User talk:UDScott/2018 part 1

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.

Help with my user page

Can you help make this edit (Difference between revisions of "User:Just A Regular New Yorker") look like the rest? You'll know what I mean when you see it. I tried making one of those tabs that are on the side of user pages and this was as close as I got. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I am definitely not the right person to help with this (I am not a tech-savvy admin for sure), but it appears that if you change [[File:Mistery stub.svg|Mistery stub]] to [[File:Mistery stub.svg|45px]] it will look better - pretty close to the others. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This helped a lot. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Years

DanielTom many times has "corrected" my edits, 'cause the years are "too exact". I've noticed that You create new categories of the years of death, but that takes time, of course. Many 1960's and 1980's years are still red. If DanielTom keeps on disturbing, somebody must write the years again. Is that wise? And Ningauble has changed some "People from" -categories. Would "Born in" be better? - the people move all the time to other states. --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) - You still haven't answered what it means to be "from some state"? --Risto hot sir (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It is very true that "people move all the time to other states." This is why I think categorizing people by states, provinces, and other granfalloons is irrelevant to Wikiquote's purposes and is often misleading as well. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Where a person is born is the only fact we know for sure, everything else is speculation. In some cases, like with Obama, the state where he made his career, can be mentioned also. The people want to know who are born in the same state - it's not irrelevant.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Voting after vote closes limit expired

Hello, [1] a user voted today even though the vote limit expired yesterday. Votes are not being closed on schedule. But I just want to know if votes can be cast even after the time limit in case the voting has not been closed. I am new to this and want to clear it up. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Haven't tools (not HotCat, only CoolWife) to create categories. Wanted categories: 1986 deaths (24 persons), 1965 deaths (16), people from South Dakota (9) and people from Hawaii (7).--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

First, you can enable HotCat in your preferences (under gadgets). Second, you don't need it in order to fix this - another way is simply to click on the red link and then create the category by giving it a category (for example, to create 1986 deaths, click on that red-linked category and give it a category of 1980s deaths). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You're a good teacher! --Risto hot sir (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just one correction: when you click on the red link, you must add the category, not just the text. For example open the 1986 deaths category and add this [[Category:1980s deaths]]. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Finns

Hello! I just wanted to see all finns together - like all new yorkers are. --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

But that category is redundant - when they already have something like Finnish politicians, then they already have the category Finns implied. It is redundant. Finnish politicians are contained within Finns. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

OK! --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Partridge Family

Thanks for adding categories, a pic, etc. to The Partridge Family. Hopefully I got the formatting right. I had it wrong in my first edits because I copied it from another article which apparently was formatted incorrectly. But then I found Wikiquote:Templates and Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows so tried to follow that. Thanks again! Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you marked it as a stub. I tried to keep the introduction short because the formatting guidelines said to avoid trying to reproduce Wikipedia. How long should the introductory (pre-quote) part of an article be here? Or is it a stub because it has few quotes? Thanks again for your help! Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I marked it as a stub because there were only quotes from one episode. That's not a bad thing (there are plenty of stubs on the site) - that just means that further quotes are expected, from other episodes. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hazel

I started an article on the TV show Hazel. I wanted to add this pic to the article, but I'm not sure of the best way to do it. Any advice for me? Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess you haven't been on in a few days--hope you're doing well! In any case, I found a pic on wikicommons I used. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry I forgot to respond - but you found your way. We only use images that are taken from wikicommons (and do not directly upload images to our site). ~ UDScott (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Boi13414413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has repeatedly vandalized. Please block him before he does it again. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Kalki has just taken care of it. Thanks anyway. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

'Quotes' in the Intro

Hello UDScott, - I understood! I shall remove the rest of 'Quotes', which I have placed in Intro's of many artists. All the best! FotoDutch (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional Edit Conflicts

