User talk:UDScott/2016

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.

Alice in Wonderland (1915 film)

You added the clean-up tag to the film.  If I may inquire, what about this needs to be cleaned up?  Granted, I elected to space the text as it appeared in the film—e.g.:

The Queen of Hearts,

she made some tarts,

All on a summer's day:

The Knave of Hearts,

he stole those tarts,

And took them quite away!

—as opposed to altering the spacing in order to organise the lines into a single line—e.g.:

The Queen of Hearts, she made some tarts, All on a summer's day: The Knave of Hearts, he stole those tarts, And took them quite away!

—is this the issue?  I thought it only proper not to change the text, but to display it exactly as it appears in the film.  Is there anything improper about this?

Yours truly,
allixpeeke (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the spacing of the quotes in this way - much like we do with poems or song lyrics - but rather the additional notes regarding the book as well as the look of the dialogue section. Also, the use of subsections within each character's section is not standard either. It is not that I think it looks bad - plenty of this actually looks good. But it does stray pretty significantly from our film template, and thus the tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair point that it does seem to stray from the template in that the template doesn't make specific reference to the inclusion of explanatory notes or the employment of subsections.  That said, the alternative to the subsections would be either of the following:  (A) The time-honoured tradition (also not technically codified by the template) of adding something to the effect of "[to Alice]" prior to each quote directed at Alice.  I felt that this approach, while appropriate under normal circumstances, would not work as well with the intertitles, and might even mislead readers into thinking that the "[to Alice]" is actually part of the intertitle.  (B) Adding "**To Alice." below the quote.  At first, as I was constructing the page, this is what I was doing.  But, the result looked a little off.  Ultimately, I opted to go with subsections because it allowed the text to flow with minimal interruption.  Take the Duchess's lullaby, for example:

Option A		Option B		Option C
[The Duchess's Lullaby] Speak roughly to your little boy, [The Duchess's Lullaby continued] And beat him when her sneezes. [The Duchess's Lullaby continued] He only does it to annoy, Because he knows it teases. CHOSUS. Wow!      Wow!      Wow!		Speak roughly to your little boy, The Duchess's Lullaby. And beat him when her sneezes. The Duchess's Lullaby continued. He only does it to annoy, Because he knows it teases. CHOSUS. Wow!      Wow!      Wow! The Duchess's Lullaby continued.		The Duchess's Lullaby Speak roughly to your little boy, And beat him when her sneezes. He only does it to annoy, Because he knows it teases. CHOSUS. Wow!      Wow!      Wow!

I doubt we will disagree that the third option is the easiest to read.  But, assuming we agree on that point, then, even insofar as we admit that subsections technically deviates from the standard format, the question stands: is it not better, in this case, to deviate from the standard model?  To put the question another way, the clean-up template says, "This film article needs cleanup"; but do we actually want to "cleanup" this article if doing so deceases readability, or ought we instead simply remove the clean-up template and accept the page as it is?

While we ponder that question, in the meantime, I've made an edit to the page which might be seen as a reasonable compromise.  I retained the text of the subsections but edited the format so that they are not technically subsections in that (1) no 'edit' button appears to the right of them and (2) they no longer appear in the TOC.  Thus, this edit retains the readability of my previous construction while making the TOC less clunky.  Since I really doubt that we're going to want to revert to options (A) or (B), I do hope that you will find this alternative agreeable.

Regarding the appearance of the dialogue section, I similarly find this the most readable approach.  Any other approach would have either (A) combined the lines into a single line, which would be problematic for the "You are old, Father William" poem, or (B) leave the Caterpillar's lines jutted out from Alice's lines, leaving the whole section looking clunky.  Again, as I was originally constructing the page, I was originally going with option (B), but ultimately chose option (C) for its increased readability.

Finally, regarding the additional notation, it has always been my belief that when a given quote has some sort of history or is derived from another work, an explanatory note is useful.  That's why, when I created the I Origins page, I included an explanatory note in the Karen section indicating that the line was a reference to a Platonic observation.  Since Alice in Wonderland (1915 film) is a derivative work, I felt it only appropriate to note where the lines were similar to, or directly lifted from, the source material.

