User talk:UDScott/2012

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.

Formatting and cats

Thanks Scott ... I will add categories, bold the name, and include full birth and death dates henceforth. -Peter

No problem - thanks for all the new additions! ~ UDScott 16:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Questiton.

How do I become an Adminstrator on wiki quote? When you do get this message I would appreciate it if you posted the answer on my talk page. Thanks!! Deezy D 15:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I will also reply on your talk page, but the answer is that you may always make a request on Wikiquote:Requests for adminship, but I will also tell you that until you build up more time and experience on the site, familiarizing yourself with the rules and guidelines, you are not likely to be accepted as a viable candidate. ~ UDScott 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!Deezy D 16:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian Proverbs deleted

Hi,

I was trying to read a favorite article I had bookmarked-

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bulgarian_proverbs

It seems to be deleted, possibly by you, and the un-deletion instructions are completely baffling. Is there any way to recover this article?

Thanks, Eric

159.182.1.4 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)EGG 010412

This page was deleted, following a week-long period in which it was nominated for proposed deletion, for not having any sources for the quotes. If you can provide sourced quotes, it may be recreated. Please also the discussion at the Village Pump on this topic. ~ UDScott 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Russian proverbs deleted

I don't understand why you deleted the very interesting page about the Russian proverbs. The reason you invoke is because there are no sourced quotes. To my knowledge proverbs cannot be quoted with a source as they are a result of common wisdom. So I would kindly ask you to restore this page. - —This unsigned comment is by 193.191.220.222 (talk • contribs) .

Kindly refer to the following discussions on this topic: here and here. The bottom line is that without sources, such quotes cannot be verified as authentic. ~ UDScott 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Deezy.D.

I know I have been a trouble maker in the past but if you look at all my edits so far you will notice most of them are actually really good like how I did a massive remodel on the Lil Wayne article or the articles I've created and updated constantly such as Pimp C,Bun B,Ludacris,Anthony Hamilton,Eazy E,Bushwick Bill,Willie D,Z-Ro, and T-Pain. So I was hoping you would support my effort to become one of few teenage Administrators. Thanks a million Deezy D 17:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting proverbs

I read both articles referenced. I feel that deleting the Bulgarian and Russian pages in their entirety is going too far. It isn't black and white. It's necessary by their very nature that there is some fuzziness in the sources. There's no DNA paternity test. It's far more important that contributors from those regions share proverbs from their history and lives. Ownership of proverbs and nationality are secondary. Each is a sub-group of a larger entity. The variations from culture to culture are entertaining. On a personal note, my Bulgarian colleague invested a great deal of time editing and working on that material. But for purely objective reasons, I respectfully request a restoration of the proverb articles.

159.182.1.4 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)EGG 010512

I appreciate your points, but there is still an issue of being able to verify that proverbs are genuine if they are not sourced (even if the source is a secondary one). This project has a stated goal to provide sourced quotes, not just witty phrases heard on the street. Please see discussion here for some more on the topic of proverbs. I would also recommend that you enter comments on the Village pump so that a larger discussion with the community on this topic can continue. ~ UDScott 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was very disappointed to see that you have deleted the Bulgarian proverbs - they do exist on the Bulgarian Wikiquote page - (please don't suggest another deletion..) - so I don't see why they shouldn't exist on the English Wikiquote. I am a Bulgarian native speaker and I assure you that they are genuine. It is impossible to source a proverb, but that does not mean that they have to be banned from quoting and sharing. By the way I was also looking at the English proverbs on Wikiquote: most of them aren't sourced...why don't you remove these as well (90% of them and only leave "All's well that ends well" by Shakespeare if you want to make your argument valid? KM

Pardon me for interjecting here, because this discussion really does belong at the Village pump, but please rest assured that the English proverbs page will be cleaned up. I have worked on sourcing some of the proverbs there in the past, and will do more. (Please note that it is not impossible to find reliable citations for genuine proverbs, except in the case of aboriginal societies that have no literary tradition of writing them down.) After the dust has settled from deleting the wholly unsourced articles, the partially sourced ones will be sorted out. ~ Ningauble 20:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, Ningauble, I welcome interjections! I echo what was written above. There are plans to correct the remaining proverbs pages so that only sourced quotes remain on the pages. And again, if sources are provided for other proverbs, those pages can certainly be recreated. ~ UDScott 20:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you not heard that there is a difference between oral and written tradition? I didn't want to be confrontational either, but I am not an administrator and I waisted my time with sharing national proverbs instead that have now disappeared into a black hole, because of someone like you and I can't do much about it - If the oral tradition is not a reliable enough source for you two then you should probably find another hobby instead of playing the internet police and leave us alone. Good luck with deleting the English page. ~ 5 Jan 2012, KM

I totally agree with KM. I think that this is a surrealistic form of legalism that is not useful. I'm really sorry to say so, as I am usually not a person of conflict, but I just wanted to show my disagreement (sorry for my bad English).~~

Maybe the deleted proverbs are real, maybe they were just made up by someone who thought they sounded nice. Should we keep fake proverbs? BD2412 T 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, my name is David as you could guess from my user name I was told by my friend I go to school with that to get a good reputation on here as a person who does not vandalize and do useless edits to become friends or at least get to know and become friendly with the adminstrators. I have hope to become an adminstrator one day to so it couldn't hurt to try to become friends now. David.Green 15:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting proverbs (2)

So easy to delete, so much more difficult to create something.

