User talk:UDScott/2014

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

Paul Blopel

Excuse me, could u tell me y ur just undoing great faith (not just good faith) edits of mine? The Dragon Emperor (talk)

I don't understand why you feel the need to add these tags. The listed quotes do provide a source and the quote listed as a caption for an image is also sourced on the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
A quote will never be used as a caption for an image on the page unless the quote also appears elsewhere on the page; the citation should be with that appearance. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


I already left this message before. Can you or another admin please protect my talk page. It is being met with vandalism again and I don't want to consistently revert the gibberish.

Additionally, please protect or semi-protect the following articles as they are being met with vandalism once again:

I would suggest heavy protection. I reverted them to before the vandalism began, but I would highly recommend that they be protected from all new users as most of the vandalism is being done by the same sockpuppets from prior. Reverting the edits only triggers more activity from this sockpuppeteer. I would suggest a checkuser again for all the most recent accounts that have vandalised these articles and my talk page as they are all likely one and the same. Please notify me when the protection has been made. Thanks in advance. - Zarbon (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

These need to be re-protected (perhaps indefinitely this time). ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Rollback Rights --~~Goldenburg111 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Can I create a childhood section there? --~~Goldenburg111 21:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, give it a try. The earliest section now on the page has its first quote dated from when he was 50 years old, so if you have enough quotes from an earlier time, feel free. But of course, if you only have a single new quote (or only a few), then you could also just add them to the "Pre-presidency" section. In any case, the recommendation is always to be bold. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you delete...

...this? (Thanks.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


What's the reason for moving the Unsourced information to talk page? --~~Goldenburg111 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

All quotes on the site should be sourced for them to remain. It's become standard practice to move any unsourced quotes to a page's Talk page, pending sourcing, rather than just delete them outright. This gives other users the chance to find a source and then move it back to the page once properly sourced. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Why aren't their any barnstars around? I was planning on giving you one :) --~~Goldenburg111 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bengali proverbs

What the hell was the point of removing the bengali proverbs page for being unsourced? The nature of proverbs are that they are passed down orally from generation to generation. Utterly moronic move on your part, anonymous guy. - —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

As with many other pages, if there are only unsourced quotes on the page, it will be deleted. Should you or another user find sources for such quotes, the page can be recreated. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Time for closure

Been over one week.

RFA presently at 66.7 percent.

Plus additional Comments.

Time for closure?

-- Cirt (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see you Supported. Nevermind then, I guess a different Bureaucrat will hopefully close it soon. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars

Aren't you a fan of Star Wars :D --~~Goldenburg111 19:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure - but I'm not sure what you are getting at. I was just cleaning up some of the disambig pages, formatting them or expanding intros where needed. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just trying to have fun. Not making fun of you or anything. --~~Goldenburg111 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries - I just wasn't sure if you meant I had done something wrong to the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, from pervious discussion  :), can I merge Doctor Evil into Austin Powers (film series), it seems their is no real discussion on merging the page. --~~Goldenburg111 20:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely - have at it! :-) ~ UDScott (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 Y Done How did I do? --~~Goldenburg111 20:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the quotes should be distributed to the page for the film from which they came. NO quotes should be on the disambig page (the page you placed them on), which instead is simply a page to direct people to the appropriate film page. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't looked into this page correctly. I think we should delete Doctor Evil since all the quotes on that page was on all of the films listed on the disambig page. What do you say? --~~Goldenburg111 20:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is the way to go, if all the quotes are already on other pages. Otherwise, I would have suggested (and you can use this in the future) to place them on a talk page, awaiting sourcing to the individual films. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks. --~~Goldenburg111 20:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Eaglestorm's edits on HIMYM

Hi, I noticed last time you interfered and calmed Eaglestorm down a bit. I'm sure remember the edit war we had and the block you gave both of us. Eaglestorm decided to keep one quote until issue is resolved. I agreed with this and started a discussion on the talk page. After giving him more than a week, in which I've seen him active, editing HIMYM, I restored my quote. Since then Eaglestorm has just continued on reverting my edit, deleting the quote and claiming that the matter has not been resolved, but making no attempts to discuss on the talk page.

Would much appreciate your help with this user, as you seem to have handled him before.

Thank you,

--SuperJew (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

could you...