• To UDScott: I am engaged in a second edit conflict with WikiLubber, this time over some dialogue on the 1997 movie Liar Liar. I added some italics to one section of dialogue after reviewing the scene in question, and determining as best I could that the italics better depicted the emphasis Jim Carrey's character put on certain words. WikiLubber absolutely refused to even consider this and has undone my edits twice now, backing his actions with nothing but his opinion. I have tried to be reasonable, but both times I have clashed with WikiLubber, it seems that he regards his opinions as being just as good as actual regulations on this site. I'd like you to intervene on that page. I cannot seem to find a way to work things out with WikiLubber. Frankly, he seems to patrol pages he regards as "his" and works to remove anything he personally doesn't approve of. Any assistance you can offer on that page would be appreciated. --AC9016 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a connected question I have. See, one of the several areas where WikiLubber and I disagree is over capitalization and italicizing in dialogue. That is, scene descriptions. The [] brackets either go inside the italics marks, or outside them. Does Wikiquote have regulations on that? And, if there's a line of dialogue describing action in a scene, like, [Opens the glove compartment], is that first letter of the description 'sentence' to be capitalized, or not? Does Wikiquote have any official regs on that? --AC9016 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

---The main issue of the conflict seems to be getting resolved between the two of us. I am still curious as to official site policy that I asked about, however. --AC9016 (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There really is no consensus on such details, although I can give you my (non-binding) opinion: I usually put the brackets inside the the italics marks and I usually do not capitalize the first letter inside the brackets. But as I said, there really are nor rules on such details. I certainly would not spend time arguing or fighting about things such as this. As for the behavior of Wikilubber, there have been numerous conflicts with this user in the past - I do hope you have been able to work out your differences, but if anything flares up, do not hesitate to ask for help from an admin. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There's not? Huh. I assumed there was. However, since I trust and respect your opinion on these matters, I will adopt your practice of placing the brackets inside the italics marks. And I agree, it isn't really something to fight over.

As for WikiLubber: So after a brief calm, the fight is back on. Same deal as we had on the Mulan page. Honestly, I do not see what makes everything a federal case with this guy. My actions in editing these pages aren't meant to pick fights. I try to follow the rules. But WikiLubber seems eager to fight if someone edits a page in a way he doesn't approve of. I can almost understand being too strict about enforcing site regs; at least those are REAL. But I cannot find any proof that WikiLubber is enforcing something other than his opinion. I am not surprised to learn there have been "numerous conflicts" with this user in the past. He seems to honestly believe he's right, but again, his actions seem largely backed by his opinion and nothing else. --AC9016 (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It's continuing. I would like to ask for an admin to intervene. I apologize fully for my role in this latest edit war, but this and my past interactions with WikiLubber strongly suggest an argumentative attitude and a willingness to treat subjective opinion as being as good as official policy and fact. WikiLubber and I have clashed twice, and on neither occasion has WikiLubber been even remotely willing to compromise. I'm trying to make the site better, but some people only want that if it's their way. --AC9016 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Posted on WikiLubber's talk page, asking for a truce between us. He deleted my entire address to him without a word in reply. I think that says plenty, all the same. --AC9016 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Matshona Dhliwayo

Hello, I wan't to know why they are going to delete this post, I was paid to do a wikiquotes pages to this famous writer, he is very skilled and wan't to show his quotes to the world. Thanks - —This unsigned comment is by Juanca1996 (talk • contribs) .

Feel free to make an argument at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matshona Dhliwayo, where any user may add to the discussion on this page. The reason for the nomination was that this person appears to lack the kind of notability we require at the site. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Help With New Page

I just made this page in a haste. It definitely needs work, and I was hoping you could help by adding new links and content. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hello, UDScott. I was wondering how I should cite the sorces of the content I added on an article, in this case Wilkie Collins. In many cases, I have just added the title and the link to a Google books version of the source book as I usually do on Wikipedia. I have also used secondary sources of other notable or scholarly authors to prove the quote's notability.