Proverbs are precious items. They go extinct quite easily. It would be senseless to take a painting and say "Oh we don't know who painted this, so we'll throw it away."

But we adhere to rigid guidelines-- without rules we'd be living in caves probably. Still, it's pretty harsh to just throw something away like that.

159.182.1.4 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)EGG 1.10.12

Perhaps we need to define more clearly what is meant by the term "Proverb." The remark about going extinct quickly is consistent with something that is coined with aphoristic intent, but is not consistent with the notion proverbial wisdom handed down from generation to generation. Or perhaps the ambiguous subjectivity of such distinctions is an argument for doing away with "Proverbs" pages, per se, and placing the (sourced) quotes on theme pages with citation notes indicating, when such is the case, that they are proverbs of unknown origin. ~ Ningauble 17:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Irish proverbs

I dont understand why you felt the need to delete the whole page of Irish proverbs. This was a very useful and valuable resource that I referenced regularly and had saved to my browser. Someone had put a lot of work into it. Can it please be restored? You are an American movie buff, not a scholar of the Irish language and I suggest you leave pages that you dont understand alone in future. They are none of your business. Sincerely, Clare Gallagher.

As has been discussed a few times above and on the Village pump, this and other proverbs pages were deleted because the quotes were not sourced (it has nothing to do with whether or not I understand the page - but that the quotes could not be verified as genuine). I will restore the quotes to the Talk page, but until the quotes are sourced, the page should not be recreated. ~ UDScott 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It may also be noted that real scholars cite sources. If you can do so, it would be very welcome. ~ Ningauble 14:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

German proverbs

Why did you delete this! I use this for my work. Can you please please restore quotes to talk page at least. I need a copy of it. Thanks a bunch. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:German_proverbs

134.159.131.34 10:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the quotes to the Talk page, but they require sources before being moved again to the main page. ~ UDScott 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

QOTD for 18 January 2012

I noticed you were recently online and would like to request a transfer of the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/January 18, 2012 to Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 18, 2012. I will probably try to advance much further with making selection and layouts towards the end of the month in the coming week. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott 03:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much — I hate seeing gaps in the work. I will probably be busy with attending a few other things here a few more days, but expect to be able to finish most of the QOTD selections and layouts for the month by the end of the week. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

How do I get a article protected?Deezy D 14:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What article? ~ UDScott 15:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Lil Wayne Article had alot of vandalism on it this weekend when I was not on Ningauble fixed it though. It had a fake quote and alot of the quotes on the album Tha Carter IV were vandalizedDavid L Green 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have protected it against new or unregistered users. Please also note that I performed some formatting cleanup on the page, added links, and added additional songwriters. Please use this cleanup as a guide for other similar pages that have also been tagged for cleanup as well as any new pages you might add. Thanks. ~ UDScott 16:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Irish proverbs

Just to support something that I can see has been posted here before, these are old proverbs that have been handed down through generations in the oral tradition. The sources are long lost and unknown. They are all the more valuable for their historic relevance and are a beautiful and declining part of the language. Legends lack sources too- does this make them irrelevant? Please restore this page. Thank you. Clare Gallagher.

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by sourcing these quotes - it does not necessarily mean that someone has to present the first occurrence of it (although that is preferred), but rather at least provide a credible source (which could be verified) that cites the proverb. As I previously posted, here is an example fronm the English proverbs page:

• An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
  • Cf. Notes and Queries magazine, Feb. 24, 1866, p. 153: "Eat an apple on going to bed, // And you'll keep the doctor from earning his bread." [1]
  • Adapted to its current form in the 1900s as a marketing slogan used by American growers concerned that the temperance movement would cut into sales of apple cider. (Michael Pollan, The Botany of Desire, Random House, 2001, ISBN 0375501290, p. 22, cf. p. 9 & 50)

I believe the above is an example that does not try to find the original source of the quote, but provides information from credible sources (the two books) that show that the quote is genuine. ~ UDScott 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

m:Neutral point of view on Wikiquote

Hello, I had the feeling that you might be interested in this. Regards, Nemo 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Proverbs

Hello. I have just set up a new account. I want to ask if you could grant (temporary) access to the portuguese proverbs in some way? I am a student of the language and i would like to try and verify as many as possible with the hope of restoring the page. I do understand and agree with the need for accurate sources and references in this regard. Thank you. --Seanfinn2 19:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure - I have restored the quotes to Talk:Portuguese proverbs awaiting sourcing before recreating the Portuguese proverbs page. Thanks for your help. ~ UDScott 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just want to thank you again for taking this position. I know there were some hiccups right at the beginning, but it's nice to see both people stepping up to the challenge, and a more uniform and effective response to the requests. I know I've yet to restore the unsourced quotes to the Russian talk page, and I apologize, but it's been busy lately. It's still in my to-do list.24.183.134.74 08:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem - my position has always been just that the quotes should be sourced. But I definitely see the value in having them, once they are sourced. Thanks. ~ UDScott 22:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Disney animated films