While I still think the explanatory notes are a positive attribute of the page, I do not believe the page would be ruined by removing them.  Unlike the other deviations I have herein defended, I do not believe removing this particular deviation will make the page any less readable.  If any of the deviations listed are to be exercised from the page, I would prefer it be this one.  That said, though, I honestly don't think this deviation is one that needs be removed, either.

I hope none of that came off sounding petty or unreasonable.  I will agree with you that the page does technically deviate from the standard template.  But, I must ask, do you believe the page would actually be improved by making any of these changes?  If no, I'd humbly suggest we simply remove the clean-up template; but if yes, then I must ask, what do you suggest specifically?

Respectfully,
allixpeeke (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You have very reasonably defended your choices and I honestly believe that you may be right that perhaps it is best to leave this page as it is - this page seems to qualify as one that should be an exception to the template. That being said, I do not wish to see all pages deviate from the template and I think it is good that we discussed this case (and should other pages seek to deviate from the template in the future, I would hope similar discussion occurs). Thanks for your thoughts - I will remove the tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be interested in the Maxims of Chanakya and reviewing the pages for impossible and brain?

I restored a quote from Phyllis Chesler you previously restored on the impossible page. I think the quote from Michio Kaku for impossible page is on par with that from Baldwin and Bobrow on brain. I also noticed Peter1c tends to selectively enforce notability while using it as a justification for deletion; they were very quick to get rid of those quotes from Baldwin and Bobrow without taking the time to get rid of the quotes from The Ghost of Frankenstein and Batman the Animated Series. Afterwords they were more consistent in getting rid of all fictional quotes; with the notable exception of 2 quotes Orson Scott Cards Ender's series; which isn't something I can really chock up to chance with someone otherwise quite meticulous.

Also, thanks for your help and constructive advice; I enjoyed editing, but I'm going to be busy for a while. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

anon IP user ignoring WQ:LOQ

These past few days, the anon IP user 108.206.220.151 has been consistently adding quotes to episode on Arrow and The Flash beyond the 5 quote-per-episode limit for a 60 min show. I have reverted them multiple times and wrote on their talk page. But yet they have continued doing so. I would appreciate you looking into this and taking the appropriate steps. Cheers --SuperJew (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up (and for reverting the additions). I've protected the pages for now, so that anon users cannot edit it. We'll have to keep an eye on it for sure. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Undelete my page

Hi, prior to me coming back (or at least planning to be active again), could you delete my userpage, and restore it to the revision of how my userpage used to be before Pmlineditor deleted it? Thank you so much! --Golden_burg111 12:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an older version - I'm not sure what it looked like before. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

After I created the page, you don't see anything? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the only history I see is the renaming of the page - sorry, I don't see anything before that. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

See Special:Undelete/User:Atcovi (The page history was moved automatically during renaming.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way for my old userpage to be back? Maybe Special:Undelete/User:Goldenburg111? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pedro Martinez

I would like to start a page on Pedro Martinez how do i go about this? thank you. --Quoter1989 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Provided you have properly sourced quotes, the easiest thing is to start here: Help:Starting a new page to create a new page. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing I need to know how to add properly sourced quotes to the page. thanks. Do I need to do a google search or something? --Quoter1989 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Why?

What's the whole use in just copying Wikipedia's article? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not copy the whole article (or even the whole intro), but I added links and some information about this person that is significant and offers a bit more of her history than just one sentence (as the intro was at first). What is your issue with that? ~ UDScott (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue, I was asking. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember to block the spambots please. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your revert

I removed that category because there is no point in having a useless cat when Category:Artist stubs is already into Category:Artists, just like Category:People stubs is in Category:People. Why the useless cat? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not a useless cat - the category of Artist stubs only appears when the page is tagged as a stub. As soon as enough quotes are added so that the tag can be removed, the category will also automatically be removed. I added the category Artists as a more permanent category. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

So we can add that cat when its done being a stub.. I fail to see why we should not do this.. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

So feel free to do so - I just didn't want to have to monitor that page (and any others like it) so that if enough quotes are ever added, that it then would need a category added to it. I would rather just add the cat now and be done with the page rather than lose track of it later. I just usually do not rely on the temporary categories at all and treat them as if they are not part of the page. But have at it if you want to watch it. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit Wars with Eaglestorm: need for mediation.