...temporarily add me to the AutoWikiBrowser approved users list so that I can run a few tests on my sandbox? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tony Soprano

Delete it please. Tis a useless redirect

Actually, I don't believe it is useless. Should someone wish to find quotes from this character, it is appropriate to redirect them to quotes from the show in which he appears. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
but they deleted Goku and Tite Kubo links too. Duh! Taracka


I was thinking that we should have a wikiproject where members can take a job on Wikiquote to clean up different articles. I have been doing that for the past 4 days. What do you think? I can create Wikiquote:Wikiproject/Cleaner uppers!? --~~Goldenburg111 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

what about this project Scott? --~~Goldenburg111 21:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free - I've never set up any projects before, but have at it. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I should be more bold and stop asking if stuff like this is okay. I should just go for it. --~~Goldenburg111 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Another suggestion

What do you think of adding John Milton to the "Selected pages" list of the main page? It appears to be one of Wikiquote's best articles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Y Done - a good suggestion. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for the confusion, but I was actually thinking of Paradise Lost when I said it is one of WQ's best articles, and as the list of people is already quite large, perhaps even better would be to just add Paradise Lost to the list under "Literary works" instead. What do you think? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 Y Done - I like it. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

problematic IP

Could you have a look at this IP's contributions? He keeps adding the same repetitive links over and over and over again. Never listen to my warnings. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Still vandalizing. This guy needs to be blocked for a long time. Should I take this to the Admins' noticeboard? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello. Earlier today, you moved Divergent to Divergent (novel) in anticipation for a future film. While I don't mind that, was it intentional to not leave a redirect? I don't see any reason not to keep that as a redirect until the new page for the movie is created. Nick1372 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It was semi-intentional, as I assumed people who searched for Divergent would find the page for the novel. But I guess you're correct - a simple redirect is OK for now. Once the film is released and a page is created for it, the Divergent page should be changed to a disambig page. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I had in mind. Thanks. Nick1372 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Have you gotten my email? --~~Goldenburg111 01:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I did, but I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to - we've always had periods of vandalism. Could you be more specific about which vandalism you mean? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is these vandals that come from Zarbon's website. --~~Goldenburg111 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It's been going on for several years (although I would be hard pressed to nail down a specific start time). I think Mdd presented a nice summary at the bottom of this post. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect please?

I would like Template:Test5 unprotected until tomorrow since I need to make a few changes: Some interwiki and maybe external links to Wikipedia and a little addition of "spice" to it. --~~Goldenburg111 16:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 Y Done, but please let me know when you are finished with it. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am done with my additions, you may protect it now... --~~Goldenburg111 17:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


I really think we should have a bot who normally adds an "unsigned" template below any user who does not sign their signature. Do you think I should open a bot? --~~Goldenburg111 22:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

hi, what happened to me? --~~Goldenburg111 18:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not online much of the weekend. Feel free to give it a try - I'm not as technically savvy as others, so I don't know that I could help you much in the creation of any bots, but if you've got an idea, feel free to try it. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Stub Question

Does Arrow and Revenge (TV series) still count as TV Stubs they seem to have lots of quotes? Miszatomic (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right - neither look like stubs to me anymore. Feel free to remove the tags. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi UDScott, could you double check this request. I did notice some changes have been made to quotes, which exist here since 2006, but was unable to determine, whether or not these edits are constructive? -- Mdd (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a look and commented there. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Thank you, UDScott, for introducing some sanity into this whole "pictures" affair. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When ?

You seem to frame yourself as neutral in your comments at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Image_discussion_.28aka_Cirt_vs._Kalki.29.

Yet this is not borne out by history:

  1. You supported at Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki -- even when the user was actively refusing to be restricted to one account, which led to a community imposed restriction.
  2. You were the only supporter at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (2nd request).
  3. You supported at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (3rd request).

You stated there were times you have not agreed with this individual at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Image_discussion_.28aka_Cirt_vs._Kalki.29.

And yet I'm not seeing when those times have been?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Taking a break

I'm going to take a break from this site to focus on other quality improvement projects.

