User talk:UDScott/2009

Archive

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.

Jimmy Kimmel

Happy New Year! I did some research and work on this page and cleaned it up a bit - so I removed the PROD tag. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles A. Beard

I removed your {{prod}} from Charles A. Beard. I've sourced one (tentatively), and added a quote and some links, but it is still a stub. ~ Ningauble 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem - it's a good save. I've been periodically looking at Category:Articles lacking sources and trying to prod those that have no sources at all - knowing that many will then be saved by others. Just trying to continue cleaning out things as I can. As you can see by my edit history, I tend to wander from task to task, frequently changing what I work on. ~ UDScott 19:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also meander from task to task. I expect to do some work on that category when I finish nibbling away at Category:Uncategorized article cleanup, as I dumped a lot into Category:Articles lacking sources in the process—deferred maintenance. ~ Ningauble 20:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Name change

I just wanted to tell you, the name change here for me, last one on the page, never worked! I still can't log in to it, I can only log into this one! --Enzuru 10:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3

STOP PUTTING THAT PAGE UP FOR DELETION! I just need to improve that page thats all. It will take some time but it will be the better pages.(66.121.167.14 18:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

If you delete it all we worked for on that page is lost.(66.121.167.14 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

My point was not that it needed more quotes, but that the listed quotes are pretty poor and not memorable. Wikiquote is not a transcription service where every single line should be listed, but rather memorable or pithy quotes. If you can find such quotes and replace those that are on the page now, then fine. But as it stands, I don't see that the page should exist. ~ UDScott 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT BETTER DONT DELETE DONT DELETE!(66.121.167.14 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

IP blocked for death threats.[1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

Lord, oh Lord! What on earth have I done wrong there that my vfd for Category:Mnemonics has come out with no heading. Any idea how to fix it? -- Antiquary 19:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Strike all that, the problem is solved now. --Antiquary 19:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RfB thankspam!

Just wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support of my RfB, which just closed with unanimous support. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mist (film) cleanup completed

Would you be able to take care of the cleanup tag in the talk page? Thanks. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, based on its running time of 125 minutes, this page should be cut even further - to 10 quotes. Once that is complete, feel free to remove the {{checkcopyright}} tag from the Talk page. ~ UDScott 13:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed to 10 quotes and removed tag from talk page. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Boilerplates

Seeing that the standard Wikipedia templates do not exist on Wikiquote, I have created a new template for labeling articles in general need of additional citations. I have noticed that not only are the Ambox templates missing here, but a previous attempt by another user to create one was deleted. Would you like me to make more such templates in this style, or is a more "standardized" format needed? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd say that providing Wikiquote a WQ-specific template for requesting better sourcing is an excellent idea. I'm not really current on the state of such an effort, but several attempts have been made. Wikipedia's {{unreferenced}} template has been ported, but without any of its useful formatting, and so doesn't current stand out the way it needs to. (I would also suggest that it doesn't obviously convey the distinction of a quote source, as opposed to a fact source, which we occasionally need for introductory paragraphs. Mea culpa — I imported it years ago.) {{fact}} (much like WP's same template) and {{source}} are slightly different attempts to tag individual quotes and/or their sources, but both suffer from an easily correctable emphasis on unsourced statements rather than absent or inadequate quote sources.

Most templates ported from WP have these kinds of problems. It's generally not enough just to change WP links to equivalent WQ links. For one thing, we try to say that we need "specific quote sources" instead of "references", because we're not looking for base material for prose, but rather a publication that shows a quote exactly as we're displaying. That's not hard to fix. Harder is the issue of WP templates that, over the years, have acquired substantial complexity out of a desire to standardize their structure, transclude common features (like help pages and other helper sub-templates), and incorporate a huge amount of special CSS features that very few Wikiquotians know how to add (and have permission to do so). I've done a few, but I have to admit that I haven't tried to keep track of what we have, or to systematize these WP-imported features. As a result of this casual accretion by perhaps only 3 or 4 editors, WQ currently has only a few of WP's vast formatting features.

I see that you've already done some partial inclusion of material from w:Template:Ambox in an attempt to simplify your Template:Refimprove. That's exactly how most successful WP template-importers do things. I would advise against trying to import the general templates and structure of WP's message box system, not only because it creates a large number of templates to maintain, but also because it would probably require an even larger amount of changes to WQ's CSS files. (As you observed, Jusjih tried something like this a year ago and found he'd bit off more than he was willing to chew.) Even if you believe you will have the time and energy to maintain everything, I would advise caution, because one never knows when things may change dramatically. (I used to have the largest edit count — by about 20% — on Wikiquote, and often made 1500-2000 edits/month; now I'm lucky if I do 10 edits a month.) Template maintenance is either too challenging or not sufficiently interesting for most of the frequent contributors, so saddling WQ with a complex template/CSS structure would probably cause concern. In fact, we've had a few Wikipedians come here try to "standardize" templates across all Wikimedia projects, and the resulting poorly tested, largely broken, and often irrelevant files they generated were rapidly deleted by the community. It's always possible that we'll find ourselves with enough energetic, WikiMedia-savvy editors like yourself to take up this task more conscientiously than our community has done to date, but it's best to get to know the current community before testing that premise. ☺

That said, I think you're off to a good start. Make sure any individual or article/section templates ask for specific quote sources, directly incorporate some box formatting and background color data (where appropriate) that can be found in WP's CSS files (as you've done), and I'm sure the community will benefit greatly from your templates. If you want to add some CSS features to Wikiquote, let me know, or ask at WQ:AN for assistance, since CSS changes must be done by an admin. Once you're happy with the result, you can announce it at WQ:VP so others can see, edit, and use your work.