Hi! As you may have noticed, my interactions with User: Eaglestorm have not been of a positive nature. Every single time, without fail, that I have made a contribution to a page that he frequents, he has wiped it out, usually accompanied by hostile and insulting remarks. I realize that he most likely knows the LOQ rules governing Wikiquote limits better than I do, but I have since been trying to operate within those limits now that I know them better, and his reaction has not changed. The latest incident occurred on the page dedicated to the film Spectre, in which he actually had substance for his complaint: only 13 dialogue quotes for a 148-minute movie. I corrected the page so that there were only 13 dialogue quotes and pointed this out (and that I had changed some quotes that were previously incorrect) and he simply deleted my contributions again, with his typically hostile response. By contrast, User: SuperJew was much more diplomatic and specific in correcting some of my excesses on other pages. I admit that I have a history of repeatedly reversing Eaglestorm's deletions of my work, but at the time I didn't fully understand LOQ. I'm just trying to be creative and learn the rules. This guy has treated me like a mortal enemy every time I inadvertently encounter him on a page, and I'm fed up with it. Would you please talk to him and ask him to back off a bit? I'd really appreciate it. --Alexandervonweimann (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Eaglestorm does not seem to act in a civil manner in many interactions with others - I have warned about this in the past and will monitor your interactions with this user going forward to see if any intervention is needed. In the dispute regarding Spectre, I must say that the additions you wished to make did put the number of quotes up to 17, so trimming was perhaps justified, although the accompanying snide remarks could have been left out. Should continued edit wars occur, especially with uncivil behavior, I will take action. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Alexandervonweimann (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ernest King Wikiquote page

• I have been trying to get a single image of the United States Naval Academy seal on the newly-created Wikiquote page for Ernest King and have no idea what I'm doing. I tried using the link to the page on Wikimedia, but it just gives red text and displays no image, but does show the caption correctly. I tried using the two provided image and thumbnail things provided by Wikimedia for use on another Wiki, but then the button for "Insert" just refuses to do anything. I'm lost at this. There are some other images of King from Wikimedia that I had wanted to upload with captions, but since I can't do even one there's no reason to try for others. Anyway. If you could do anything to help or show me how to do that properly, adding images to a Wikiquote page from what already is available through Wikipedia/Wikimedia, I'd appreciate it a lot. --AC9016 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at what I changed - you were close. When using an image from Commons, just use its name, rather than a full link. If you're still not sure, let me know. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I did, and your suggestion worked flawlessly. Thank you so much for your help! I did a lot of additional work and the page on King looks beautiful now. --AC9016 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem - and yes, the page does look good now. Good work. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock

Could you temporarily restore this page (or tell me the quotes that were in it)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Y Done just one unsourced Attributed quote Miszatomic (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Final Destination 2

1. You should not delete time references from film articles, as you have done here. They are analogous to page numbers in print book references. Removing time references from film articles is vandalism.
2. You should remember that an administrator has the same rights as an ordinary user when it comes to editing articles. When another user disagrees with your version, you should not resort to protecting the article on the grounds of "edit warring", as you have done here. This is a major abuse of administrative privileges.

—89.110.2.30 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Regarding your first point, time references are not and have never been a part of our film pages. And their removal is far from vandalism. While I understand how their use could provide a more accurate reference for a given quote, the use of them is a bit onerous for most users (who may not have a digital copy or DVD of the given film from which to pull the time info - and it is not readily available information to most). Second, the page is still open for editing, but only by an established user (rather than an anon IP). Rather than continue the back and forth of reversions (and since this page had already had similar disputes in the past), I chose to set this protection. I fail to see how requiring a user to register so that continued discussion can occur before allowing editing on the page to continue is "major abuse". ~ UDScott (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Regarding your first point, time references are not and have never been a part of our film pages."