Category:Disney animated films has been listed at Votes for deletion. If you are interested, please comment at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Animation films by studio categories. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 18:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

German Proverbs

Thanks for restoring them! 114.76.130.56 11:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the formatting help

Thank you for the formatting help at François-Eudes Chanfrault. ;) Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! ~ UDScott (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Kannada Proverbs

Why did you delete this! I have invested lot of time and effort in collecting few of those proverbs. Can you please please restore quotes to talk page at least. I need a copy of it. Thanks a lot. https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Kannada_proverbs&action=edit&redlink=1

The reason for deletion has been extensively discussed (see WQ:VP#Proverbs_pages) - bottom line is that the quotes require proper sourcing. I have restore them to Talk:Kannada proverbs so that they may be seen, but they need sources before recreating the Kannada proverbs page. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I edit wanting to make great pages- I don't know much about the rules that govern them. And it bothers me very much when I come across someone like Eaglestorm. He is rude, high-handed, and egotistical- I don't know how much power he has on this site, but it has clearly gone to his head. Just look at the discussion page for "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" on Wikiquote. His rudeness towards average-Joe users is appalling. I chose to fight him over "Down Periscope" because I love the movie, and feel that much of its dialogue has a deserved place on this site. What I found Eaglestorm doing was hack-and-slash reversions of every and all edits made by other users. Originally, the stuff I added was reverted for "LOQ trim". Fine, I said, and trimmed down what I wanted to add. There's the hack-and-slash editing again. This time the excuse is "unjustified restoration of unnecessary edit". That I had a real problem with. Unjustified how? Unnecessary how? Eaglestorm says so, I guess. Not good enough for me. So I reverted his edits and he reverted mine, and then you halted it for the time being. Thanks for protecting the page as I had it. I really do feel it looks better that way. I'll thank you again if you help reign in Eaglestorm. I really don't like that user. (63.163.201.164 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

I agree that this user can be a bit heavy handed with trimming at times - I have often disagreed with just complete reversions of added quotes - I would rather see a selected trimming, leaving the best quotes instead of just assuming that all additions beyond the quote limits should be reverted. In the future, I would recommend that if you wish to add quotes to a page (and your additions would put the number of quotes over the limit) to delete an equal number of quotes before adding the new ones. In any case, I'll do what I can to try to keep things fair. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you've done so far, and your comments. For things to be fair is all I really want. (63.163.201.164 05:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC))

re Al Franken

Ningauble (talk · contributions) seems to like to trim down intros on pages I've worked on, to about one sentence in length. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What changed?

1. UDScott, you voted "oppose", here Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki.
2. You stated: "Kalki's continued negative behavior is not in keeping with what I would expect of someone acting as an administrator and ambassador of the project. If there had been some measure of an appearance of a willingness to discuss matters in a calm and rational manner and a willingness to work with others without denigrating their work or motives (which was my hope when I first cast my support vote), then I would have gladly left my original vote. Sadly, this is not the case, and I do not feel I can continue to support Kalki as an admin."
3. This was less than one year ago.
4. Since that time, Kalki (talk · contributions) was blocked for Incivility block log.
5. Kalki continues to engage in the very behavior patterns that you "opposed" him for in his prior RFA. Look at the current RFA at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (2nd request), where Kalki refers to another user (myself) as "dictatorial" and says I have "delusions".
6. How is this behavior a positive improvement from the behavior at the last RFA that caused you to vote "oppose"?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

First, let me say that I consider it inappropriate to question my vote on my Talk page - if you object, I would expect it to be on the RFA page. Second, if I were to apply the standards you seek against Kalki to you, I would have to question your adminship as I believe you have engaged in just as much incivility over the past year. Finally, I have found that Kalki's contributions (outside of the diatribes) are helpful to the project - and the amount of vandalism that is handled by Kalki is larger than most others here. In the end, while I believe there are significant negatives, I believe the positives outweigh them. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, they are not the standards I seek, I'm just quoting you from your prior oppose. You seem to have changed your own criteria since then. I'm just pointing that out. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the above, but rather what you have written on the topic of Kalki. My criteria has not changed, but even then I had reservations - at that time, I felt the negatives outweighed the positives. Now I feel that the positive work Kalki has done now tilt things in the other direction. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I respect your opinion and your right to express it, even if I may disagree with it. (To paraphrase from a famous quote. :P ) .... -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Péguy

I have added some quotes and removed the Prod. I think there are plenty more quotes to be added.--Collingwood (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Great - looks good. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Idioma-bot