One more important point: make sure you include credit to any Wikipedia material that you're adapting for Wikiquote use. Formally, we're expected to copy the edit history of any pages (including templates!) onto the incorporating WQ page's talk page. Informally, we've been "getting by" by including in the edit summary a full link (no link label) to the source WP page, something like this: "Copied and adapted material from w:Template:Refimprove and w:Template:Ambox". If it's too late to put in the edit summary, put it on the talk page.

Sorry for the long-winded "perspective", but I hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Taglines

Just for future reference, do taglines count against the quote total for films?? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not counted in the quote total. ~ UDScott 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lion King

The current intro is too long, but before it was too short. Can you fix that? Same with the sequels. 65.0.187.250 23:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms

If you'd like to give your reasons for adding a merge tag to this article please edit my talk page. For now I have undone the merge you suggested, for failure of anyone to provide a good reason for it. Judging by the way both of you acted it seems like you felt the merge was obviously necessary, so perhaps I have missed something. Richard001 06:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note the discussion started previously on my talk page and Richard001's talk page. I believe I am at fault for acting on your merge proposal without preliminary discussion, but it also appears that my explanation or my thinking is unclear. Would you care to share your thoughts? ~ Ningauble 03:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I believe that you have properly stated the reasons for the merge proposal. My original intent in placing the tag was that, as you stated, we usually try to capture quotes from a literary work on the author's page (unless the work itself is so notable and has so many notable quotes that it deserves its own page - think Charles Dickens. But in this case, I highly doubt that there are that many notable quotes from this work. Many of the quotes shown here do not meet what I would call a threshold of notability, but instead are more technical in nature and it is dubious that they would be considered memorable by most. Ultimately, I feel that it would be better to have these quotes on Darwin's page, and that they be pared down to a smaller set that are truly memorable. ~ UDScott 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please post any further discussion at Talk:Charles Darwin in order to keep it coordinated. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing! ~ UDScott 20:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bram van Velde quotes

Hai UDScott

I saw cleanup above the quotes of Bram van Velde. Can you please tell me what I did wrong? I did corrections, is that better?Benfo 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Stone

It looks like we were working on the Sharon Stone page at the same time. Sorry about the overlap. - InvisibleSun 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar deleted - Why?

Hey UDScott, Why was the Sri Sri Ravi Shankar WIkiquote page deleted? -Brooks 24.19.146.236 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This page was deleted using the PROD process for not having sources for any of its quotes. If you are able to provide sources for quotes, feel free to recreate the page. But if it is recreated without sources, it will likely be deleted again. ~ UDScott 13:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: message on talk page

I've not insulted any admins on my talk page

I think you have the wrong page The C of E 21:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually you did - in the edit summary when you reverted their messages that were left on your talk page, you said F-you to the two admins that had warned you about disrupting the VFD process and a block that had been placed on you. Please refrain from this in the future. ~ UDScott 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Life-Size, film deletion.

I know it was not very much, but I was hoping it would be added to by others, not deleted, what happened, and why was it deleted, I ask here, as the message left indicates yourself, as the person who deleted it.

18:15, 4 March 2009 UDScott (Talk | contribs) deleted "Life-Size" ‎ (Proposed deletion: Unmemorable quotes) Anneka9842 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because the PROD tag had been in place for the 7 day period required before a page is deleted. Please take a look at the PROD page to see the process. I did not have an opinion about the page, but as part of maintenance activities, I delete those PROD'ed pages that have their time periods expire. If you would like to recreate the page, feel free, but keep in mind that if it has the same issue, it is liable to be nominated for deletion again. ~ UDScott 00:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Broken Sword

I haven't used Line Break (Br) at all in the editing of Broken Sword Prehaps you're mistaken

Oh wait I think I know what was wrong I used the full line instead of the partial line and its OK I've rectified that mistake The C of E 17:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shaw's "Genuine Islam" quote

Hello UDScott

I agree with your comment which you left on the discussion page of Shaw's Wikiquote back in 7 March 2007 regarding Shaw's quote on Islam which was deleted by a user.

Just to remind you this is the comment you made: 'I would like to know how this user knows that this work does not exist. I have seen the quote cited as being from Genuine Islam, Vol. I, No. 8 (1936). If this work does not exist, I can understand removing it, but if it does, the quote should be reinstated. ~ UDScott 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)'

I've located the publication in which the quote was made and it is actually being kept in the New York Public Library. For your information here is the comment which I made in the relevant discussion page: 'Let's settle the matter once and for all. The quote is genuine and there is no dispute about its citation either - it is also completely accurate. As for verifying the publication in the catalogue of some established library: it can be found in the New York Public Library (Stephen A. Schwarzman Bldg - General Research: Room 315). Here is the link to the NYPL catalogue: http://catnyp.nypl.org/record=b6680535 [1] This quote should therefore be reinstated back to the 'sourced section' on the main page as soon as possible. Thank you.'