However, there seem to be multiple policies including WQ:CITE and WQ:S. The latter one is however a proposed policy. But even ignoring the other policy WQ:S, WQ:CITE seems to have multiples styles of citation. Can you please advise properly citing sources in my particular case including secondary sources? Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but can you please respond to my question UD. I don't want to make the source details too long. I believe it's urgent for a better format. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There really is no standard way of citing sources. Some prefer more elaborate ways and others prefer simpler approaches. But it should have enough information that one could verify the quote is so inclined to do so. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, it's good there is some freedom to cite in the format you want. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Policy Question

Does Wikiquote have an official policy regarding user pages like this? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You can review Wikiquote:User page, but I don't really see an issue with the page as it stands. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Question on talk page

Dear UDScott, hi there! It's nice to find a fellow film aficionado, especially film noire. Thank you for contributing so much in the film "department" and preserve those quotes for posterity. I wanted to ask you if you could take a look at my question that I posted here. You will see there that I ask about the suitability of organizing quotes according to themes instead of doing so chronologically. I understand that the more usual practice is to do so chronologically, but I would be interested to see if at times a theme-based approach could be also appropriate. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 06:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've answered there. The issue is that the selection of such themes and the quotes that fit them is inherently NPOV. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Prague

Good morning! I'd like to create the category People from Prague, but what could the main category be? Kafka, for example, wasn't a Czech.--Risto hot sir (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Although Kafka was born in what was then called the Kingdom of Bohemia, it was also known as the Czech Kingdom and eventually became what is now the Czech Republic. I would place this category under Czechs (which is how Wikipedia does it as well). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Johnny Test

Am I correct in assuming that this category should not exist? It seems too specific, and unnecessary since the article Johnny Test fulfills the purpose of this category. If you agree, I would appreciate if you voted here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Mistake

Hi! I wrote "Frankurt am Main" instead of "Frankfurt am Main". Could You please please correct?--Risto hot sir (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Where is this? What page? Sorry - I've been offline with power outages for quite some time. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

A nice person corrected that already!--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Koavf

Can you please close this? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Cities

Hi! Is it OK if I regard Los Angeles as Los Angeles County - the smaller cities might not be worth categorizing. San Francisco and Boston are more difficult; should it be the metropolitan area? New York means now the State of New York, Buffalo should maybe also have its own category, but that would cause a lot work 'cause there are about 1000 New Yorkers at the moment. France surprises: nearly all notable people seem to have born in Paris!--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Japanese poets

Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The voting is history, and no one has supported the deletion of these poets.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Silence does not mean disagreement. The vote is not history, seeing as it has yet to be archived from the Village Pump. You are the one who so desperately wanted a vote, and I am helping you by bringing it directly to the attention of the administrators. Furthermore, no one is saying that these poets should be "deleted". The discussion is about whether or not the poorly made pages that are all a possible copyright violation, are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, are all from one source, and all clog up this category, should be deleted. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Are the quotations from Top Gear (646 000 bytes) from one source? Copyright violation?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That article is to long. However, it does not take the place of the show. Copying a book word for word, does, as it makes buying the book unnecessary. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Haven't wrote those Japanese poems for a long time - and if Wikipedia or Google do not know these poets, who would buy the book?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is about the 102 articles that you already made. As for your second point, please clarify. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, people may not want to see Top Gear, 'cause nearly everything of it can be found at Wikiquote.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not even remotely relevant to the topic at hand. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Some readers maybe want to buy Hoffmann's book if they get information of it. Do you think it will be a bestseller?--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If you received written permission from Tuttle Publishing to violate the copyright for the sake of advertising, than you may post a copy of the written permission to the talk pages of all 102 articles. Whether, or not that makes the articles spam, and thus eligible for speedy deletion can be discussed after you have done so. If you have not received written permission, than you have no business to try on your own accord to make this book a bestseller by violating the copyright. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't understand irony very well. Do the same permission job with Top Gear, please! Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt. (Horatius)--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You don’t understand reality very well. A single article does not clog up whatever categories it is in. 102 articles is a different story. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing

The user User:Jedi3 is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source. Or making up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

He falsely keeps saying I'm censoring him when all I've done is remove those quotes which arenb't notable in any manner. Not those which are notable and i've preserved many of the quotes he has added. also removed the subsection of my complaint here. He himself censors me here and here in the past.