It is a lame excuse. Restore the time references and unprotect the page. —89.110.8.110 12:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it a lame excuse? They are not part of our pages for good reason - such information (tied to a specific quote) is not readily available for most users. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Any electronic player displays timing. If a user does not have access to a film's copy, he can google "film name" + "subtitles". Time stamps are analogous to page numbers in print book references. When a user does not have a print book, he can find it in Google Books. —89.110.8.110 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to propose the use of them, I suggest you raise it on the Village pump. But when I tried to do as you suggested, the results were in a format that I could not open. I am also not convinced that such files are from reliable sources or are accurate. But in any case, such a proposed change to the film template is one that should be discussed in an open forum as I suggested (at VP). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Any subtitle format (such as .srt) is openable with any text editor (such as Microsoft Notepad, Microsoft Wordpad, Microsoft Word). It is so sad that you are so stupid. —89.110.8.110 17:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what is sad is that you have to resort to such invectives. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Wikipedia "administrators" like you are really government-paid censors, afraid of losing their jobs and thus avoiding any changes. But you are not to blame. All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. —89.110.8.110 18:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Believe what you will, but there is a process for introducing such changes - and it is not to just make the changes to a single page. Change is not the issue, but rather how you choose to introduce that change. And the point is not to convince one person, but the community. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A group of paid censors calling themselves "Wikipedia administrators" will resist the change simply because agreeing to such a change is of no potential benefit to them. Moreover, agreeing to such a change poses a risk to their censorial reputations and ultimately their incomes. —89.110.8.110 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And just what income do you think there is? None of us are paid. And if the community desires a change and it can be implemented, then it will be - the matter is not solely decided by admins. While this has been entertaining, I don't believe we are getting anywhere. If you really believe we are here merely to censor the efforts of others, I doubt I can change your mind. So all I can say is "Cheers! And happy editing." ~ UDScott (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia "activists" are paid too. So, all I can say in parting is "Cheers! And happy censoring!" —89.110.8.110 19:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: User: Eaglestorm

I found out recently that Eaglestorm has been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia as of 1-25-2016 for "personal attacks and incivility", and I can say that I have seen nothing but that from Eaglestorm on Wikipedia or Wikiquote. This user is never pleasant to deal with. In the days when I relied on anonymous IP addresses from various public computers, I was shocked by the sneering, high-handed attitude I encountered when I first ran into Eaglestorm. I even got into an edit war with him, and was deeply disappointed at the time (2012) by the apparent refusal of administrators to see how ugly Eaglestorm gets, how easily provoked to anger he is, and in fact the collective response was to threaten to reprimand us both.

I am not commenting here because I want anything changed about what happened back then. But look through the things written by Eaglestorm in their editing history, on their talk page, and you find someone who is NOT here to freely work and build an online encyclopedia with others, something Wikipedia, I have discovered, has a whole section on. Not here to build an encyclopedia. I have seen this user repeatedly call others names, revert edits with snide dismissals in the comments, and in the edit war I got into with Eaglestorm, he not only swore "When I'm finished with him, he'll wish he'd never messed with me", but looked up the IP address, tracked it to a school I attended at the time, and made this ridiculous, unenforceable, and distinctly creepy recommendation to (someone) about contacting the school about misuse of school property and internet access.

My whole point here is that I have personally found this user to be unpleasant, of ill will and bad spirits, and swiftly provoked to anger and hostility. I have seen this user display great arrogance and refusal to compromise. This January 25, 2016 indefinite block for personal attacks and incivility, and the usual open hostility that Eaglestorm displayed in the process does NOT surprise me even a little bit. The block, in my opinion, is richly deserved, long overdue, and should remain in effect permanently. Yet this same user's profile on Wikiquote has gone untouched and the user remains active. Is there something wrong with this picture?