I think it is wrong to delete a quote merely on the mistaken assumption that it does not exist.

Hope you find this information helpful and look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

77.100.17.42 01:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are looking for me to say here - it appears that the quote in question has already been restored. So in my mind, the problem is no more. Thanks for the information on the source, but I think it has now been resolved. ~ UDScott 01:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

'Roy and HG' entry (merged in to 'This Sporting Life')

Hi there, Just wondering if there's any way to recover the contents of the 'Roy and HG' entry I created last night (after I accidentally created a 'Roy & HG page' which I had to ask to be deleted). The problem is that the current 'This Sporting Life' page is an uncited, unreferenced, unlinked, badly formatted version of the version I perfected (& I'm quite sure, saved) last night (under 'Roy and HG'). I'm not entirely sure how this has happened (& wish very much I had saved my work elsewhere) but is there any way to recover it? Thanks very much.--Tyranny Sue 04:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the prior version of this page was properly formatted, but in any case, if you want to see it, the older version is still available in the page's history. ~ UDScott 17:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (region)

So when will the vote close? Macedonian 12:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yojimbo

Thanks for the help on the Yojimbo quotes that was the 1st time i have ever made/worked on a page. - Choaspeed

No problem - sorry if I stepped on your toes - I thought you were finished with the page for now. I just happen to be a big Kurosawa fan and wanted to make sure the page was complete. ~ UDScott 13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bioshock, Halo & Assassin's Creed

One look at these articles has made me question our entry at WQ:LOQ for electronic games. The rule forbids unsourced quotes and then refers us to limits for films, books, etc. but those are all based on run time, or page count. Such measures do not apply to video games. I am not sure where to begin such a discussion, but I think we need to set up more specific guidelines for quote limitations in video games. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are well within your rights to question the limit posed for games - I would suggest putting your comments here: Wikiquote talk:Limits on quotations, and perhaps a note on Wikiquote:Village pump pointing to the discussion. For some history on the discussions regarding limits on quotes, see here: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Electronic_games or here: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Electronic_games_2. These all began after this discussion: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Only_en-Wikiquote_should_be_shut_down_IMHO, where the problems of overquoting was discussed. These limits were selected and discussed at that time, but that doesn't mean they cannot be revisited. I would recommend that you lay out your case and make a suggestion for what you feel is a more appropriate limit to get the ball rolling. ~ UDScott 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Kirby: Right Back At Ya!

Can you please restore that page? I'll make it with more better quotes this time and also want another one of those good pages.(Dennys 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Feel free to recreate the page, but be forewarned that if the problems that the prior page had still exist, it is likely to be deleted again. ~ UDScott 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Fox 64

Can you please restore the proper actual page? For some bizarre reason you deleted it, and I've had to copy the Portuguese version in for the time being. You could at least have asked around before deleting btw, as doing so you would have found that unlike you there are plenty of people around that aren't the reincarnation of Hitler. - —This unsigned comment is by 118.208.188.17 (talk • contribs) .

Well, you might notice, if you review the history of the page that I just performed housekeeping and deleted a page that had been nominated (by another user) for proposed deletion, with a reason cited of poor quality quotes. I merely deleted it when the PROD period expired (see Wikiquote:Proposed deletion to see how this process works). By the way, the version you have recreated is one that seems to have the same problem and is liable to be nominated for deletion again. Apart from having just very simple and unmemorable quotes, it has way too many (see WQ:LOQ). In summary, I don't appreciate the comparison with Hitler, especially when all that I did was follow established policies. If you truly want this page to survive, you should do some work on it, including trimming it severely and trying to find more memorable quotes. ~ UDScott 16:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Electronic Games

Can you please create a list of electronic games and put a requested page section into it? I need that list so I can add requested games into that list like I did to the List of Television Shows page.(Dennys 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Unsourced

Is that policy now, that all unsourced quotes are hidden on the talk page? As only an infrequent user with a mania for citing I probably missed a policy change or five. MeltBanana 00:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is the current practice - see WQ:LOQ#Sourced_vs._unsourced__quotes for more information. The idea is that rather than just stripping away unsourced quotes, we want to give people an opportunity to source those quotes (when they can then be moved back to the page). ~ UDScott 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Amitabh Bachchan

I converted this PROD to VFD per WQ:PROD#How it works because it was the subject of a previous vote. Although it really doesn't need discussion, I don't want to ignore a rule that doesn't pervent achieving the goal. ~ Ningauble 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm afraid I was moving quickly through some pages without sources and did not notice this. You are of course right - thanks for the correction. ~ UDScott 15:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I don't recall why I even bothered to check. ~ Ningauble 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

re Jim Carrey

The vandalism still showed up in the edit history. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK - although the same is true of all those other pages that were vandalized. ~ UDScott 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alias (TV series)