I'm glad that some of my views on image use on this website are supported by multiple other users at Village Pump, including:

  1. Jmackaerospace (talk · contributions)
  2. EVula (talk · contributions)
  3. Mdd (talk · contributions)
  4. Aphorist (talk · contributions)
  5. Macspaunday (talk · contributions)
  6. Nick1372 (talk · contributions)
  7. TreeRol (talk · contributions)

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thank you for your improvements to The People vs. Larry Flynt, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This Is the End

Content dispute?! ur protection of the paige seems more like a one-sided arguement. Unlock AND remove all that garbage on This Is the End

By the behavior patterns, this particular vandal seems to have been working through these accounts as well: BeansGolore‎ (talk · contributions), AdamWalshLives (talk · contributions) and‎ (talk · contributions) ~ Kalki·· 20:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Kalki, you could add those vandals to --~~Goldenburg111 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

1 week Block? - Sorry, but this should be an infinite block. It's pretty clear that this user is part of the Dragon Ball Vandals. This clearly falls into sockpuppetry, only vandalism account, and inappropriate username. Three reasons for an infinite block. --~~Goldenburg111 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC) I hope you know when to use rollback or not. Here, here is a simple answer. Use it for pure vandalism. --~~Goldenburg111 20:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I do know when to use rollback, thank you very much. I also know when to properly tag a page - which you clearly did not. Merely tagging a user's talk page with an indefinitely banned label does not mean that the user is blocked. This particular user is not currently blocked. The text this user left on his talk page is nonsense of course, but I fail how it could be characterized as vandalism. Should he actually vandalize other pages, I am sure that a block would follow - but for now, that is not the case. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
In response to "properly tag a page", I just figured it out about the 1 week block after creating the talk page, oh well, can't delete it. --~~Goldenburg111 21:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the first user is blocked for one week, but the second is not even blocked right now. Your use of the tags in both cases was incorrect. The length of the block in the first case is certainly debatable and whether or not the second user should be blocked as well is also debatable. But the point is that until a user is indefinitely blocked, the tag stating that this is so should not be used. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Gravity (film)

Just wondering, do you normally consider each of the bullet points to be individual quotes? If so, the four quotes by Sandra Bullock and three quotes by George Clooney plus the title card have already reached the maximum allowed quotes under the Limits on Quotations policy, since Gravity's running time is 91 minutes and LOQ's max for films is five per 12 mins. If it's not infringing, can I use this quoting format when I make my own article to quote another film? If this is a way to get around the restriction by setting them to single lines per character, I'd like to know how I can do the same for future articles I would put quotes into. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

First the easy part: yes each of the bulleted quotes under individuals counts as a separate quote. Now, the not so easy part: LOQ is not an accepted policy - you will note that it is only in a proposed state. There have been discussions in the past regarding relaxing the standards espoused in this proposed policy (to the point of allowing twice as many - see Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_39#Wikiquote:_Limits_on_quotations). At this point, I would use it as a guide, but would not strictly enforce it. The real guideline at this point should be the quoteworthiness of any quote - if it's not memorable, don't include it just to meet an artificial limit. The only place where I feel it is correctly applied at this point is with TV show pages, where having 5 per hour long show is probably about right (although there has been discussion about increasing the limit for half hour shows to 3). Sorry for a not very definite answer, but this topic has always been fuzzy and atempts to bring clarity to it have failed. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Harry Harrison Healings...

I thank you for fixing the links at Harry Harrison. I just awoke a few minutes ago, well refreshed from a much needed sleep, and checked in here to find what appears to be a new incarnation of an asinine troll-vandal assaulting the project in a new guise. I believe that you will find that Madelyn Maury O'Hare (talk · contributions) has all the appearances of being a new disguise of someone involved in a recent spate of trolling and vandalism. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 13:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see - I believe you are correct. Allow me also to express my happiness at your selection of Harry Harrison for the QOD. I haven't read his works in some time, but was pleasantly reminded of them when I went to his page. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I was very pleased to do a HH quote of the day also. He was another MAJOR inspiration to me many years ago, for many reasons, and a few of the currently "forbidden" aliases by which I sought to "infect" others with greater awareness of GOOD HUMOUR were actually inspired by characters in some of his stories... R. A. Lafferty was another author in whom there is MUCH good humor, though often far more complex and intricate forms of it than most people are accustomed to. So it goes. ~ Kalki·· 15:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, a good recommendation - I have only read a very little bit of Lafferty (although I have heard good things), but perhaps I will endeavor to find some to add to my backlog of books. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I also wish to thank you MUCH for recently creating the page for The Rules of the Game — I thought that a very auspicious sign, quite appropriate to current affairs large and small. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 15:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I have recently found myself watching more truly classic films - and it was a shame that this one was not yet represented on our site - truly one of the finest films ever made. And of course the irony of its title was not lost on me, given the way many things have proceeded on this site over the last months and even in the world at large. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