Hi, I see that while you granted the bot flag to User:Idioma-bot, you didn't unblock the bot, figured I'd let you know :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes - thanks for pointing that out. I've unblocked the bot now. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

KamikazeBot needs unblocking too.--Collingwood (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Degrassi

Sorry, don't know how to change page titles - as far as I was aware, the name was merely Degrassi from season 8 onwards (I don't watch the show, I got that info from Wikipedia). I will be adding intro, and a custom table to link pages (to navigate between sections). Thanks Soph (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries - I've never seen it either, but assumed since this was the "next generation" that there was an original series as well. Thanks for your work on these pages. Looks good. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Difficulties with Eaglestorm

I don't know if formal declarations of war can be issued on Wikiquote, and maybe I'm being melodramatic. But I think the choice of words fits well, nonetheless. For your benefit, UDScott, I have added Eaglestorm's extremely hostile statement under the subject "Down Periscope" on his own talk page. I had as of the last week begun to suspect he had decided to read over my editing history and start hacking away at any page I have touched, and looking for information on this I checked his talk page. Following some reasonable comments and questions from you- and I notice he refused to answer many of the questions- he wrote the below comment, to which I responded with the next one. I wrote that comment and this one, and I am unafraid. (63.163.201.164 04:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

'I don't like that user,' he says on your talk page? He frets and bitches out over the games limitations and he wants to turn his attention to other avenues? Fuck him very much! and because of that, I will definitely go after every article he ever fixed and if nobody has trimmed that, I will...when I'm done with him, he'll wish he never messed with me. Putang inang anon yan (Tagalog for "that son of a bitch anon") --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't like you. You are no gentleman- you have shown that time and time again. Too bad. Manners can do a lot more, make a much bigger difference, than people think. Example- I say I don't like you. You say, "FUCK you" in return. And here you are, issuing threats. Swearing hellfire and vengeance upon me because, by God, I've *crossed* you. And NOBODY crosses Eaglestorm, huh? Or at least, nobody has until now. I suspected you would retaliate like this, and follow me onto my other pages. No surprise there. And I'll say something more: you will *never* be finished with me, Eaglestorm. The only thing I've done is get in your way, and if you want to start a war over that so be it. I'll never give up, never surrender. You can't possibly scare me. Do your worst, Eaglestorm. Do your very worst. I'll do my best. All I have ever tried to do, and all I ever will do, is try to make Wikiquote- and Wikipedia- better. You think rigid enforcement of the rules is all there is to life? You're wrong. And you know why I'm anonymous? I fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. Like that user you bullied on the MW2 page. That truly was a great act of valor. You have no respect for me? It's mutual. Trust me. (63.163.201.164 04:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Since March 7, 2012, I declare that a state of war- or editing war on multiple fronts- has existed between myself, user 63.163.201.164, and Eaglestorm. He has vowed to retaliate against me for my defiant actions against him, for intruding on his rule on pages of which he has apparently made himself sole policeman. He has specifically stated that he will go after pages I edited, with retaliation clearly being his sole objective. He is a petty, vengeful, mean-spirited and irrational editor, and he should be stripped of whatever authority he has. He clearly wants to intimidate me, make me sorry I ever defied him. He will fail. I promise my sole intention now, as always, is to improve Wikiquote and Wikipedia as an anonymous user. You will have no revenge attacks from me. (63.163.201.164 04:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Oooh, scary...all the more reason for you to be banned from using Wikiquote, Mr Anon. We don't need disruptive editors like you here. Nice try at making me laugh though.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt this alone will get me banned. Not especially worried about that, since my many constructive edits and works- including creating or overhauling several pages- will exonerate me in the end. Naturally you want me banned, no surprise. You can laugh all you want. Wikipedia- and Wikiquote- doesn't need power-hungry assholes like you, no more than it doesn't need "disruptive" editors like me. I'm sure the British believed with all their hearts that Ireland didn't need Michael Collins, either. (63.163.201.164 19:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

While I understand the frustration on both sides - because I believe that you both believe you are correct - the behavior in your interactions is not acceptable. Eaglestorm in particular, the threatening words and purely antagonistic tone with which you have lately conversed with this user is not welcome on this site. If you continue this behavior, you will face penalties for it. At the same time, a declared war (by both of you) cannot be allowed to continue either - and will likely result in page protections and/or blocks for either or both of you. I have tried to intervene before (see Talk:Down Periscope and User_talk:Eaglestorm#Down_Periscope), but you do not seem to have worked out your differences. As I stated then, Eaglestorm, you need to act in a more civil manner - and I happen to welcome discussions on rules that question them - that is what makes a Wiki community so valuable and attractive to others. Please think about this and reconsider your intentions. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You make some excellent points, sir. I have considered them, and first off, retitled this topic accordingly. I have been- and will continue to be- purely defensive in my disagreements with Eaglestorm. He has clearly stated his intent, and acted on his intent, to harass pages just because *I* edited them. I will not do the same to him. You have intervened in the past, UDScott, and your assistance on the Down Periscope page was and is greatly appreciated by me. Regrettably, it does indeed seem like we haven't worked out our differences. I wanted to have us part ways after the encounter on Down Periscope's page, but as the conversation you had with him clearly shows, he vowed revenge on me. I'm trying to carry on as usual- he's going on a vendetta, or so it would certainly appear. I will restate my intentions so they are clear: I am trying to improve Wikiquote, and that is the bottom line to anything I have done or will do on this site. I will defend pages I worked on from harassment, but no aggressive or destructive action will be taken by me, under any circumstances. (63.163.201.164 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC))