You're very welcome in regards to putting quotes in their correct sequence. I'll do my best to continue that throughout seasons one and two, as I own those and find myself rewatching for the enjoyment of it. I apologize for the removal of character links. I was unaware of the policy of linking each character when it is their first quote in an episode. Thank you for the correction. It appears someone has remedied the situation for me already, but I did go in and character link Anna Espinosa in the episode "Parity." Again, thank you for the correction. I apologize for the inconvenience of cleaning up after me. ~ Alana1079 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem - and thanks again for the work you've done. ~ UDScott 01:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder about the WQ:LOQ. Slipped my mind! I'll be sure not to let it happen again and favorite the LOQ page. ~ Alana1079 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Account rename

Hello, I am coming to you as my request for account usurpation has been active for more than one month with no reply. Could you please process it? Thanks in advance. Tieum p 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3

That page was on the Wikiquote:Requested entries list and had many notable quotes.(Dennys 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Star Wars: The Clone Wars - Lightsaber Duels‎

Please get on with deleting that page so it could be rewritten in the Future.(Dennys 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Jaggi Vasudev

Hello UDSCott,
I have provided the book references for the quotes on Jaggi Vasudev page. If I were to add quotes from other sources, such as their official website, should I provide links to each of those quotes? How do I go about this? Pl help!

Thanks Thendral Muthusami 04:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Asshole...

If you EVER, and I mean EVER fuck with my page moves again, I swea to Jesus fucking Christ almighty that I will piss down your throat and then light you up with a match so you burn! Got it you ugly little Catholic slut? -- Simplebloodfest398 22:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so nice. I won't even dignify this by arguing with you. ~ UDScott 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I want to thank you and Ningauble for maintaining the Bardock movie's correct title in regards to the vandalism that it recently met. I've been trying to maintain proper and orderly construct in terms of all the articles I've worked on heavily in the past. I'm just glad I've got support to revert vandalism when I may not be online. If the same vandalizer comes back (which he probably will as he's been vandalizing heavily in the past as well), I hope we will continue to maintain the articles in their proper format and titles. Thanks again. - Zarbon 03:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pooh

Thanks for merging Winnie-the-Pooh. I can finally take it off my watchlist now. ~ Ningauble 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem - the A. A. Milne page just caught my eye in RC and once I was there, it was apparent that this merge was needed. ~ UDScott 15:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Wikiquote article

Hi, I saw that you deleted an article I created on Wikiquote due to notability guidelines. I've revised the article and pointed it to the correct Wikipedia page and I believe your reasoning for deletion was incorrect. Can you please give some clarification on this? Thanks for your time. Thermal2113 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize - you are correct that it appears that this page can stay. But I have moved the page to match the title on WP. ~ UDScott 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I'm glad we were able to resolve this. Also, thanks for renaming it - I noticed the title was wrong after creation.

Thermal2113 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In Regards to Recent Vandalism

UDScott, please be aware that this "Simplebloodfest" fellow is just another sockpuppet of the same person who had vandalized the pages earlier. He has confirmed his disgusting actions by coming to a forum of mine and vandalizing there as well. I also see that he has been altering the title in the same format that he did earlier under different user names. I'm excessively sick and tired of this childish behavior on this person's behalf and I will keep notifying you of any upcoming stupidity on this sockpuppeteer's behalf. He's been participating in the same idiotic actions ever since 2005... as far as I can recall. I'm sorry to bother you further my comrade, but it seems he just won't quit due to the incessant messages I received from him in regards to using different user names to try and vandalize the articles. Please be aware that I will try my best to notify you of any other user names this person decides to use, due to the fact that he has used many of the same exact user names to vandalize on wikipedia and has been banned repeatedly and for the same reasons. I'd appreciate if you could pass the message along to any other administrators in order to keep track of activity in regards to this person's sockpuppets. - Zarbon 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Literature by author

I take your point about removing The Stand (TV miniseries) from Category:Stephen King books. In reviewing Category:Literature by author, I was thinking about removing "books" and "works" from the names of the categories, as with Category:J. R. R. Tolkien, in order to make it sensible to include the author pages themselves in these categories. Making the category visible on the author page could prompt people to add new articles on works to the category. What do you think?

I don't know what approach is best for derivative works. I am not happy about the films in the Tolkien category, but I was just following precedent. ~ Ningauble 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposal makes sense - most people would probably be looking for anything related to the author (including the author's page, and in this case, any films/miniseries based on their works). I know it may seem awkward to include the LOR films with the books, but this is probably in keeping with what users might be expecting. ~ UDScott 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Somehow, I just knew what the orange message bar would be for when I saw it pop up when I came in tonight... :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