I've warned him several times including here, here and here. He doesn't listen and has removed my comments several times from his talk page.

Not to mention this person has also insulted me by terming me annoying after another user called me so, besides also calling me a vandal, when he himself can be indicted for edit-warring and vandalism. please block this user. I've been trying to cooperate with him, but it is clear he only wants his ideology imposed here. Their is no bar on any person of any ideology, even though Wikiquote is about neutrality but he doesn't care about anything and is being unprofessional. and it is clear he doesn't care what he does to get his edits here at all costs. Please block him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations to mask the continuous edit-warring and censorship and vandalism by this user. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If I'm making "poor excuses", then what have you been doing with your blatant false claims? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MonsterHunter32

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) doesn't care if he gets blocked, he only wants me to get blocked, even if he gets blocked too, he said this here, that is why he is continuously continuing his edit-warring despite warnings because he believe that will get the both of us blocked. Since he is not a content contributor, but only is here to follow my edits and revert them, because he thinks I am "biased", as he explained many times, for example here he says: "I am constantly monitoring him...".

First he started nominating several articles for deletion, after this didn't work, he is now edit-warring to censor quotes I added. Despite his constant edit-warring he is refusing to move censored quotes to talk and to discuss them in any reasonable ways (his poor excuse is that his edit summaries are enough discussion).

For example these two quotes i have attempted to discuss with him, but he either refuses to discuss it, or continues editwarring against consensus. That is why other users have called him extremely disruptive, because he is continuing the same behaviour for days and weeks and refuses to discuss in any meaningful way, claiming his edit summaries are "enough" discussion.

• At that date, the Mohammedan conqueror, Mahmoud of Ghizni, crossed India; seized on the holy city of Somnauth; and stripped of its treasures the famous temple, which had stood for centuries--the shrine of Hindoo pilgrimage, and the wonder of the Eastern world. Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares.
  • THE MOONSTONE, A Romance by Wilkie Collins

• Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers.
  • Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, ch. XVI

Can the following minimum be applied:

• All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) must at the very least be moved by him to the talkpage with reasoning for the deletion, as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept. This has repeatedly told to him by me and other users (like @DanielTom:), who have also asked him to stop being extremely disruptive.

You have warned him here and said that you are going to block MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) if he continues his edit-warring, and he is continuing after your warning, which he chooses to completely ignore. He should have been blocked a long time ago for his censorship and vandalism and even more so for his refusal to seek consensus and collaborate with others. His vandalism and edit warring show a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views.- --Jedi3 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not have the time (nor the inclination) to try to understand the depths of this conflict between the two users, but two things seems evident to me: I agree that prior to removal, since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement. I ask that you both find a better way to resolve your differences and use established protocols rather than to continue to edit war. As I stated on both of your talk pages, in the absence of civil behavior, you will both be blocked (no matter who is ultimately deemed correct in the original dispute). Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

UDScott, this means, if I understood you correctly, that the following minimum is now valid and must be observed:

• All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.

Regarding your second point, I have attempted discussion with him many times, as you can read on the talkpages. But a bare minimum should be that the above point from Template:Remove is observed, which should then be the basis for further discussion. Otherwise he will just continue his edit warring, with poor excuses like that his edit summaries are already "enough" discussion, and continuing his uncivil behavior, as just now observed when he ignored your warnings. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been trying to implement the minimum point that was agreed to. But MonsterHunter just keeps on reverting and edit-warring, hoping that by his behaviour I will also get blocked. But MonsterHunter refuses to even discuss, claiming that the mass blanking of different quotes from different authors from different articles is justified because he "already gave the reasons in the edit summary", refusing to give full reasoning for each quote on the talkpage. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If he doesn't even abide by the bare minimum that was agree above, how can any reasonable discussion and collaboration with MonsterHunter32 take place? Other users have already said that he is being "extremely disruptive". It is plain to see he is going to continue his edit warring with the hope to get both of us blocked. In the light of his refusal to abide by the bare minimum that was agreed above, and his continued ignorance of your warnings, what else can be done to resolve the situation? What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion? --Jedi3 (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