Wikipedia and Wikiquote need dedicated editors, and Eaglestorm has extensive editing history of some 10 years. But this user is also hostile, unfriendly, and completely unwilling to accept criticism or opposition. I'm brand-new in establishing an actual account on here, but since I did that once or twice before this account may fade from use with me too one day. My point is, I am VERY wary and concerned about Eaglestorm. I do not want my coming here with a named account to be ruined by running into some self-appointed avenger who takes everything personally. Eaglestorm patrols a lot of pages- you can see that from the repeated edits over a period of time to several pages, including Down Periscope, which has been visited for 4 years. I can try to avoid him but can't guarantee it and it makes me a little nervous someone so mean and unpleasant is allowed to run freely on Wikiquote while he is indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia.

I can't tell anyone their business and am not trying to. I just want to share my concerns. Thanks.

--AC9016 (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the observation that Eaglestorm has a terrible history of incivility and obdurately refuses to recognize the problem, and I endorse the action taken at Wikipedia in January. Hoverer, let us not play loose with the facts AC9016:  It is not true that this user's profile on Wikiquote has gone untouched: Eaglestorm has been repeatedly counseled and warned about incivility, and has twice been temporarily blocked by the very administrator you are addressing here.

  Although Eaglestorm is one of very few contributors working diligently to mitigate a tendency towards bloat in articles on popular TV and film productions, and although the task can be very frustrating when it meets stubborn resistance, the habit of engaging in incivility and bullying while doing this work, if it continues, will only result in further blocks of increasing duration.

  Please do not feel intimidated by this conduct when you encounter it. Rather, if you feel you are being harassed in some specific new incidents, consider reporting the problem at the Administrators' noticeboard, with a specific, factual, and dispassionate account of the incident, at the time it happens and without reference to historical grievances – any needed administrative actions will take account of past actions, increasing the severity as may be appropriate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you for that response. My comments were not intended as critical of UDScott or of you, nor am I expecting some kind of settling of an old score. It isn't like that. Nor was I saying nobody on here has done anything about disciplining Eaglestorm in the past. All I was doing was just recounting past experiences with this user and what some of it was like at the time. No more. At any rate, while it is hard not to feel intimidated by such harsh and unfriendly conduct when you're just trying to tinker on a website, I see your point and will keep it in mind. I've managed not to really cross paths with Eaglestorm in 4 years, so maybe I'll just be able to steer clear of him. But if anything further comes up I'll do my part to follow the advice you gave. That is good advice indeed, good guidelines for what to do. Thanks. I appreciate it. --AC9016 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i'm not familiar with this person and this may be a sock of another guy who's had the terrible misfortune of messing with me before. Oh and AC0916, whoever you are, nice try. What's your sockmaster profile, BTW?--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Smallville

Hello, Scott. I would appreciate it if you would allow me to continue editing and adding quotes to the Smallville page. I am now a registered user to Wikiquote and would like to keep working on this page. I have been working on this page for about 4 months and would like to continue editing it without any interruptions. I liked how the page was turning out and would like to keep it that way. Unlock the page for me so that I may continue my work. - —This unsigned comment is by Wilmsd (talk • contribs) .

Adding the season 10 and 11 quotes is fine, but within the limitations we have set for such a page. The quotes from other seasons were very much in excess of these limitations and this is why they were removed. Yes, you worked hard to add them, but others had worked just as hard to edit this page down to a state where there were at most 5 quotes per episode. If you would like to add additional quotes, you will need to remove quotes to maintain that limit. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is there a 5 quote limit? I think that limitation is ridiculous and should be removed, as a page dedicated to a movie, TV show, or book should have as many quotes as possible for people to enjoy and read and would like to continue working on Smallville in peace. I was doing just fine until this happened. I think that it's great if a certain section or page has too many quotes, because that just shows you how beloved or successful that series or movie is and that more quotes should be encouraged. - —This unsigned comment is by Wilmsd (talk • contribs) .