...and another thanks for finishing the pruning on Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series). :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem (on both). Once the fun began with that user, I added the cleanup of that page to my To Do list. It just took me a while to get around to it. ~ UDScott 12:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Do edits I've made to pages that get deleted not appear on "my contributions" list? I was just wondering because I was patrolling recent changes, stuck a speedy delete tag on that Portal:Baseball article, noticed then that you had deleted it, and saw that the creation of it was even expunged from the recent changes page. Is this normal for deletions? Does their existence get removed from recent changes, and from user contribution histories? Just curious, Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, actually I'm not sure about that one. I do know that when a page is deleted, it is purged from recent changes, but I don't know about a user's contributions. I would guess that yes it does also remove it from there as well, as if it never existed. But maybe someone else knows more about the mechanics of this topic. Sorry to not be more help. ~ UDScott 16:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's alright; just wondering, when you deleted that Portal... article, did you see my Speedy Delete tag, or do it completely independently on your own? Or did we possibly do the changes nearly concurrently (as it was right after I saved it that I went back to patrolling recent changes, and it wasn't there)? Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I found it in RC (and saw your SD tag), and I would have probably deleted it even without the tag - just a case of almost simultaneous patrolling. :-) ~ UDScott 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, good. While patrolling, I just caught and reverted a vandal on your userpage too :) !!! Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the edit history of a deleted page is not viewable by the public on RC, User Contribs, or anywhere else. Only administrators can view deleted edit history. (They can also restore deleted content when appropriate.) A user's deleted contributions are tabulated at Edit count (linked at the foot of the User Contribs page) where, by convention, they are not included in the total. ~ Ningauble 13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: The edit counts are not "live." They lag realtime because they are based on periodic data dumps to the toolserver. ~ Ningauble 13:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Murray Gell-Mann‎

I have responded to your message on my talkpage. Could you take an other look. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I have three more short questions. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks again for explaining. Now I know. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Matrix cleanup

Just wanted to make a quick comment on the cleanup of the Matrix (diffs: [2]). A couple points: A couple of the taglines I had intentionally made redundant (so they were attributed to their characters—as they weren't just taglines, they were also important to the film itself). I thus didn't count them towards the totals, because they were originally used for marketing purposes and count as taglines; especially, for example, Morpheus's "Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself." If you want them removed, that's okay. There's a couple other changes I'm not sure if I agree with though:

1. The change from "There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.", to "Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize just as I did that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." The particularly "quotable" part of that construct is, in fact, what it was pared down to. The "address" is unnecessary to the part of it which is "quotable." Eg., if I said to you "Hey, UDScott, you might take heed to [insert something meaningful here]." The contents of [insert something meaningful here] may be quotable.
2. "Mr. Anderson." said by Agent Smith was extremely quoted in pop-culture / parodies, etc. after the release of the film. When I was cleaning up the page, I tried to pare it down to things which, as per quotability were particularly "meaningful" as a quote, or were "significant" to the movie in the pop-culture / parody / marketing realm. The "Dodge this" (replaced by a single-edit user for something that makes no sense outside of its context, nor is otherwise significant) also falls into this category; while it's not really inherently quotable (neither is "Mr. Anderson") is passes the bar on the fact that it was extremely significant to the reception of the movie in the pop-culture "psyche." I tried to cut the quotes down to the quite pithy and meaningful or exherently significant. I noticed a few "paragraph quotes" (which aren't really "quotes") were re-added, which are only meaningful in the context of the movie, for example, this one isn't very quotable, nor was it "significant" outside of the movie in some way:
   • It seems that you've been living two lives. One life, you're Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, pay your taxes, and you... help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in computers, where you go by the hacker alias "Neo" and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.
   • Quotes such as this by Agent Smith were the ones I removed; see, for example, the one I left about humans being a "cancer" and how it is significantly more quotable / understandable without the accompanying diagesis of the film.
3. Here's a particularly pithy / sharp interchange which necessitates dialogue:
   • Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
   • Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.
   • Nevetheless, it was removed, and an enormous dialogue section was readded (we ought not have whole scenes as passing for "quotable" on Wikiquote; the only purpose they serve is to allow some fanboy to vicariously relive watching the scene). I had already, in my original cleanup of the page, cut that long conversation down to its most meaningful part (though still not that "quotable"), as I didn't want to completely cut it out.
4. One last thing (which is just opinion, I'm fine with you cutting them), when a film makes a reference to another work, I think it is appropriate (and should be recommended) to include such quotes (this isn't the best example, only using Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland), and to link to their sources. There are a few reasons for this. I also believe that these allusions, reasonably speaking, shouldn't be counted towards copyright limits, as they're quotes that the film was using in the first place!

A little too long-winded (but I always deeply consider my heavy-handed cleanup edits when I'm making them!), but thanks for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

PS A quote from User:Jeffq (I think of all the stuff I've read, he most concisely sums up what quotability ought to be):

• Plot revelations and other story-related statements are typically not quoteworthy for the general Wikiquote audience unless the words themselves mean something outside of the immediate context. (Remember, we collect words that stand on their own, not just important plot points from stories.)
• Large scene transcriptions are neither terse nor insubstantial. As interesting as they may be to read, they do not serve as pithy excerpts, and should always be deleted.

OK, let me try to address your points: first I do not believe it matters if quotes are referencing other films or are also used as taglines - they still must count in the quote total. I don't have a problem with your second point (shown as #1) - trimming the quote down (the knowing the path...quote). I'm not sure I agree with you that "Mr. Anderson." should stay - although I agree that those who have seen the film will certainly remember it, but IMHO the phrase just does not stand on its own as pithy enough to remain. Finally, although I can certainly see the point, the added lines to the longest quote on the page to me add value and are more than just fodder for fanboys. I could see splitting the quotes up into two separate sections of dialogue, but I think that the added first part is also worth keeping.