~ Dharma prevails. ~

I think I have done well at beginning the reestablishment of much of worth here in recent weeks, and feel it is more appropriate for me to begin giving open praise of others than it was in the past, where disgraceful allegations of disgraceful conduct were more easily asserted by the asinine. I have only just begun to give people various forms of appreciation which I have long felt constrained from providing. I wish to thank you for all your years of active contribution of material to this very worthy project, and was especially pleased by your recent additions of Children of Paradise and Bicycle Thieves. May coming days and weeks and months and years see a growth in appreciation of your work by many. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Kalki, much appreciation - and I believe you are correct regarding the reestablishment of a better relationship with the community (and I am quite happy about that as well - much can be gained here by your active involvement without having to spend time engaged in conflict). Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection 2

Can you please semi protect the MediaWiki Recent Changes text? It is quite annoying to keep reminding admins here to update the box. --~~Goldenburg111 19:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the issue? What are you asking admins to update? ~ UDScott (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
One was my bot request, and the second is that there is a current request for adminship. It's not up on the board. --~~Goldenburg111 19:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks. --~~Goldenburg111 20:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the info. But to be honest, I'm not really sure how to open it up to others. Perhaps one of the other (more technically savvy) admins could help. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, MediaWiki messages are automatically protected by the software. What we could do to open it up to editing by normal users is ship the content off to Template:Recentchangestext by moving the page, and then transclude the template with {{Recentchangestext}} onto the MediaWiki message. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks, I forgot that. I am an admin on several wikia wikis and forgot about that. But to be honest, I don't think UDScott nor any other admin agrees to this. --~~Goldenburg111 21:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
User:TeleComNasSprVen: I just rejected a request for bot that started more than a year ago and has not been payed attention since. I agree to your idea. --~~Goldenburg111 21:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
User:UDScott, please update the mediawiki recent changes text. There are no bot requests, just declined requests that were older than a year. --~~Goldenburg111 18:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks, but are you going to follow up on TeleCom's plan? --~~Goldenburg111 19:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Not likely - I am probably the least tech savvy of the admins - I am much more focused on content. Perhaps one of the others could take it up. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I would advise against opening it up to all users. Being the most heavily used of the system generated pages, it is just too attractive a target for vandalism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


Sorry for being aggressive above. I just got frustrated with your rollback. That's all :-) --~~Goldenburg111 19:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


Could you unprotect this for a few minutes? I would like to add the paramater title (for link titles, currently they can only be the same as to link target) and adapt interwiki templates accordingly. I'm neither a sockpuppet nor a new (Wikimedia) user, please have a look at my CentralAuth. FDMS4 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Y Done I've lowered the protection level - please let me know when you have finished with it. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 Y Done, thank you very much. Could you do the same with Template:Wikipedia? FDMS4 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
And BTW, the sense of all this can probably be seen here. FDMS4 (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 Y Done, Wikipedia template adapted. Now that I've made {{Sisterproject}} more flexible, I will probably make more interwiki link templates use it in the future. Again, thank you very much! FDMS4 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Hey UDScott. Please give DexBot the bot right, looking at Wikiquote:Bots. Don't see a problem with not allowing this bot to start. --Goldenburg111 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

People Cleanup

You recently put the "people cleanup" tag on my quote page ( that I just put up earlier today. I was looking at the page for "people cleanup" and I didn't really get what I had to do in order to get rid of that tag...

Quotes about football are pretty different compared to quotes from movies and stuff, no? What's the best thing to do in this case on my part?

Thanks in advance

ThiaGOAT (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)ThiaGOAT

The cleanup that is needed is basically for three reasons: (1) Removal of quotation marks; (2): Placing the author of a quote beneath the quote, rather than just before it; and (3) Removal of the use of a references section - the source should again be placed just below the quote. For an example, see the page for Zinedine Zidane as an example of another footballer. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot. I'll try to revise everything by the end of today. I appreciate the example, I actually used Francesco Totti's article style as the backbone for my own. Turns out that article needs cleanup too haha.

