each episode shows a link to the WP page for that character (see The West Wing as an example). For reference, the template (Wikiquote:Templates/Films) shows how the page should be laid out. Thanks. ~ UDScott 14:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for the tip. Just did some changes to Forrest Gump. Lemme know if it is fine. Vinch 14:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


You Wrote :

Again, keep up the good work - but in the spirit of helping, I wanted to point out the minor changes I made to this page. I expanded the intro a little (we usually like to have a brief summary of what the film is about), made any scene references show in italics, and added lines between individual character quotes (this is more for ease of editing than for display). ~ UDScott 17:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, i was infact searching for the description for the movie and you read my mind. :) Vinch 17:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god!

Are you aware of this? Erpnaternac 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Jeff, I wonder if you've noticed some of the speedy deletions being performed by User:Cbrown1023. It seems to me that in some cases, he/she is being a little overzealous in applying the Speedy Delete criteria. I haven't looked at all of them yet, but one jumped to mind right away: Dennis Fakes, which had been nominated for VFD, but was kept after a no-consensus vote. I'm all for cleaning out wikiquote, but I wonder if this admin is doing a bit too much. Your thoughts? ~ UDScott 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, UDScott. I don't have time to look into this right now, but in general, I would agree that an article that had achieved "no consensus" in a previous VfD (like Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Dennis Fakes) should not later be speedy-deleted. It should probably be renominated, and/or possibly reverted to an earlier version if the current content is bad enough to otherwise justify an SD.
Regardless of the situation, however, I believe that the best thing to do when one has a disagreement with another editor (sysop or no) is to first bring it up directly with them on ther user talk page. They may have justifications that aren't obvious, or they may not themselves have considered other aspects of the situation. I recommend you discuss this with Cbrown1023 before bringing it up as a larger issue.
In the meantime, I have noted in my absurdly long Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion#Concerns as we prepare to make the new system official that, as Wikiquote grows and we gain more editors and sysops with more varying experience and ideas, we have an ever greater need to establish Wikiquote:Deletion review. It would be good for us all to read up on how this is done on Wikipedia and consider how it might be set up on our simpler project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you still have a problem, please contact me. Either by the contact information provide on my userpage, my talk page, or by means of Special:Emailuser/Cbrown1023. Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut

Well, I certainly wondered about that. Is there a set point where it's advisable to spin off material into a separate page, or is it generally done by ear on a case by case basis? On the Vonnegut page, for instance, I merged the "Kevorkian" page into it a couple of days ago, but it still seems somewhat limited in size to have its own page. About "Cat's Cradle" I think you're probably right, it's large enough and it's overwhelming the page. I'll spin it back off again, adding in the quotes from the Vonnegut page. I want to make sure that there's a clear link to it on Vonnegut, though. Ed Fitzgerald 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any hard and fast rule - definitely on a case by case basis. I usually just create a new page for the work if it appears that there are enough quotes to stand on its own. You can look at Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare for examples on how to be sure to show the links to the new pages. In this case, I would recommend that Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse-Five, and maybe even Timequake get their own pages. ~ UDScott 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Ed Fitzgerald 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Order of quotes in literary works

Jeff, I am in the midst of a discussion on Talk:Cat's Cradle about how quotes should be ordered for a literary work. I maintain that they should be presented in the order in which they appear in the work, usually grouped by chapter, to help with verification of the quotes. But another user has brought up the idea that if they are grouped by character it might be more useful for the casual user. Do you have any thoughts on this? [I'll also pose this question to Kalki for further insights] If you have any input to this, can you post it on Talk:Cat's Cradle? Thanks. ~ UDScott 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posted one of my ponderous essays on this issue on the article's talk page. I wish I had the time and energy to collect all these things to make proper arguments in the relevant pages (like WQ:CITE, WQ:SOURCE, and the genre template talk pages). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your changes on Tarkan