In the end, I don't think there really is much to quarrel over - if you or others feel there are other quotes that better represent the film, by all means change them (as long as the quote total doesn't go above the limit of 11). Some of the quotes I cut were ones I liked, but I needed to get the page within the limit. So ultimately, feel free to make further changes. Cheers. ~ UDScott 00:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, UDScott! Long time, no talk. Thanks for the citation. (Would that I myself could be pithy.) I'm posting because I agree with you and am amused by this example. "Mr. Anderson." is exactly the kind of quote that is so tempting to include but so hard to justify as well. It certainly is in pop culture, as millions of people would recognize it as a Matrix quote if spoken in Hugo Weaving's meticulously pronounced and measured bass voice. (I'm amused because I was really annoyed that Cinematic Titanic didn't paraphrase it as a "quote" from Santa Claus to reporter Andy Henderson in their version of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, which lead me to think about its notoriety.) But even if it weren't recognizable almost entirely by the tone, rather than the words (rarely if ever a good fit for Wikiquote), it's just too short and common a phrase to be acceptable without substantial citable support that it's risen to enduring pop-culture status, like "Oh, the humanity!", or "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".

In fact, I'd suggest two quick rules of thumb for eliminating short quotes like this:

1. Any short and/or common phrase that can be read out loud with no inflection without triggering recognition by nearly everyone as a specific quote is probably bad WQ material.
2. Virtually no short, common phrases should be considered quoteworthy from recent films or TV shows without substantial citable evidence that they're quoted or otherwise noted in something other than the ephemeral entertainment media.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but these might make it easier for those of us who just love actors' deliveries of otherwise inane lines, to bite the bullet and prune. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tourettes Guy Page

Yeah, why did you delete my tourettes guy page? I was going to finish it.

I deleted it for the reason I cited: it does not meet notability standards to warrant having a page. ~ UDScott 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Current People Template Obsolete?

I'm not certain where it would be most appropriate to strike up this conversation, so I'll start here in order to use you as a sounding board.

It seems to me that the current People Template is obsolete. Recently, you posted a notice box on two articles I created, Keith Oatley and Poul Anderson, advising me to conform to the People Template. I've made the necessary changes, however, my original divergence from the norm was deliberate.

Mind you, I'm not arguing about your notices. Upon reflection, I probably should have tried making this argument before my proposed changes, but since reformatting my articles, it's been on mind.

Under the current standard format, all quotes are organized hierarchically under the two primary headings of "Sourced" and "Unsourced," followed by subordinate sections for each specific work quoted. This strikes me as rather absurd given the increasingly stringent opposition to unsourced quotes. In most instances, unsourced material is eventually deleted. Across Wikiquote, entire sections of unsourced quotes are being removed en mass. So then, what is the purpose of organizing all quotes under two just two headings when one of those headings is discouraged? Eventually, every quote on this site credited to an individual rather than a specific work is going to end up organized under the heading "Sourced" with no parallel categories.

The most logical course, to my thinking, would be to organize the quotes of individuals under the headings of the specific work quoted, as they are now, but then, (here's the change) categorize those works under headings that describe what type of media they are quoted from. Example headings might include: Short Stories, Novels, Non-Fiction Texts, Movie Scripts (for character quotes), Lyrics, Interviews, Articles, etc.

Whether this format or some alternative is adopted, I think that it may be time to consider a more practical approach to the standard formatting of articles on individuals. Do you agree or disagree, and where would you suggest I pursue this debate?

Thanks, Pipedreamergrey 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We should probably chat this up at the Village Pump. I agree that Sourced/Unsourced has about outlived its usefulness. ~ Ningauble 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be further discussed on Village Pump - and I further agree that the current template (especially the Sourced/Unsourced part) needs some rework. I'm not sure about your proposed solution, however - I'm usually more in favor of just a chronological sorting of quotes, with subsections for works from which there are a substantial amount of quotes. But I'm certainly open to the opinions of others. ~ UDScott 14:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronologically ordering quotes would be great for contemporary figures, but the older the quotes, the more difficult it will become to track down an exact date. Think about all the quotes from Albert Einstein or Issac Asimov that are never attributed to one specific publication. It would be a nightmare sorting out those entries. ... I'm starting a thread at the village pump now. Thanks! Pipedreamergrey 12:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're slightly missing the point - I'm not really advocating that the quotes be sorted chronologically based on when they were first said or written (which may be difficult), but chronologically based on the dates provided with a source. This is just to provide some sort of order should there be a need to verify a quote. ~ UDScott 12:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Within a subheading for each specific cited work, order the quotations chronologically. That seems natural. Pipedreamergrey 09:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

muhammad huzaifa

hello Sir, how are you ? just wanted to know i created a page named muhammad huzaifa i just wanted to add my own quote on wiki which is orrignally by me i searched google and wiki for my quote so i thought i should make this quote official by adding my page.What do i do ? —This unsigned comment is by Mha007 (talk • contribs) .