Well, the issue is one of copyrights and the use of too much of copyrighted material. That's why these limits were set in place. See WQ:LOQ for more details. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I were to site my sources and give credit, would I be able to continue working on the page and adding more quotes? If that's the issue, then I could copy my sources and obey the copyright laws and standards while continuing to work on my page. Please, consider it because I would like to continue working on my page. - —This unsigned comment is by Wilmsd (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure you understand the issue - citing quotes is one important part, but so is the limit on the number of quotes permitted per episode. Feel free to add quotes, but only up to a maximum of 5 per episode. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand. However, I am still unable to edit the page and add more quotes due to it still being protected. If you could please, unblock it so that I can continue working on this page - —This unsigned comment is by Wilmsd (talk • contribs) .

Yes, I have now removed the protection. Thanks for talking it out. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The protection is now restored after it has become obvious that you do not understand or agree. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

PROD of Sienna Miller

I removed the PROD. While the first quote was not properly sourced and I removed it, I consider that the remaining quote is worth keeping. Obviously, please challenge me if you disagree.--Abramsky (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

CensoredScribe

Hello UDScott. Re [1], what bothers me most is that CensoredScribe is still not adequately citing sources, even though he's been asked to do so many many times before (and he knows full well it's lazy & rude to expect other editors to clean up after him). I think it would be helpful if you could give him an official warning on this matter (if it's not too much trouble for you), so he starts taking it seriously. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Need Help

User:Eaglestorm and have started to argue about making new changes in each wikiquote page i reason him and he didn't like the changes i made. I shorten the quotes and did follow the loq trim. Please help

ChanelQueens (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Name and "in sourced quotes" in the first line of the page results in much more visits, see the Statistics of Wikiquote

Hallo UDScott,

I like to show you here some figures from Page View Statistics. They reveal the strong growing amount of visits of the artist-page William Baziotes on Wikiquote in February 2016 - in contrast of the not growing amount of Max Beckmann over exactly the same period. The difference is the result of only six words: "in sourced quotes of the artist". I placed these sic words in the first line of the short introduction of the Baziotes-page (which you happily forgot to remove - so I was able to discover their difference in the Statistics of Wikiquote in visits of the two different artist-pages)

William Baziotes:
from 2015-07-01 till 2016-05-23 (11 months) Total views, 1.474:

• 2015-07-01 - 2016-02-23 (in 8 months) Totals: 536 (2 per day)
  
• 2016-02-23 - 2016-05-23 (in 3 months) Totals: 943 (10 per day)
  

So the amount of visits according to Page View Statistics grew from 100 % to 500%. I added 8 February 2016 in the first sentence of the introduction of Baziotes the six words "in sourced quotes of the artist". Of course it takes then some weeks before the change is noticed by the Spybots of the big Search Engines like Google and Yahoo...

Max Beckmann:
from 2015-07-01 till 2016-05-23 (11 months) Total views, 571:

• 2015-07-01 - 2016-02-23 (in 8 months) Totals: 394 (2 per day)
  
• 2016-02-23 - 2016-05-23 (in 3 months) Totals: 178 (2 per day)
  

So the amount of visits according to Page View Statistics did not increase at all. In February 2016 I also added in the first sentence of the introduction of Beckmann "in sourced quotes of the artist", but in the beginning of March you removed these 6 words, so they could not generate more visits for the Beckmann quotes.

The difference in the amount of increasing visits for Baziotes is considerable, I believe: from 2 to 10 per day!!
For me this growing amount of visits for Baziotes - just by six essential words in the first line - is very encouraging to go on contributing for Wikiquote. So I really hope I can convince you not to remove these six words any longer when I place them. I can imagine you also enjoy this fact of much more visitors for Wikiquote, just by six simple words in the Intro.

Another solution and even much better for getting found by the Search Engines would be using standard heads above each page in Wikiquote like: "William Baziotes, his sourced quotes". Such type of heads would present and promise also exactly what the content gives. No ly or false information, like other quote-websites do give for commercial reasons.