I have to add an update here, now. On "The Day After Tomorrow", "Gears of War", "Gears of War 2", "Bully", and "The Hunger Games (film)" along with "Titan AE" Eaglestorm have been fighting over edits for days. Number 1 on the list we may have finally reached a compromise on. Maybe. GOW2 has stayed the same for a day or two, and it's within the present 3-quote limit. But "Gears of War", "Bully", and "The Hunger Games (film)" are as of right now the site of active editing wars. No longer is the much-vaunted LOQ-violation talked about. I took care of that myself. So now, it's "reverting before combative argument" and "unjustified restoration of unnecessary edit", the latter having been seen before on Down Periscope's page. What's going on now, so far as I can tell, is he's continuing to mess with pages that conform to the LOQ, simply because I disagree with him. And he keeps telling me GET OUT. Over, and over, and over. He's recommended I be blocked, he fights my edits just because I did them, and he uses all the violent and profane language he pleases. But he's Eaglestorm. So it's all okay. And I'm sure he'll keep maintaining that imperialistic, high-handed tone of his. "Don't make me laugh", "you can't scare me", "hack it or get out". God preserve Wikipedia if ever his kind takes control. (63.163.201.164 04:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC))

Hey, not to join in on whatever was going on here, but... this Eaglestorm makes me nervous. He clearly has some serious problem with anonymous users, especially if they- God forbid- exercise their rights as free people and disagree with him. I've read over this whole thing and his arrogant, vindictive and high-handed response doesn't sit well with me. I know Wikiquote has regs that need to be enforced, but the way he goes about doing it- from just the basic observation I've done so far- worries me. I mean... this other anonymous user got a vendetta declared against him, and to me there's no doubt- Eaglestorm started it. HE vowed to "go after" that user's edits on pages and slash away. The other bloke's foolish "declaration of war" was just a response to that, really. Again- I want no part of this, on either side. I want both parties to leave me alone. But I am proud of being an anonymous user, too, and I think anonymous users, who just don't have the time or interest to set up a regular account, are the bread and butter of websites like this. Websites that restrict edits to only registered users see much less progress in a day than Wikipedia and Wikiquote. This whole Wiki thing- it has a lot of good things about it. Somebody had a real good idea when they set this up. But users getting into wars with users does no one any good. I'm just speaking my mind here, and I do hope any of the combatants from this old edit war will kindly leave me out of it. (150.199.118.252)

Video Games Quotes Limit

I have thought more about my long-standing dispute with the existing quotes limit on Wikiquote. Given some edits I have recently performed on here- partly in response to the promised retaliatory attacks by Eaglestorm- I have a compromise proposal. One that, if accepted by Wikiquote as a whole, will ease the situation at least for a while. The Wikiquote page for the video games "Bully" and "Gears of War 2" both, as of this writing, have two dialogue quotes and two stand-alone quotes. I firmly believe this even number- 4- gives the page a much more complete look than any three. It also gives average users like myself some more breathing space, a little more room in which to work. Which, all his time, is all I have been asking for. I suggest that Wikiquote allow the video game quotes limit to be raised from 3 to 4. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. (63.163.201.164 04:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Personally I don't see any issue with this proposal - but I would request that you add it to Wikiquote talk:Limits on quotations and probably a pointer on Wikiquote:Village pump to the discussion. Then others can comment on it. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, UDScott. I will take my proposal to the page(s) you suggested. I've not added a "pointer" before, but I learn a thing or two on Wikipedia/Wikiquote every day. I believe very strongly in the mission of Wikipedia and its adjacent sites, and this proposal is, I believe, a way to help Wikiquote better achieve its own goals of self-improvement. I brought it to you because I wanted to see what you would think- your intervention on the Down Periscope page did a lot to earn my respect. (63.163.201.164 21:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC))

Who me, make a tyop?

Thanks for the proofreading.[2] ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem! :-) ~ UDScott (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Glee

Ok, thanks. I didn't realize you counted the commercials, so feel free to re-add any of the ones I removed. I'll get back to pruning it soon (when my exams are over). --Tryst (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop making unconstructive changes to Wikiquote. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations from people and works. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support. When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in their usernames or IP addresses being blocked from editing. Thank you.

Please note that this IP belongs to a public, multiuser network.(a school network) So I doubt your message did anything.