The page you originally created was deleted because the subject was not notable enough to have a page. But, feel free to add that or other quotes to your own user page - User:Mha007. ~ UDScott 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

East/Central Europe

Hi, you added a cleanup template to East/Central Europe with a comment that subsections need to be removed. I'm rather new here at Wikiquote, so could please explain to me what's wrong with them? Kpalion 16:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically, we discourage the use of such subsections for various reasons - a good discussion of some of them can be found here: Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_21#Official_format_policies, but there have been plenty of other discussions about it. The biggest worry is that it can inherently present a Point of View (POV), which is something that is always discouraged here. It would be better to allow users to determine for themselves how quotes are related. Additionally, it can cause some difficulty for someone to verify quotes taken from one source if they are strewn throughout a page, grouped by a subtopic. In the end, the best way to present quotes (especially in a theme page) in a chronological order. ~ UDScott 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, didn't we more or less decide to sort theme pages by author rather than chronology? ~ Ningauble 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right! So they should be sorted by author - but without subsections. ~ UDScott 15:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I removed the subsections from the page. I now found the relevant guideline which says that "quotes should appear sorted alphabetically by author, except where historical development of the subject makes chronological order particularly appropriate." I believe the latter applies to East/Central Europe, so I sorted the quotes chronologicaly. Could you please take a look at that page again and remove the cleanup template if you think it's OK now? I'd appreciate, too, if you could look at other pages I started (listed on my user page and see if they can be improved. (I'll be on vacation starting tomorrow, so I may not reply until October.) Kpalion 21:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

System

Hi, I tried to make the necessary adjustments. Could you take an other look and maybe comment on how to improve the standard some more (beside of course adding more quotes, which I will any way). -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks OK now (Ningauble made a few tweaks as well, including the removal of quote marks). ~ UDScott 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Its time to get rid of that horrible page for many reasons:

• That page talks about a racist dictator which offends everyone.

• That page failed Manuel of Style.

• That page has no memorial Quote or any notable quotes.

• Nobody bother to trim the page.

• That page is old, outdated and deserves to be replaced.

• Finally that page is very spammish.

(Jackerson 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

Well, I'd probably disagree with all of your points - it may be about a person that most do not like and may be offended by, but there is no question that he is a notable figure and thus has a page. I'm not sure I understand why you feel that the page is old or outdated - what exactly do you mean by this? I do not see any evidence of spam or that its formatting is in any way incorrect. Again, I fail to see why the page needs to be deleted. But if you still feel this is the case, please follow proper procedure and nominate it for discussion (see Wikiquote:Votes for deletion) - although I seriously doubt you will find many supporters for its deletion. ~ UDScott 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is one more reason to delete the page: Starscream page is up for deletion and I only wanted the Adolf Hitler page to be getting rid of because it failed Manuel of Style plus the VFD page you deleted was my only chance to get rid of the Adolf Hitler page. Also the Vladimir Lenin page should be deleted because it talks about a tyrant who is bent on total destruction of all red blooded creatures.

(Jackerson 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say - and frankly I have little patience for this. The Starscream page was nominated for legitimate reasons and I fail to see any reason to delete Lenin's page just because he was a tyrant. That's not the point. It's not about whether or not a person is someone to admire, but rather if they are notable enough, they get a page. By the way, if you want to quote a Manual of Style, it would help your argument to at least spell it correctly. ~ UDScott 01:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series)

Hey the Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series) has new episodes on October 2 please be sure to watch that show every friday and there is a one hour Episode. What to do with the page? Add more episodes?(StarWarsFanBoy 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Please keep an eye on Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series). Two more episode quotes has been added and more episodes are on the way here.(StarWarsFanBoy 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

The Article Star Wars: The Clone Wars TV series is not completed. New episodes will be added to that page and you put more than 2 quotes on section The Hidden Enemy. Also please have at least Cartoon Network Channel and please watch the new episodes.(StarWarsFanBoy 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

Thank you

Thanks for the note about that, I am glad the policy is now more in-line with a higher standard of practice. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Life

In regards to your note, I was not replacing the 'Life' theme page with one for the film with the same title. I was attempting to create an entry in the Wikiquote database for films and this movie was not included. I simply started by adding the title and it happened to bring up other information. I wasn't aware I needed to add the word film (similar to the Wikipedia entry) since I was already adding it to the Films link for Wikiquote. I am new to this process and am simply taking it step-by-step. Please advise if I truly am handling it the incorrect way.

Thanks —This unsigned comment is by Djbrosco (talk • contribs) .

Ah, OK I understand what happened. Whenever there is a page with the same title already, you need to add something to distinguish it from the general page. In this case, title your page Life (film) to distinguish it from the theme page called Life. When you want to show this page in the list of films, you can do it this way: [[Life(film)|Life]] so that it just shows the word Life.