ThiaGOAT (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)ThiaGOAT

Hey, mate. I just finished cleaning up the article that I made -- following your instructions -- and I added a few quotes to the list, including making a new section for quotes by Thiago Silva. I removed the "people cleanup" tag, so hopefully you can verify to make sure that there are no mistakes with what I have done. Thanks!

Here is the link to my article:

ThiaGOAT (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)ThiaGOAT

No in-line links?

I noticed you reverted my use of in-line interwiki links on Gaudium et Spes, and someone at Wikipedia altered my link to here on the same page at WP from an inline one to the older larger ones. I had only begun using these, and had set them up as my default in some macro programs I use, because I believe they have some advantages, but will desist if most others seem to prefer the larger banners. ~ Kalki·· 01:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize - it wasn't my intention to step on your toes. I haven't actually seen the inline links used, and it was just instinct to change it to what I was used to seeing. Of course, that doesn't mean that the usual is the best way. My only thought on it is that the "usual" does have the advantage of setting apart the tie-in to WP from other links. At first, I even thought that there wasn't a link to WP because it blended in with the other links (although perhaps that is the intention). Perhaps we should solicit some other opinions, but in the end, I'm not married to one way or another. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talking with children

You're right. I've been definitely trolled, it all started from a simple spam-fight actually but it has been then messed up by some prior events. I had choose to quit it before my last message but then I wanted to clarify what did I actually mean. So, apologies for all this trouble but my polemic side is the key to troll me :/ --Vituzzu (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: in case you'd like to reply please poke me on any other project, I'll try to ignore my en.q watchlist for a while. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your formatting help at Targeted killing, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Undo Deletion

I was a really big fan of the serious sam series and upon opening the quote pages in my bookmarks i found it was deleted by UDscot. I was really hoping you could undo the page deletion because I do believe a lot of the quotes were memorable and connected to my childhood and such. Please bring the serious sam pages back.

What was the page called? I can't even find it in the deletion logs. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There was several pages dedicated to each of the games but I had just this one link left. Here's the link.
Ah, OK - I deleted it because it was tagged with a PROD tag (Proposed Deletion) with a reason being that the quotes were not memorable - examples included "Yeah, baby!" or "I love Bananas!" or "CRAP!". Refer to Wikiquote:Proposed deletion for more information on the process. I was not the person who tagged it, but as you'll see in the process, once a page has been so tagged for a week without any changes made to the page (or having the tag removed), anyone may delete the page, which I did. If you wish to recreate the page - perhaps with some more memorable content, you may do so. If you'd like to work with the older material and perhaps cut it down to something more worthwhile, I can restore the content to a Talk page for you to work with - let me know. But be warned, if you merely want to restore what was there, it will likely get nominated for deletion again. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If I had the OC I guarantee I would cut it down but with the pages gone I can't edit anything. If you could provide the old content or a way to obtain it I would be obliged to cut some of it down but I'd probably need quotes from all the different Serious Sam pages.

I've restored the deleted quotes to the talk page (Talk:Serious Sam The Second Encounter) Please take some time to cull out only the most memorable quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I had weeded out the Unoriginal but left most of the content and edited some lines to their reference's. It should be about right but if you think i need to shave it a little more just either tell me or throw a suggestion and I'll edit it more. Also You have to think that a lot of the quotes are old references to other things (some listed some not).

It's a good start, but it really needs further trimming - if you can get it down to less than 10 quotes it'll be in decent shape. Thanks ~ UDScott (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I can take out the conversation no questions asked but you can't get 3 whole games into 10 quotes. I love this page to death but if you turned 3 games into 10 quotes it wouldn't even count as its own page. Then it would probably get deleted for lack of content anyway.

If it's three games, then separate it into three pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just make 1 general page covering all three games besides it would be neater to wrap it all up into one. Also as it stands without unoriginal content and with the lengthy conversation it would be an acceptable standalone page that if need be we could add onto it.

quote order

In film pages, before dialogue quotes, shouldn't the individual character quotes be ordered (chronologically/by order of appearance)? I ask this because most of the time they appear in (what seems to be) a random order. (See, for example, Amadeus – and I can probably give you hundreds of other examples.) Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely - any quotes from films within a character or dialogue section should be sorted in the order in which they appeared in the film (same for TV shows and literary works as well where quotes should be similarly sorted). If you see instances where the quotes are not properly sorted, please feel free to correct this. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

request: art-images on the quote-pages

Hallo UDScott

Thanks for the image on the Pissarro page. I don't have any experience in placing images, tried several times but failed.