Avengers Page

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the quote limit. I'll try to make future edits to this page more concise. The LOQ page makes a lot of sense. Colonelketchup (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Thanks for reorganizing the content of this page, you've made it much better. Cheers. --Tryst (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I had meant to do it earlier, but also wanted to wait until some of the dicsuiion about the quotes settled a bit. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Titus Salt

Hello UDScott. I am new to WQ: can you see if my edits to this article are sufficient to remove the notice, and if not, indicate what else needs to be done? --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing would be to remove the reference section (and instead have an interlinear citation). But in re-reading the page, I'm not sure that what is on the page is really a quote from this person, but rather a paraphrasing of something he might have said. This results in a description and summary of a speech, but not a direct quote. Do you know of any direct quotes that could be listed instead? Otherwise, I'm not sure the page should remain in its current state. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think from the language that it is a direct transcription, just with first to third person, though it may be selective. But I have found the article in a contemporary newspaper which reports on the dinner, and I think I will be able to change it to a verbatim quote.

As for references: so the referencing mechanism used in Wikipedia is not used here? --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the text with a direct quotation from a contemporary newspaper, added the attribution, and removed the cleanup tag. OK? --ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks good now - thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Machine Stops

I am currently working on expanding The Machine Stops. Could I ask you to please refrain from redirecting it for no reason? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please also refrain from deleting articles and then emptying categories to make way for a deletion. I really don't understand why you are engaging in this kind of unilateral behavior. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I did so because the initial page just had a single quote about the work, but nothing from the work itself. Therefore, I moved it to the author's page. As far as the category is concerned, I still do not see the need for it. I doubt there will end up being enough pages for individual Forster works that would require a separate category for them. But in the end, I deleted it after the aforementioned move when it was then empty. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, please delete the category. Thanks for explaining. Viriditas (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Carl Sagan images

Responding to your comment: I think I went overboard on this one; I've reverted the previous version and commented further on the Carl Sagan talk page. Macspaunday (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I've replied there as well. I just wanted to pause for a moment and be sure that the policy is being properly applied before more pages are changed. Thanks ~ UDScott (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Disgusted with wanton deletion

Would you please restore the Persian Proverbs page? People could go in and add sources if the page were there to be modified. Deleting the entire thing erases a huge amount of work and discourages anyone from wanting to try again.

In response to your disgust, there was ample time to provide sources for this and other proverbs pages, as their lack thereof had been discussed for some time - and the tagging for deletion remained open for a week ,per policy. However, I can restore the quotes to the Talk page for someone to provide proper sources and move back to the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Renaming

Hello. I request renaming my following accounts:

• محمد الجداوي → Avocato
• GedawyBot → AvocatoBot
• Confirmation link: [3]
• Reason: Privacy reasons

Thanks in advance.--محمد الجداوي (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is done. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob Marley edit

I wouldn't have used a level-2 warning for that edit. This is pattern vandalism that has been going on for at least two years. I have started thinking, tentatively, about the design of an Abuse Filter to stop this pattern without risking false positives. When I have some time to put on my programming hat and work out the details, possibly within a week, I will post something in test-mode. In the meantime, I have just been temporarily blocking on sight. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are of course correct - this is the same form of vandalism we have seen for a while. I was just quickly checking in and unthinkingly posted the usual vandalism warning. In retrospect, I would also block on sight. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry, thought the second vandal edit from the IP was after your warning. I'm getting a little block happy apparently. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It's enough to make you dizzy the way the fun is coming fast and furious today. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm glad I decided to keep my CU bit; after Wikimania, I knew I was going to get back into the various projects I'd gone inactive on, and was seriously considering resigning (but still being a 'crat). It's proved very helpful these past few days... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ysabella Brave wikiquotes page

I have marked this page for review concerning copyright violations and you keep reverting the page to delete my copyright review request.

Many of the quotes exceed Wikiquotes guidelines. For example pretty much an entire transcript of one of her youtube videos is posted. That goes way beyond quotes. Other transcripts go way beyond quotes.

Her song lyrics are clearly marked as copyrighted on her youtube channel. But they keep being posted as quotes here. This is clearly in violation of copyright. You can't post copyrighted lyrics.

Please stop reverting this page. I have already contacted wikiquotes about reviewing the copyright states of this page, and the notice at the top clearly indicates that as well as a request that it not be deleted. - —This unsigned comment is by Copyrighter (talk • contribs) .