There are really many quotes-websites online with shit quality quotes and no sources at all. But they win the battle!! Because they give complete head titles for the search engines. Take for instance the case of the quotes of American woman-artist Helen Frankenthaler where Wikiquote appears in the Google as the number six when somebody search with these 3 words: quotes Helen Frankenthaler. You can verify it at https://www.google.com/#q=Helen+Frankenthaler+quotes

I really hope I can convince you with these figures and this little research. It is a waste of our energy to spoil all these possible visits because we ignore these possibilities.

all the best,
FotoDutch (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my pages

• https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Curtis_Yarvin/Other_quotations/Formatted_quotations

It wasn't a spambot page. It was a page with quotations formatted so that they can be pasted into Excel.—This unsigned comment is by Carlylean (talk • contribs) 02:15, 30 May 2016.

Apologies - I've restored it. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Spam" may not be the best description for whatever this stuff is; but like the article itself, in the words of the article creator: "This page was created with the primary purpose of serving as a comprehensive introduction to the thought of Mencius Moldbug, and with the secondary purpose as serving as a useful reference. It is not a collection of individually interesting quotations" [bold added]. I doubt that any of this stuff, including the article itself, really belongs here at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you be willing to revert DanielTom on Birth Control or what he agreed to on Donald Trump?

I would make the Donald Trump corrections myself, seeing as Daniel Tom said the ones about him were acceptable just not from him without a proper source. However, I'm afraid that would constitute edit warring until I wait exactly 24 hours from the first round of revisions. If you aren't comfortable with this request, than thanks anyways. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• I for one fully endorse DanielTom's removal of "hardly memorable quotes" from the Birth control article. The revert on the Donald Trump article may be debatable, as a partial re-edit would have been possible, but when faced with mass quantities contributions needing to be cleaned up, I must sympathize with just expeditiously clicking the Undo button. (Note that CensoredScribe's post here appears to be a bit disingenuous because, as far as I can tell, DanielTom has not expressly agreed to anything there.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would fully agree - I've been away from my computer most of today or I would have answered sooner. I actually agree with the trimming of your additions performed by DanielTom and I must confess that I am not sure what exactly you wish to revert - please be more specific with your requests, as it is quite dizzying trying to keep up with your additions, many of which i do not believe should remain. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I get your opinion as to whether my citation fixes are "subtle vandalism" or if is rather Daniel Toms uncivil and disruptive behavior warrants correction?

[2] I have a very long and sorted history with Daniel Tom, and although they normally have some basis for their reverts, this is a very clear cut matter of whether my recent citation fixes are correct or not, which I believe they are as every single style guide suggests ending citations with a period and my other grammatical fixes such as italicizing titles and using commas between entries (or periods in the case of the APA) are also near universally implemented. I've been copying their language substituting meat back for incompetent as I assume all editors are made out of meat, while incompetence is in fact a legal term.

Sorry for bothering you with this mess, I thought being a wiki gnome was welcomed, but I guess not. I wouldhave at least liked knowing what I did wrong from DT, but I guess I don't deserve that. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you talking about?? I'm afraid that in the blizzard of contributions, I am not able to keep up with what you object t from DanielTom. Please be more specific if you wish to ask a question. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Suspected criminals

A page that you have been involved in editing, Category:Suspected criminals, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Suspected criminals. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Superchilum (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Block

Hi. Have a look at the range-blocks that I just added, and feel free to change them as you like. It seems to be a vandal that has targeted certain pages for some time now. Would you consider semi-protecting the pages, or is range-block the way to go in this case? -- Tegel (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming this might be the same person or group as the already blocked range 69.178.192.0/21, I am afraid that (1) he will be back again using more ranges, but (2) the attack is broader than the handful of pages targeted in the last couple days. It is probably a good idea to semi-protect selected biographies of political persons for the duration of the current campaign silly-season, as there are many people who might like to deface them; but it will only mitigate, not eliminate, the impact of determined broad-spectrum vandals. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Urgent message

Numerous IP addresses continuously make unnecessary edits (and vandalism edits to boot) on the following pages:

Toy Story

Toy Story 2

Toy Story 3

Shrek

Monsters, Inc.