Is it possible you place more images of their art on the pages of [Pierre-Auguste Renoir], [Camille Pissarro], [Joseph Albers], and [Carl Andre]?

It is so dull and unattractive - just a page full of quotes. And they are visual artists, so images give a nice illustration to understand their quotes much better, I believe!

There are beautiful art images ones to find on WikiArt. But I don't know how to handle it.

all the best,

FotoDutch (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Y Done - perhaps you can use the changes I made as examples for future pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Marine Le Pen

"Far-right" is just a slur, doesn't mean anything. And "third-largest political party" is outdated: FN recently won the European parliament elections in France. That's why I left out that part from the lead. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually "far-right" does have a very real political meaning that I believe is relevant to a description of this or other people of that persuasion. But as for the size of the political party - there certainly could have been some fluctuation in party sizes (the point was to show that she represents one of the larger parties and not a fringe party), so I would concede this point. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The very real political meaning of "far-right" consists in making readers immediately dismiss the views of whomever is slandered with that label. The FN is a patriotic movement, which is "left-wing" on some issues, and "right-wing" on others. [1] Can you actually give me a good definition of "far-right"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I would refer you (and the reader of the page) to the definition provided on WP (and linked on the page): Far-right politics, which says: Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics that are considered to be to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They usually involve support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism, and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism.
While the label may have some negative connotations (even the term "liberal" is considered a slander to some in the U.S., despite its actual meaning), it does appear to be an accurate description of the views of this party. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New page

[2] Should be deleted, what you think? OccultZone (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Last Words edit wars!

Help! There is a user named WikiLubber (talk) who keeps reverting my last word edits because he said that they are "Vandalism", but it's NOT! I was just trying to make them more accurate, and all of those quotes are true on what happened! Please stop this user from doing anymore destruction on the "Last word" pages. When he said that he is reverting them, that deletes most of the content too! and I want him to stop it! Can you help me? 70Jack90 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit hard for me to tell if the additions are legitimate quotes - but I do agree that this is not vandalism. I suggest you both find a way to work out what the real quotes are and cease the edit wars (which are not helping anyone). ~ UDScott (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the Tuscan Sun

I just noticed you corrected one of my mistakes in recent edits of Under the Tuscan Sun, and I thank you for that. The page should also probably be moved to Under the Tuscan Sun (film), which requires an admin to do, because I had stupidly moved a version of the page there, before realizing that the present page was the older version. Thanks for the attention. ~ Kalki·· 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with citations

Hi. Thanks for the edits on the Arizona page. New on Wikiquote and just want to understand so that I can do it properly. You put a fix citation tag on the George Will quote. I'm assuming you would like the page #? Is that all. Before I created the page, I went to other geographical pages and attempted to put the citations like those other pages. I noticed on pages like New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and others, while some of the quotes had specific page numbers, others don't. Should those quotes on those pages also have a fix citation tag? Or is there something specific to the Almanac (perhaps that it's a periodical) that requires more specificity. Any insight you can give will be greatly appreciated. Also, could I simply link to the web address on the Almanac's website that has the quote? Onel5969 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

First, you're probably correct that quotes on other pages could be similarly tagged. But in the case of this quote, the citation of simply Baseball Almanac really isn't enough for someone to verify the quote. What would help would be the year of publication and a chapter number/name and, as you suggest, a page number if available. It doesn't always have to include a page number, but I would expect at a minimum to have the chapter number and year of publication for a book citation. Again, the idea is to provide enough so that someone could easily find the quote in the cited work and verify it. Oh, and yes, linking to the Almanac's website would also be good. Make sense? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely makes sense. Thanks. Just trying to make a contribution, but want it to be a valid contribution. One other thing, was a bit confused on your edit on Casablance (film). I thought Wikiquote was attempting to be comprehensive. You mentioned that the article was over the limit (I paraphrase). Is there some limiting factor to articles I don't know about? Entirely possible, being so new. Just looking for direction.Onel5969 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I was referring to Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. But I would also refer you to Talk:Casablanca (film), where the exception I mentioned is discussed. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


What was the content of this page? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

According to its introduction, "It is a compendium of nerd-related quotes, phrases, sayings, and jokes, made by celebrities and nobodies alike." It was {{Prod}} because none of the items were sourced. The majority were attributed to "Anon". ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Ningauble This page can be recreated if I add quotes by notable people? I think such pages needed. OccultZone (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A page might be created for quotes that are expressly about nerds or nerdines.