I am wondering why you have made the changes to Tarkan's page - when the pages of other celebrities (see Robbie Williams) has not been changed - and there are "unsourced" quotes there, too. By the way - those "unsourced comments" are sourced - from his IMDb profile and from artquotes - they were published in an Q & A interview on his official site in 2004. Your "intervention" has ruined the style of the site. Please give me a good excuse, before I assume racisim. 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The changes I made to this page were to meet the Wikiquote:Templates/People. I'm not quite sure how my changes ruined any style or evoke any racism. Now that you have brought Robbie Williams to my attention, I will make similar changes there. The Tarkan page just happened to be one of the newest pages, and caught my attention. As for the sourced versus unsourced, we need a little more than saying that a given quote is from someone's IMDB profile. If they are from an interview (that as you say is posted on his website), then provide that information and the quotes can be moved to the sourced section (See Wikiquote:Citing sources). I don't think any of my changes were unreasonable. ~ UDScott 14:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made changes. Please see and let me know. I preferred the "About.." heading style. 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The changes you made look fine to me. Thanks. ~ UDScott 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I still wonder why you decided just to add a clean up template on Robbie Williams' page and completely rearranged Tarkan's page. If the William's style is acceptabel - I'd like to revert Tarkan's back, too. 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the cleanup tag to that page because I have so many more things I would rather be doing in this project. That page is much longer, and requires a lot more work, and I didn't want to get bogged down in the cleanup of it. When I saw the Tarkan page, it seemed like the cleanup could be done fairly quickly, which is why I did it. My decisions had nothing to do with the subjects of the pages - and the format of the Robbie Williams page is still in need of cleanup. ~ UDScott 16:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is unfair. I'll do exactly the same and find as many quotes as then let's see what you will do. You are just employing double standards. 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I support USDcott, he is not unfair. His formatting on Tarkan follows Wikiquote convensions (see Wikiquote:Templates). Also we Wikiquote community agree on that "Robbie Williams" type theme-oriented sorting is not our way. In our accepted wisdom it is not helpful to pursue NPOV policy. And we also would like to distinguish sourced quotes from unsourced. Thematic sorting is not fitting to this purpose. His position is clear and it is not double standards. He states very clearly the current organization of Robbie Williams is not preferable. --Aphaia 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

then prove it to me. You are showing double standards. If it is so - why don't you fix it? Why do you insist on double standards? 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a double standard. I marked the Robbie Williams page as needing cleanup because it was also not in conformance with established templates (I have since returned and performed the necessary cleanup). As far as I am concerned, I am treating the two pages equally - I just didn't have the time at that point to do the cleanup on the Robbie Williams page. I'm still not sure why you are complaining - the Tarkan page looks just fine to me now. ~ UDScott 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For your information, I semiprotected the page for 24 hours. On the log I recorded the reason as edit war, to prevent to call the one side vandal, but it would have been a bad wording. You are invited to review it, and if necessary, feel free to lift it up. Thanks. --Aphaia 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that - and it's probably needed, at least for now. Thanks for your support during the argument. I'm not sure if the point was understood, but I tried to be fair. ~ UDScott 19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help me with Pier Gerlofs Donia? He has a wiki-commons link, and a wikipedia-link, so he seems to be kinda inportant. 12:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"No Quote" is not yet included as our CSD, LOL

I found it very recently ... the discussion for proposing it seemed to be supported widely, but not concluded yet. I invited the community to fix it up, but no response has come yet. Your input to Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions#Addition of "no quotes" clause will be appreciated, Cheers. --Aphaia 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


The Suffering Ties That Biind is back again - I guess it may be valid - not been around long enough to know but I thought someone ought to be aware of it - cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - yes I've been watching this (and deleting it a couple of times when it was lacking any real content). I do believe that it is a legitimate page, and I have moved it to the proper title, added an intro and a cat, but also added stub & cleanup tags. ~ UDScott 15:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy

Would it be disruptive to your trimming efforts if I were to subdivide this article by season (as is done with The Simpsons)? Cheers! BD2412 T 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all - although it would still most likely require trimming, even after you split it up. I've actually not been working on this page for a while (it needs a lot of trimming still), but feel free to split it up. Unless you plan on working on the amount of quotes, you should probably post a {{checkcopyright}} tag on each season's page. ~ UDScott 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It is done! BD2412 T 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Way to go. Now we just need to finish the trimming that is needed to get the number of quotes per episode back down to single digits (a difficult task I know). ~ UDScott 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Any particular criteria to guide this trimming? Or do I just go with my gut and knock out quotes that seem the least worth keeping? BD2412 T 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's nothing really hard and fast, but a general guideline to use is that if a quote is really only used to explain plot and wouldn't stand on its own to someone who hasn't seen the show, it should go. Try to only keep the truly pithy quotes that would be memorable regardless of whether or not someone is a regular viewer of the show. I know it will be hard with this show, since there are a lot of good quotes in each episode, but we need to trim it to just the very best (~8-9 per episode) to not have a copyright problem. Thanks. ~ UDScott 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are there?

A block on User talk: might be worthwhile - quite a history, not going to around much but if you don't I'll put it on the admin board anyway - regards --Herby talk thyme 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've blocked him again. ~ UDScott 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Block on User talk: I think - cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC) + User talk:Yamam maybe - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up again! ~ UDScott 13:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, UDScott.