How is anyone supposed to cooperate with an edit-warring vandal like Jedi3 who keeps lying, denying, making up claims and at the same time doesn't stop edit-warring? I don't want anyone to get blocked. But it is clear you'll keep lying and won't stop edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This person Jedi3 keeps on claiming "censorship". However, I have nothing to censor about them nor I did. All I said was they aren't wide-reported nor relevant or notable. He has never been able to disprove this. I've already explained that I won't remove any of his edits which are relevant. Also he keeps on falsely calling them poignant or witty despite me already explainng to him at Talk:Somnath temple that his quotes aren't even near to what he claims.

This is aside from the fact that especially a user merely calling something as notable or poignant or witty doesn't make it notable. Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Anyone who reads a dictionary can understand he's making it up about any of his edits being poignant or witty etc.

He needs to be blocked for his multiple false claims including the other instances of lying and censorship which I've mentioned in the section before. And talking about warnings, Jedi3 knows edit-warring is not right. He still did it many times in the past. I tried cooperation with him many times, but it is clear he doesn't want any "cooperation", only what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 has started edit-warring again. See his recent edits at his user page. it is clear he doesn't care that edit-warring is wrong no matter what. It is clear he won't stop and is using it as an excuse to do what he wants. Please block him as he's not interested in contributing to Wikiquote. He has reverted my edits at 6 articles recently. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I tried to get you both to move to more civil behavior and to cease the edit-warring. Instead, you have both continued. As such, I have blocked you both for a week. Please use this time to reconsider your actions and plan to work better together in the future. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

82.118.230.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This anonymous user added a spam page advertising his company. When I marked it for speedy deletion, he removed the speedy deletion notice, and proceeded to add more to the article. Please block him. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 11:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

130.185.239.34

130.185.239.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This anonymous user has added multiple articles that contain only advertising spam with no actual quotes. Please block him. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 won't stop edit-warring

Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revrt is a revrt wheter partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. It is clear he has no intention to stop disruption and edit-war. I haven't opposed any dialogue, but he should stop his edit-warring. But it is clear he won't. Please block him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have complained about him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. Please take actiona against him for his continuous disruption and edit-warring and bad-faith as well as false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32

Other editors and me have previously told MonsterHunter32 many times that the following rule based on Template:Remove should be strictly observed by him. You have also previously agreed with this:

• All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.

This really is the bare minimum that must be enforced. If MonsterHunter32 as a rule continues to refuse to do this, I don't see how any meaningful discussion of the deleted quotes is possible at all.

Please note that this was asked to him dozens of times, and dozens of times he continues to ignore it.

Can you please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes this? He has been told this dozens of times by multiple users, but I will notify him again about this on his talkpage (my last notification was promptly deleted by him). If he starts edit warring again without observing this rule, he should be blocked, or at least the page be protected.

Please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You said, I agree that prior to removal (by MonsterHunter32), since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Observing this rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:

• MonsterHunter32 has done blanked and censored dozens of quotes, most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary)
• He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
• MonsterHunter32 has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
• MonsterHunter32 has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged religious beliefs, using religious or political smears against me and others (attacking others like Daniel, or attacking Kalki because of his vote [Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion#Hindu–Islamic_relations]). As Kalki has said in one of the deletion nominations it seems that MH is acting "because the creator of the page is disliked" by him.

MonsterHunter32 as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that he was wrong, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. Discussion with someone who as a rule and always refuses to make the slightest concession that he might be wrong, or that others may have different opinions than him, is becoming a waste of time. Maybe even worse are the misrepresentations, dishonesty and personal attacks.