First, marking the page for review is fine - but should be done on its Talk page. Second, I'm not quite sure why you feel there is an issue. If there truly is a full transcript from a video, then yes that would be excessive. But having lyrics from songs is not something that is. As long as an entire song is not transcribed, having some lines from individual songs does not represent a copyright issue. What I would suggest is to place the tag on the Talk page and then add your rationale for having it. Then a discussion can be held about it. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

Would appreciate your removal of the [mergeto|Andrew Dickson White] entry in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. I am trying to avoid the eventual splitting out of this article from "Andrew Dickson White" as you have previously split out my previous entries in Bertrand Russell into the separate article A History of Western Philosophy and my entries in H. L. Mencken into Treatise on the Gods. I hope that you can appreciate my effort in attempting to stay ahead of the curve by initiating the separate article A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom as opposed to integrating it into "Andrew Dickson White" and then having the article split back out of "...White" by you or someone else at a later date. My participation in both articles "...White" and "A History of the Warfare..." is far from complete, but will be coming to fruition in the near future. Thanks, ELApro (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I placed this merge tag is that the page for Andrew Dickson White currently only has two quotes - both of which are from A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. As such, it didn't seem to make sense to have separate pages for them both. If there are quotes from other works that may appear on the author's page, then that would lead to having the two pages. Secondly, the reason for splitting out the other pages as you've mentioned is that the author's page became so large that it had become unwieldy. It is common practice to split out pages when both the author's page becomes quite large and when the amount of quotes from a specific work is such that a separate page is warranted. In this case, my recommendation to you would be to add at least one quote from another work to the author's page (and then a stub tag can be placed there to show that more is coming) and then move the two existing quotes to the A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom page. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See the Talk page for resolution. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say

Where does it say that

1. References are forbidden anywhere on pages on Wikiquote ever in inline format?
2. That Theme pages can't have topical subsection format, with chronological order inside those sections

??? -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is no place where these are "forbidden" (few things actually are), but neither of these are in the templates or Manual of Style, and thus are not reflected in the preferred article layout. The cleanup tag to me is more a way of highlighting that and provoking discussion if needed. There are few absolutes here, but rather consensus has led us to these templates and preferred look and feel. To me, if you disagree with the templates or preferred layout and wish to discuss potential changes, the best place to do so would be the talk pages for the applicable template or Village Pump, rather than arguing about whether or not a cleanup tag should be applied. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah, but if the templates and Manual of Style don't say anything about this, then obviously they also don't say they are not allowed in this format. That's simple logic. :) So great, we'll proceed with topical organization, with chronological organization inside each subtopic. Thanks for the helpful explanation! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no that's not logical at all. The point is that the templates do not include this type of layout, so that means that the preferred layout does not include them. Just because something is not explicitly forbidden does not mean that it is implicitly accepted - that is a fallacious argument. By that logic, I could decide to turn pages blue because I like how they look - and the template does not say I can't do so. My other point was that it would be more constructive to discuss changes to the templates (on their talk page or the Village Pump) than to just begin changing a few pages here and there. That defeats the purpose of having templates which are designed to give a similar look and feel to pages here. I would hope, as an admin here, that you would promote discussion rather than just assuming your opinion is the correct way. In the end, I'm not really sold on one layout or another, but rather prefer using consensus to determine the best look and feel of the pages here. Again, if you wish to change that, please do so only after discussion. Otherwise, the pages here could become a hodge-podge of different looks based on the opinions of whomever edits them. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What templates? What preferred type of layout? The pages here are a hodge-podge of different looks based on the opinions of whomever edits them. For example, randomly bolding quotes on some pages but not on others, LOL. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

These responses are not just illogical, as UDScott indicates, they give the appearance of being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps your intent is jocular, but this is not constructive. The guide to layout and the layout templates have been discussed and revised on multiple occasions, and reflect a consensus about the organization of Wikiquote pages. Consensus can change, but this is hardly the way to go about it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's wrong. The Guide to layout says in all bold and all caps at the top of its page, THIS IS A DRAFT WHICH IS NOT FINISHED YET. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was finished. I said it reflects a consensus, and I do believe that is a correct statement: multiple editors have repeatedly and consistently reversed the introduction of subject headings in articles. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for being more specific. I've added a 2nd compromise attempt, at the talk page. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: If someone has a polite way to suggest a specific step we can work on together to move forward constructively and positively on this towards an amicable compromise with the goal of improving this page further — I'd be more than happy to discuss it and work with them on that! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Hi there, let's hopefully have a polite and positive constructive discussion at Talk:Xenu, if you're interested. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

re VFDs

UDScott, I'm a little confused as to your confusion about the VFDs. Rather than talk to me on my talk page as you politely did, another admin chose instead to revert, twice, and then complain to an admin noticeboard instead of attempting to resolve this issue with me. I may very well have quite likely chosen to self revert myself, had this individual instead tried to politely engage me in discussion, first, instead of himself choosing to escalate the issue. Therefore, I think more discussion is needed at this point, not less, and VFD is exactly designed for that. Thank you for reaching out to me in the polite manner in which you did. I appreciate that. A lot. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Amiable outreach

Amiable outreach. :)

UDScott, I realize I've let myself get involved in an escalation of things lately, and I'm very sorry about that. I'd like to move forward with you to address issues in the future in a more lighthearted and friendly manner. I do value your input and advice, and I'd really love for both of us to work collaboratively together in the future where we both learn from each other. Once again, my apologies, -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive comments about my work on Wikiquote

Thank you, UDScott, for your positive comments about my work on Wikiquote, at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Liam Hemsworth. Much appreciated! I hope you're doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm returning briefly following the fun of the storm - at my house, we lost 14 trees - including a 60-footer that luckily missed the house. But we still have no power and prospects are not good for a while. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry, I wish you the best for the recovery! -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestion

Thank you for your helpful suggestion, I have gone ahead and implemented it directly into the article page, diff of talk page notice about that, as my 5th attempt at compromise on that page. I truly hope that this will finally be satisfactory to all parties involved. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried to make a good faith extension on my part, and implement your suggestions, as a 5th attempt at compromise. I guess that was not satisfactory enough for Ningauble (talk · contributions), but hopefully eventually we will get more specific suggestions on which quotes to retain and how to move forwards on this. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/MediaWiki

• Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/MediaWiki

Hi there UDScott, I was wondering if you could reconsider your position at this discussion. I put a great deal of effort into quality improvement at the page, researching sourced quotes from twenty (20) sources. Perhaps you could identify just a few of those twenty (20) sourced quotes that are satisfactory to you, so we can avoid deletion of the entire page? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, I really do not find any of those quotes (as nicely sourced as they are) to be very quotable or memorable. They strike me as more matter of fact statements. I am not against having a page on this subject, but in its current state, I cannot support it. Sorry. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Request: In that case I respectfully request more time, so I can do research to find quotes that will hopefully be deemed satisfactory to you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly fine with me to extend the period of the vfd, but it's not all about me :-). I'm just one voice among others in such matters. I see that you requested an extension of the review period - I believe it is certainly within your rights (and capabilities as an admin) to go ahead and extend it. On the other hand, it's not all that critical since the page could easily be recreated with more appropriate quotes should you find some. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that out of the twenty (20) sourced quotes, not one is deemed as satisfactory to y'all, but hopefully in my research I will come across additional quotes that are seen as more "pithy", LOL. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take another look? I've moved a significant number of quotes to the talk page, and added some other different new sourced quotes to the main page. Hopefully this will be satisfactory to you. :) My ongoing research continues, -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

See my above update, could you please revisit? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

John R. Platt

Hi UDScott. Thanks for this feedback. I guess it is preferred, that a stub has at least two notable quotes? -- Mdd (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, at the time I placed that merge tag, there was just the one quote about Science. And since this person didn't have a page at WP at that time, I thought it might be better to merge. But now that there are plenty of quotes by him, that no longer makes sense. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, this is what I already suspected and part of the reason, why I created that Wikipedia article. On second though I guess it is preferred, that if you start an article it is more then a stub to begin with? -- Mdd (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please Review Recently Deleted Topic

Hi, I had recently created a page for Kent Thiry which was voted and deleted (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Kent_Thiry). I know the issue in that case dealt with proper sourcing from "self-published sources" as I am still understanding the wiki process. So I have made an effort to find articles to support the quotes. I would like you to evaluate the new information that I have provided and help me to understand the best way to re-approach without creating any conflict to get the page back up. For full disclosure as was discussed I am not a sockpuppet but rather just an employee that wanted to share the vision of my CEO's thoughts on leadership with a larger audience. Please help me to create a neutral article that can be enjoyed by many people. I don't know if notability is still an issue but I would be happy to provide links to more information about Kent Thiry in pieces that he has been published in with reputable news outlets.

Commencement Speech at Vanderbilt University May 13, 2011 http://www.owen.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbilt/newsroom/press-releases/upload/Kent-Thiry-Commencement-Address-051311.pdf

“While growing your management skill…you set out to learn more about business. To grow yourself as a leader is a human thing. For that, you must set out to learn more about humans, and yourself.”

“Speak your dreams, no one climbs a mountain accidentally.”

“Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, leadership is in the eye of the led.”

“[When it comes to leadership] intentionality rules.”

“Leadership is not a function of position; it is a function of behavior.”

Stanford Business School November 28, 2011 http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/VFTT_Thiry_2011.html

"If you want to learn more about leadership, learn more about human beings, starting with yourself."

"It's about creating life leaders for whom business competence is a subset." (Dcomm (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

The reasons for the deletion were twofold: it is not clear that this person is notable enough (outside of his company) and the quotes did not have objective third party sources. If you can find quotes from such sources that would likely solve both issues. Try to find quotes that have been cited or repeated in other media besides the company's website. The examples you've cited above are a good start - I do not believe that any would be against the recreation of the page if such sourced quotes were included. But, when I look at the links, the Stanford ones look to be not too bad as far as sourcing (although those quotes also seem a bit trite to me and not necessarily worht preserving here), but the ones from the Vanderbilt address are just from a pdf without citation - those need to be better sourced to be included. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Was just wondering can you be a little less quick to change something on an article, I wasn't finish yet, Thanks★Deezy D★ (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sorry about that - I had a quick trigger for sure. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, even though you were quick to check it, I can understand with vandals and all★Deezy D★ (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work!

Thanks for beefing up Aerosmith. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure - that's a little pet project of mine to get good pages for bands. I hadn't noticed that Aerosmith was just barely represented here - and I had to fix that. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)