So the best way to proceed is actually to create a new page called Life (film) and then you can populate it with quotes and the usual material for film pages. The easiest way to do this is to always try to match the title of a page with its corresponding page on Wikipedia. I would also recommend the use of an input box, found here: Help:Starting a new page. On that page, you will see input boxes for the various types of pages. When you enter a title for the prospective new page and hit 'Add new xxx', it will automatically populate the data from the respective template, making it easier to know what needs to be included. Also, if you have for some reason chosen a title that already exists, it will just take you straight to editing that page. If that happens, go back and choose a more appropriate title. Hope this all helps. ~ UDScott 18:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional characters update

Hey, regarding Wikiquote_talk:Fictional_characters#Notability_exception, I just wanted to stop by and say that I agree with the changes BD2412 (talk · contributions) made there [3] - and I checked first with BD2412 who thinks it is okay as well [4]. There hasn't been any comment at that page in about a month - do you think we can mark that issue as resolved? :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with it and responded at the Talk page. ~ UDScott 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :) Cirt (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lady and the Tramp

Can you do any help to this page or the sequel? Also, it needs a wikiquote link at en as well as meantin of the original story and the sequel in the intro. Too bad it's protected from editing. 68.220.179.213 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Boudica Template Check

Hi - You tagged a page I created "Boudica' as not conforming to template guidelines. I did the best I could to clean it up, but I'm new to editing wikiquote. Could you take a look and tell me if I got it right this time? Thanks! Ecsj107 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Skins

Could you help me recall a quote from the first "Sid"? His father asks him why Tony didn't fail drama and Sid said "He doesn't take it." Will ^(talk) 21:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the following exchange where Sid's father asked if Tony had failed History:
Mark: Did Tony fail this?
Sid: No.
Mark: No of course not, and why, why didn't he fail it?
Sid: He doesn't do History.
~ UDScott 00:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. I believe it used to be on the page too. >_> Will ^(talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was, but got cut when the page was trimmed. Should you wish to include it again, you'll need to cut one of the others for that episode. I kind of like the ones that are there now, but feel free to disagree. ~ UDScott 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

QOTD

I will be leaving soon, probably within a half hour, for at least an hour and probably more, but I would be a bit more at ease if someone had posted some material, such as I had suggested at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Quote of the Day into the pages for the 3rd and the 4th. If you are willing to use these suggestions, you might have to open the edit page for the section to get the format copied right into the pages. Thanks for what support you were able to give me in recent matters. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is you on some bullshit?

Dog, you deleted Dragon Ball AF. Shit aint funny man. I was gonna twork it some more, even got Zarbon to help out. Why you trippin'?

wikiquote: laziness

Dear UDScott,

Yesterday you cleaned up the quotes about laziness on wikiquote. Only the ones that were sourced could remain on the main page. My question is the following: Does an anonymous contribution have to be sourced? I actually personally invented the last quote about the relation between laziness and economics, but I thought it would be inappropriate to sign it with my own name. On your user page I can see you are a well-respected contributer, so I take you know what should be done about this issue. Should the anonymous quotes be removed? Should I source my own quote? Or is there only room for quotes from celebrities?

Yours truly,

JJ27 10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First, only sourced quotes should remain on the page - even ones that are anonymous can often be sourced to a work where they appear. Second, quotes should be from notable subjects, so your personal quotes (no matter how good they may be) should not be on this or any other page except for your user page. Feel free to post them there. ~ UDScott 14:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha, it seems I misunderstood the idea of wikiquote, thank you however for clarifying it to me. Keep up the good work! JJ27 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Abba Lerner

The reason I added Category:Europeans was he was born in Bessarabia and there isn't any other appropriate category.--Ole.Holm 20:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK I see - I removed it because it was redundant with having Category:English people, which is a subcategory to Category:Europeans. ~ UDScott 20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

This appears to be another apparent sockpuppet of the slew of vandalism connected to the user name... User:MuchoSemen13. The same person keeps creating incessant vandalism, following around contributions and either reverting them at random or just plain vandalizing with different user names. - Zarbon 06:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we know YOU'RE not responsible for these sockpuppets?! --TheClownPrinceofCrime 19:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The above person is yet another obvious sockpuppet as well as this next person I'm pointing out here: Black Frieza. Please look at how the same person is reverting all the same material using different usernames, causing vandalism on the same places. - Zarbon 01:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And now there's yet another obvious sockpuppet for the same user... User:Meester Seester. Please help me stop this vandalism, it's really getting out of hand again. - Zarbon 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

new to Wikiquote, show me the ropes

I'm just your average Joe when it comes to editing. So, yeah, I'm suddenly interested in this forum. Can we, like, make articles here too like the other wikis? Meester Seester 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I do not want to edit war or revert vandalism; it's not something I enjoy. However, I'm forced into this scenario because this person is an obvious vandal and knows that I don't want the articles themselves to be vandalized so the user instigates a revert war. Please, can't we just have the articles protected in order to avoid vandalism from this vandal. I will try and refrain from reverting but the administrators are not around when I need them to keep track of the pages and revert to the proper format. I need help to put a stop to all vandalism; I'm devoted to keeping and maintaining the best resource here. - Zarbon 03:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And since nothing is being done to stop this vandalism, another vandal-only account, JuicyOne19 is doing the same exact vandalism as Black Frieza. This is why I suggest that these articles be protected. - Zarbon 15:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please protect the articles I've listed on my user page; all the ones I've created and unstubbed. They are all being met with vandalism by puppets of the same user. - Zarbon 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes!!! that IS my evil plan. I will make sure Ips never edit your pages, for at least a year. ha ha ha ha ha! Cyui 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)