This is what other editors have said about MonsterHunter32:

• "I believe MonsterHunter32 is being extremely annoying and disruptive."

• "I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer."

• " I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. "

• "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...."

• "Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ "

• "I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote." (in response to MonsterHunter32)

• "No more of this time-wasting dispute here. I don't want my talk page to be used to call people vandals, liars, etc..... "

• "Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). "

• "and IF you revert this again you WILL be BLOCKED."

• "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes ... and wikihounding him. These are very reasonable concerns. .... If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him."

• "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "

• "I am sick of you trying to drag me into it. Never bother me again, about this or anything else. If you persist, I will take this to administrators and you can explain it to them. Leave me alone. "

• "if you keep this up you will be blocked"

I have attempted to solve it with discussion with him, but by his refusal of even the most elementary things, like giving full reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage, he is making it extremely difficult. What really is needed, and I asked many times for this, are comments from other users on the quotes. Please see Talk:India#Summary_table for my latest attempt to ask others for comments.

Ultimately, I agree with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard:

• "If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.)

Please let me know if you too agree with this.

Wikiquote is not prepared to handle persistent, disruptive editors like MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who by his own admission is "constantly monitoring" me, attacking me for alleged religious bias or my alleged religious beliefs, and reverting all my additions with poor excuses that in most cases he refuses even to discuss. It cannot be in Wikiquotes interest when such editors can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with censoring and blanking quotes. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's disruptive edits

What does User:Jedi3 hopes to achieve by repeatedly complaining instead of any actual cooperation? When I discuss he either abruptly leaves or keeps on repeating the same things. He keeps on edit-warring over and over and even started edit-warring right after User:UDScott block on him expired.

All of the "complains" of his based on poor fact- reading and hiding the truth again. Oh he doesn't mention some of the comments made by other users about him:

• User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claiming Template:Remove doesn't allow for removal of quotes and mandates moving and discussion. But I found out he hasn't read it properly. Templat:Remove itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. It says: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked.

• While Jedi3 is talking about "comments against me", Jedi3 forgets User:Kalki has criticized his behavior as well.

• What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.

He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.

• He has also made some utterly false claims of "blanking", even though my removal of his quotes didn't involve more than 1 or 2 quotes and removed only a small part of the article. Some of his utterly false claims of "blanking" are here, here and here.

• While User:Jedi3 talks about "Bare-minimum", he doesn't stop to the do the most disruptive thing: Edit-warring. What's more he resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7].

• As earlier mentioned after UDScott blocked him for a week, 'he resumed edit-warring right after the block expired. See here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion.

• There is nothing wrong in checking another editor when they are being disruptive like User:Jedi3. And what I actually said was me categorically proving I never censored him. I was checking whether his edits are non-notable and non-memorable. "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."

• He claims I "refused to discuss". This despite me discussing at Talk:Somnath temple, Talk:Aurangzeb and Talk:India. At all of those talk pages my comment is the latest. You can check them.

• I already suggested at talk:India, let's discuss all quotes one by one at the relevant article talk pages. He refuses to do so.

• Jedi3 keeps on smearing and making false allegations of "censorship" just because I disagree with many of his quotes being relevant. That too me telling it plainly I have only removed non-memorable/non-notable quotes: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."

• He says I'm done numerous "personal attacks" against User:DanielTom and User:Kalki. I never committed any personal attacks like Jedi3 who started calling me a vandal and claimed I was censoring baselessly. And Jedi3 doesn't reveal DanieTom needlessly kept on edit-warring with me at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day despite me already inviting him to talk and offering him a compromise. What's more he revealed his reason to be a baseless belief of me attempting to censor even though I already offered to talk right after his first revert.