I also contacted some of our other fellow contributors on wikiquote. I'm worried right now because the same vandalising expert, Wiki-Star from wikipedia has come here. He has been blocked under approximately ten names on wikipedia. As we know, I've been maintaining the sopranos wikiquote page for more than a year now, adding all the quotes and maintaining not to cross the ten quote maximum. Just recently, Wiki-Star came and reverted some words here and there. I reverted back to the real contextual version. I don't want to enter a revert war with this major vandaliser. He has also vandalised my forum and he keeps bragging about it on his user pages. He is also following me across wiki boards and reverting all my contributions out of spite. That is why I am requesting that you make sure to ban him in case he keeps reverting incorrectly. Thanks again, your loyal contributing friend. - Zarbon 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wiki-star: Excuse me? but I wouldn't be talking if I were you Zarbond[1]. i never "vandalized" anything here and on your "forum" do not call me a stalker! like you, i love Sopranos too and i can't believe you missed that on the subtitles! I fixed you. No one has to be banned here all i'm saying is that you CALM DOWN and talk it over, rather than tattle-tell. Wiki-star
  • Hello, UDScott, as you know I have trimmed it down to ten quotes as promised and this vandaliser has been creating sockpuppets on numerous wiki locations. I can provide actual evidence of his vandalism prior to this and the fact that he has been following my activity and posting and reverting everywhere I am. Thank you again for your cooperation and I hope we can keep wikiquote, wikipedia, and all its branches safe from vandalisers like this wiki-star. - Zarbon 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiki-star: you fool! You do realize that i shall reveal the kind of person YOU are as well! and what is this stalking you speak of? Wiki-star
  • Excuse me. Please refrain yourself from verbal attacks. Your incessant vandalism is extremely incoherent to wikiquote policy, as it has been on wikipedia. Please stop vandalising the pages solely because of my heavy contribution. - Zarbon 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiki-star: Excuse me? EXCUSE YOU! I'm trying to fix your bootlegged subtitled versions since some of it is wrong. Why don't you buy the DVDs, they're not that expensive! Fan based translations aren't that great, even the quality lacks perfection. Why can't you accept my edits? oh, that's right, you have WP:OWN problems. Wiki-star

I am concerned

  • Wiki-star: I know Zarbon has a problem about keeping his own content on pages and all, but i see a potential problem in Sopranos article. There are too much copyrighted quotes there, some even pass the 10 quotes max limit! I suggest we trim it down more, we don't end up like the French wikiquote do we? Please listen to this request. Wiki-star

Page delete

Hi, I’m back. Remember you told me “Looks good so far. I'm assuming at some point you'll either delete the individual people pages or redirect…” Shall I do that? And how can I delete a page? Macedonian 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you will provide the list of pages, I can delete them for you. ~ UDScott 12:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is a small list of pages, please check them out before you delete them, to me they might as well stay as they make no harm; however the final decision is yours. Macedonian 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC):
John Bagnell Bury, John Pentland Mahaffy, Vittore Pisani, W. J. Woodhouse, Mortimer Chambers

Sockpuppet alert

Please listen to me. Wiki-star has created another sockpuppet and keeps coming to my talk page with this name. He is using H*Bad as another of his sockpuppet names. He has many more that I can try to locate. All he does is follow my activity around using my contribs and responding to them. If for any reason he posts here, it should be sufficient that you will know he is the same wiki-star still following my activity around and vandalizing pages and creating numerous sockpuppets. - Zarbon 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He just created another username called H*Bad12345 and is replying to his own responses with his sockpuppet. - Zarbon 19:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

heads of state

Thanks for your tidying up of my article H. H. Asquith. Just for your clarification: in the United Kingdom, the Head of State is the King (or, at present, the Queen), not the Prime Minister.--Poetlister 09:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

wolf3d update

hello UDScott. I updated the wolf3d page heavily in order to prevent it from deletion. check it out. you can change your vote if you'd like. - Zarbon 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

another sockpuppet alert

there's another wiki-star sockpuppet running around again. It's YogaKing34. All the same types of vandalisms done by wiki-star, completely vandalising pages with curse words and nonsense. - Zarbon 23:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sopranos

I was just looking over that page and was thinking, should it be deleted cause of copyright? Too many, many darn quotes, though Zarbon worked on it for like years. I DON'T KNOW what to do. Do you? What do you think Mr. Moderator? I gotta go potty, lol. Lord Frieza 19:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yu Yu Hakusho

Hi. I'm a regular at the English Wikipedia and thought you could move Yu Yu Hakusho to its official title, YuYu Hakusho - which is the same name used all over at the wikis. Being an administrator and all can ya do it? Link 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations on both of your "significant real-life changes", especially the one that'll keep you up at night for the next few months. (I mean the baby; I guess the job might, too. ) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations  . Salute for your kid, and also your spouse. --Aphaia 05:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes of congratulations from you both. It's been a bit tiring, but certainly worth it. Over the last few days I've slowly returned to wikiquote and am nearly ready to resume my normal role. ~ UDScott 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back to regular editing. If we happen to see any dribs of formula on any pages you edit, we'll just wipe them off and move on. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


I am going to save Dragonball GT from deletion by reverting to the songs that were put there long ago, if possible. Songs are considered quotes, aren't they? A Link to the Past 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well? Heads up, Dragon Ball has nothing of quotes too. I dont care about that you can delete it. But I did find this, Dragon Ball, Volume 1. Whatever shall we do? Combine quotes? A Link to the Past 20:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "UDScott/2007 part 1".