Monsters University

The Incredibles

...to name but a few, and they refuse to cease and desist, nor even explain their edits. I request that all those IP addresses be blocked for the maximum time allowed, and that all pages on which they have edited be protected for at least six months. WikiLubber (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm

This user is probably the most unpleasant one I have ever seen on Wikipedia or Wikiquote. I've read over dozens of his edit notes and remarks on his own page, and I've seen a disturbing degree of hostility, aggressiveness towards other users. I could cite example after example from pages he patrols as if they are his own personal territory and no one else's. Maybe he serves a purpose for Wikiquote by ruthlessly chopping down one Wikiquote page after another and forcing it to strict adherence to the LOQ regulations. But the harsh, automatically near-hostile speech he uses, over and over, is NOT needed nor should it be acceptable. I quote the user on Wikipedia who declined to unblock him this year, after he finally got himself banned on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is not your personal property where others should avoid you if they don't want to be insulted (and yes, you have engaged in all kinds of personal attacks, ranging from unfounded accusations of bad faith to outright insults, over the past few weeks). Since you cannot even see why your behaviour is unacceptable, much less credibly claim to change it, I cannot unblock you. Huon (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

None of this is any accusation against UDScott, not in any way. Nor is it suggesting that no action has ever been taken against Eaglestorm at times where it's been necessary. But if this user is banned on Wikipedia for the very reasons I mention, why is he allowed to roam free on Wikiquote- where he continues to use the same hostile language and treats pages as if they belong to him personally, once he claims them on his growing list of LOQ-regulated pages as part of the larger project by Wikipedia? Wikipedia and Wikiquote are not supposed to be run by assholes, which Eaglestorm, in my opinion, indisputably is. Again, there is no accusation or criticism of you, UDScott, in any of this. I'm just trying to express some serious concerns about a user who, it looks to me, has not learned any lessons from getting kicked off Wikipedia earlier this year for his hostility. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. --159.230.251.89 16:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Splitting series page into seasons

Hi, I was wondering what is the norms of splitting TV series' pages into separate season pages. How many seasons would warranty a split-up? --SuperJew (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There really isn't any hard and fast rule on this - in general, I would only consider it if the page became so large as to be unwieldy (much as we do for author's pages that become too large and we split out individual works onto their own pages). This usually only occurs if there is an inordinate amount of seasons (think 8+). I'm actually a bit disturbed that so many TV shows are having their seasons split into individual pages (unnecessarily so, in my opinion). To me, that just encourages adding too many quotes (limits apply to the entire TV show, not just season pages separately). ~ UDScott (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds a reasonable way. I'm asking since an IP recently split Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and it's only in it's 4th season. What would you suggest to do with it? Revert the split on the mainpage and nominate the season pages for deletion? --SuperJew (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable - except that rather than delete them, I might just make them redirects to the main page. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay I did that. Thank you --SuperJew (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Palindrome names

Hello UDScott! You deleted my work while I was adding more material. Now, this might be the largest collection of palindrome names in the world - with many languages, English also. How do You know whether people would be interested? Donald Trump's wife is from Slovenia; perhaps they'd like to search palindromic names for their grandchildren. One could compare languages, too. The references can be found in fi-Wiki, but they're in Finnish - not essential in this case. Please consult people who are interested in linguistics. --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The point is that this site is for quotes - and this list of names, while arguably an interesting one, does not include quotes. Perhaps such a list could find a home on another site, but it doesn't really fit with what this site is all about. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for information! Would Wikidata be the right place? If so, could You be kind and remove the names into that? I worked really hard collecting this material. And in the States there are surnames from all over the world. --Risto hot sir (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Quote on Grey's Anatomy

The reason I removed that quote from episode 19 of season 2, was because it was incredibly poorly transcribed, and to be honest I felt that a small note on George believing in karma was fairly generic. Yoshi876 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If it is poorly transcribed (and you know what is wrong with it), please feel free to correct it. As for whether or not it is memorable, I beg to differ - I think it is a nice reveal of some of George's beliefs that separates him a bit from the other doctors. But if you have another quote that is more memorable, feel free to replace it. If not, I don't see the harm in letting it remain. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Alan Rickman

Could you move the unsourced quotes that were on this page before it was deleted to its talk page, so I can see them? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the edit history for the page - you can find the previous quotes in the last version before deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)