• After DanielTom reverted me at Talk:India for removing Jedi3's vandal comments of baseless accusations and taking the issue to an entirely unrelated article while the actual discussion should have been at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles where I actually removed his quotes. His actions were very similar to Jedi3 by baselessly accusing me of censorship despite me discussing and compromising despite the quote being not notable, I asked him not to take sides with jedi3 over any ideolgical affinity. I told DanielTom about this [8] and also tried to prevent another edit-war at Talk:India like it happened on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I also told him the same at his own talk page.

• After Kalki reverted me twice at talk:India and warned me, that was my last revert. I didn't start edit-warring and reverting like Jedi3. At User talk:Kalki#What censorship at Talk:India I asked him to effectively moderate and enforce the rules by blocking Jedi3 for his consistent disruptive editing. He kept saying he didn't have time but I pointed out I already made Jedi3's disruptive edits clear and if he moderated then this place would have been a much better place as i believe Jedi3 is not fit for here. I asked him to act against Jedi3 as the latter kept edit-warring right after after being warned and blocked by UDScott.

• Jedi3 has no problem in making false claims about quotes. Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source, even though it isn't about Martand temple.  He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic. He made up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

• He has no problem in his reverts removing my quotes and later not adding them in "some cases" as he claims, but he only has a problem when I reverted his edits to stop his attempt at edit-warring at Aurangzeb.

• Jedi3 tried to justify his edit-warring claiming he had no choice as "I wasn't discussing". This despite me telling him that I already tried to discuss. I never said there will be no discussion ever. All i said was I couldn't discuss all of them at once. I have already asked him to discuss the quotes one a time.

• He keeps on telling me to follow Template:Remove. But when I asked him to follow WQ:WQ, he indicated he won't and said it wasn't a policy or guideline. template:Remove doesn't claim to be a policy or guideline either. Regardless I've posted several quotes and tried to discuss with him, But Jedi3 keeps making false claims and abruptly stops discussion.

• DanielTom called me "annoying" which is an extremely negative connotation and a real personal attack. I told him about this. Then Jedi3 claims it is not a personal attack and calls my comments annoying. So I told him that annoying means irritating and harassing or making angry. i asked him tocontrol himself if he felt so.

• Just a Regular New Yorker laimed in his comment that quotes canot be removed if they are sourced. He doesn't seem to have read tyhe policies.
• Except Wikiquote:Wikiquote, WQ:Q and Template:Fame saying this is for notable quotes. And the Template:Remove Jedi3 keeps talking about itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning." I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES?

• Jedi3 points to the comment "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...." Except I never said such a thing. But I do dislike is Jedi3's disruptive edits and him not giving two hoots about notability.

• "*"Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). " Jedi3 doesn't explain where it is from. I never made any misleading edit summaries unlike DanielTom's claims. i had plainly explained it was "vandalism" by Jedi3 at Talk:India. I [explained clearly Jedi3's issues were not related to Talk:India and he was not discussing where the quotes were removed from.

• "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion " Will Jedi3 say it is Kalki claiming so about me removing his unrelated vandal comments at Talk:India which had nothing to do with India. I had even explained this to him in my only revert of his unlike jedi3 who still edit-wars after being warned or blocked. And I have repatedly said I don't remove any quote I found notable: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."

• Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes aren't even near to what he claims. This is aside from the fact that especially a user merely calling something as notable or poignant or witty doesn't make it notable. But then again he doesn't even care about the dictionary meaning of the words he's talking about. From Oxford dictionary Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Anyone who reads a dictionary can understand he's making it up about any of his edits being eloquent, poignant or witty etc. yet he makes the same claim at Talk:India yet again despite already being made aware his quotes are not near what he's falsely claiming them to be.

• All policies say this website is about notable quotes. Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced. WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Not to mention the quote itself being notable criteria mentioned by it as well.