The original article consisted mostly of sayings the contributor thought were nerdy. That is not such a good idea because it is a subjective judgment used to characterize the quotes, rather than being the subject of the quotes. Compare the Idiots article, which properly contains quotes about idiocy, not examples of sayings that are considered idiotic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I know of a good quote, by Alex Jones:
"I'm telling you folks, nerds are one of the most dangerous groups in this country, because they end up running things, but they still hate everybody, because they weren't the jocks in high school, so they play little dirty games on everybody. They use their brains to hurt people. And I'm aware of them. OK? I see you, you little rats!"
[3] Maybe I'll create an article with it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


Hey UD, so how's you and Wikiquote been up? I don't think anyone realized I was gone for long haha. --~ Goldenburg111 23:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unprotected two pages at Wikiquote

Two pages was rudely protected by one of these vandalizing users. Can you help to unprotect these pages: Fictional last words in animated films and Last words in Disney animated films? That, because of that bad vandal, WikiLubber. -- 16:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To me it looks like the protection of these pages was definitely warranted, given the continuing edit wars. Can you answer one question: why do you feel that the addition of quotes to these pages constitutes vandalism? I am inclined to allow the addition of the new quotes and then to continue the protection. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
A majority of those quotes were vandalized (too much added emphasis; some were even incomplete) and would take a long time to fix. But more importantly, those pages should never have been made in the first place. "Famous fictional last words" does not seem very relevant at all. We have plenty of pages of the movies/TV shows in which those quotes were said. By the way, that wasn't me you were replying to. That was one of the vandals who is only attacking me by calling me a vandal when I was trying to un-vandalize these pages. WikiLubber (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the page should exist is a separate question - it does exist and there are already other quotes there. I don't see the harm in adding to what is already there. If you feel the page should be removed, then nominate it for deletion and explain your reasons there. Otherwise, continued edit warring does no good for anyone. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Quick question. How do you nominate a page for deletion? But you do not have to reply here. You can respond on my talk page. WikiLubber (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear UDScott,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!


I just noticed you active here: I was late making a selection for the present QOTD, and the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/September 10, 2014 will have to be moved into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/September 10, 2014 by an admin. ~ Kalki·· 01:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah sorry - I was watching a film (The Stranger (1946 film)) and jumped in to expand on one of its quotes - and then promptly left. I didn't see this message until just now. It does appear that someone else helped already though. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

PROD of Npk Twice

I would have speedy deleted it. Noting that "no quotes" is a commonly used speedy deletion reason but is not listed at the cases for speedy deletion (nor is "spam"!), I wonder if a general policy discussion about this type of page would be useful. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly considered it, but my thinking was to give the user a chance to add some quotes (realizing that it is not likely for it to happen), since had just created the page a short time before my tagging of the page. But to your larger point, yes I would like to add "no quotes" as a reason for an SD. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ron Klain

I appreciate you intervention to make the article up to standards! __meco (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you think you could add a reciprocal link at Wikipedia. I can't. __meco (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, will do. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


In this article some unnamed user has deleted the lead section saying that it is copy right material. I have taken it from the Wikipedia article lead as is the accepted practice here. Can you please see that the lead par is restored? Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

About a certain IP user...

This IP ( is belittling me while undoing my good faith edits to Caddyshack. Regardless of why he made his edits, to make matters worse, he made an outrageous claim in his edit summary that he knew about my personal information. I want that edit summary removed (and let it apply to any future edit summaries that reveal personal information), lest it goes public. And I think he should be blocked indefinitely, and that Caddyshack be protected from IP users. WikiLubber (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

But more importantly, I request that I close my account here. This has caused nothing but trouble. Plus, it takes away too much of my free time. And I request that all my pages be blocked from being edited indefinitely, lest anyone tries to claim ownership of my account WikiLubber (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Master (Doctor Who)

Would you protect this article? There is long term edit warring. Thanks OccultZone (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "UDScott/2014".