Jedi3 needs to be blocked for his constant disruption, caring for nothing except POV-pushing at all costs even if becomes disruptive, bad faith edits and accusations as well as false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 not stopping edit-warring

User:Jedi3 has again started edit-warring despite being warned several times even by admins. I ask you to please block him since he has abused the chances given to him. It is clear there is no chance of his improvement. Just today, he edit-warred on 7 different articles: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Enough is enough, I request he be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I must say that once again I am growing weary of both of you in this dispute. Even if I had the time to go through the blitz of comments and reversions that both of your are making, I doubt I would be able to follow everything. I am again inclined to block you both because this whole situation has just become one big nuisance to this project. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

UDScott, as I told you previously, MonsterHunter is edit-warring because he wants to get blocked, if he can get me blocked also. He has nothing to lose, that is why he is being disruptive. But I did not edit war. My edits were well explained and well justified in the editsummary and in the talkpages and discussion pages. Unlike his edits, which were not. He has always been editing disruptively like this, before the block, right after the block (see for example his edits at Muhammad bin Qasim), and now again.

Just because MonsterHunter is disruptive again does not mean that I am guilty of the same, that I am doing the same. As an admin, you also have a responsibility to read my comments. Otherwise , you are not acting fairly.

I have explained the rationale for all of my edits on your talkpage (see above), on the Admin noticeboard, and other places.

Please read.

I have also asked for your (and other peoples) opinions on the deleted quotes, and for your opinion if you have a different interpretation to how Template:Remove should be observed by MonsterHunter32.

Please also see my table at the Admin noticeboard.

You can also ask other editors about their experience with MH32.

In fact, I have copied some of their opinions on your talkpage.

My reply is short, as I am short on time, but I will comment more when I have time. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't start the edit-warring Jedi3, you did. If there's anyone who wants to get everyone blocked, it is certainly you, because you never stop edit-warring. The only one that must be blocked is you who does't listen despite being warned even by admins. I already asked you to discuss solely at the relevant talk pages. i asked you many times to discuss it one at time to make it convenient and non00cpnfusiong. you never listened. all you do is repeat the same false claims even on unrelated pages or stop discussing abruptly. Pl;ease block him now UDScott. It is clear he won't stop his disruption. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please block Jedi3

I have grown tired of User:Jedi3 and his constant edit-warring, bad faith accusations, false claims etc. I can't edit like this. He is not a user that is supposed to be here. Either you block him or I quit permanently. Then Jedi3 can do what he wants. It is clear he won't stop until either of us are blocked. Please stop his disruption. He even keeps posting the same comments on my talk page. Another user or maybe the same user, DanielTom keeps supporting him for ideological reasons and also makes similar disruptive edits. It may sound like a threat, but the reality is I can't take this harassment. Months have already been wasted on him. I don;t want to get blocked because of him, nor I am willing to continue this cycle of harassment. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

UDScott, I have already asked MonsterHunter32 to file a report and Checkuser request at Meta, but he didn't do it and is still falsely accusing me of being "the same user" as Jedi3 across many pages. Isn't that block-worthy? How am I supposed to respond? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked myself to file a report if you think I'm Beefybufoon. All you do is edit-warring, make bad-faith claims and be disruptive. That's not all. Your claim of me censoring "quotes critical of Islam" (except I didn't) or claim you thought me of as censoring even though I already was ready for a compromise. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's all I do. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I invited you to a discussion. And no one will assume censorship over something as useless as "Yeah, I want to water down some targets." Your only objective is "censor" edits that don't agree with your view about your "quotes". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You had already "censored" countless other articles. And that quote you mention that I restored (and that later you restored) was added by Cirt in the first place, not by me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Other articles aren't a reason to see some useless non-notable quote as "censored" if removed. Besides I "censor" nothing. If your articles contain useless non-notable quotes, then that isn't my fault. Oh and I never "claimed" it was originally added by you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, I don’t have time to make or deal with complaints. I already did many, but nothing happened. I've already notified UDScott so many times that Jedi3 is edit-warring. I've shown it so many times that he is disruptive. Don't you care? If you don't then there is no point in continuing any further. All you have been doing is that you claim you don't have time. You never even bothered to read through some of my posts If you won't, then there's no ppint in continuing. Take action by tomorrow or I quit. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)