User talk:UDScott/2018 part 2

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.

MH32

Above I have said I will comment more later. But since it seems that MH32 said the truth when he told you and others that he quit [1], I will add only a few points (but will expand if necessary).

Please see this table for a summary of some of the steps I have taken for dispute resolution.

Action	Jedi	Comments
Asking admins about observing rules, especially also Template:Remove.	I did ask you to confirm that Template:Remove should be observed by MH32 and should be enforced, to which you replied "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."
Notifying admins of edit warring despite warnings and notifications about observance of rule (discussed above) and asking admins to enforce rules.	I did do that. And I asked on your talkpage "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion?"
Notifications to MH32 on his talkpage	I gave many notifications.
Using edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions)	I did use edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions).	See also please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes.	I did use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes.
Moving quotes to talk per Template:Remove	After MH32 refused to do it in almost all cases, despite being asked so many times, I moved quotes to talk for him.
Applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion	I did apply Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion
Asking you what happens if MonsterHunter32 continues censorship and edit-warring. [2] And asking admins that they should enforce the rules per Template:Remove, and that if MH32 continues to refuse to observe Template:Remove, he should be blocked, or the page should be protected.	On 22 March I asked you if what happens if MonsterHunter continues with his edit-warring and with the massive censorship of sourced quotes without moving the quotes to talk and without giving full reasoning for the censorship, as told to him is required just before and so many times before by multiple users.
Explaining all edits and restorations on the talkpage (following Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion)	Jedi explained all edits on the talkpage.	On many articles, MonsterHunter32 did not even once use the talkpage (including at Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Swami Vivekananda, Talk:Historical negationism). In other cases, where he used the talkpage, he did not give full reasoning why he removed the censored quotes. Only in very few cases did he address SOME (not all) of the censored quotes on the talkpage of the article. He used poor excuses like that explaining the deletion of sometimes 10 or more quotes in the same article with 3 word edit summaries is enough. But he was told please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Asking the community for opinions.	I did ask the community for opinions and comments, see Admin noticeboard and many other places. Jedi: "I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? [3]
Asking you again what happens if MH32 again refuses to agree on the rule based on Template:Remove.	Also asking you to please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes it. Also asking to please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of it.[4]
Notifying MH32 again that the rule must be observerd by him	You have been notified of this rule dozens of times and you have chosen to ignore it dozens of times. But if you do not observe this, you will be blocked.	Previous time he deleted the notification. This time he didn't delete it, but he ignored it again, as he also ignored your warnings.
Notifying you that MH32 has continued edit-warring, without reverting MH32 again.	Jedi said "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:"
Notifiying MH32 that he must stop the edit-warring	Jedi made again many notifications.[5] [6] [7]	But each time MH32 ignored it and just continued.

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 necessary by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion or by page protection. 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) 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I already told I am quitting so why is User:Jedi3 arguing?

I tried discussion with Jedi3 but the problem is that he wants to censor atempts at correcting his disruptive edits and anything that disagress with his irrelevance of his quotes.

Jedi3 disregarded WQ:WQ as not "policy or guideline" but talks about Template:Remove. However the template only states you shouldn't remove it without edit summary. I provided one. It only states you should almost always move and discuss, not always.

The above fact Jedi3 hides. Regardless I tried discussion many times. But whether it be edit-warring, flae claims or abruptly dtopping discussion in the middle many times, it is Jedi3 who didn't cooperate.

There is no point in arguing. As I said I would quit if Jedi3 isn't punished for his disruptive actions. I am linger interested in his edits.

We have already been told by admins to avoid each other. He should stop uselessly pushing the issue and repeating the same thing. There is no point in arguing any further as there is no point in fighting over this issue any further. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I agree it is best to avoid each other. This will be my last post about it if you stop following me and removing my additions in the same manner like previously. And since what you said, we can close the discussion. Have a nice day. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything in days. So the answer is already yes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please take action

Even though I decided to stay away on admin advice, Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].

Not withstanding most of my edits aren't about Islam, they are mostly about Muslim rulers, Jedi3's disruptive edits have also extended to European Christian rulers and ancient India.

He actually made 6 reverts, another one without any reason : [13]. Why don;t you do anything? he has lied multiple times, but I don't want to edit-war.

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [14], [15], [16]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [17], [18]

Some false claims of "massive blanking" despite only one quote being removed: [19], [20], [21].

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [22]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [23], [24]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

Action needs to be taken against this disruptive person otherwise it's a mockery of moderation and the Wiki policies. I have't edit-warred with jedi3 and reported him to Kalki too. Please take action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

We have already been told by admins to avoid each other, yet now you continue with it. If this continues, the admins will put on interaction ban on us. Because of it, I am avoiding responding directly to MH32, but if admins have any questions or queries related to it, I will respond directly to admins. If I don't respond within 48 hours, please leave a notification on my talkpage that you sent an email. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 Blame your own habit of lying and not checking the original sources.. You let go of that opportunity the moment you decided to use false reasons for reverting me. It was me simply avoiding you, not any talk page victory of yours that let your revert. It was you who didn't bother to verify some of your quotes beforehand. Besides, the thing about "avoiding each other" was a suggestion. I followed that suggestion in good faith, however seeing how perfectly false many of your edits are, you have broken that faith. Enough is enough. A person who keeps on habitually misleading doesn't deserve to be here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 should be blocked

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called a massive and almost indiscriminate removals and which as disruptive vandalism are surely a blockable offence.

He has been warned enough already.

He has been told enough times already that he should at the very least observe this rule:

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.

Other editors have noticed the same, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Need_your_help_again and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:UDScott#MonsterHunter32 and other places.

Also see Daniels' latest comment here https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=2391342

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?

I will also gladly respond to any editor about any questions regarding the invalid and poor excuses that MH32 is giving for his massive censorship, most of which are deliberate misrepresentations or worse, including his most recent one at Babar (where he claimed that he couldn't find it in the source, even though the page of the source he linked does discuss the very issue MH32 is complaining about in the footnote). And what is needed, after the pages are protected and MH32 is blocked, is some input and comments from other editors about the deleted quotes, which I have already asked for many times, since the discussion with someone like MH32 who refuses to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion on any issue is unproductive and third party opinons are needed. 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 unproductive, (maybe even worse are the deliberate misrepresentations, dishonesty and personal attacks), therefore third party opinon are needed, which I asked for many times.

On your talkpage, you said that agree that the following is valid and must be observed:

• All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 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.
• I understand that means that this minimum must be observed, also by MonsterHunter32, and I will therefore restore to the status quo pre-censorship version, that is, applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion Please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please block disruptive Jedi3

User:Jedi3 keeps on falsely claiming I am "censoring him" despite me leaving intact many of his notable quotes no matter what they are. I've already explained to him that I won't remove any notable quotes. He must stop with his false bad-faith accusations

Jedi3 has been constantly edit-warring despite being warned by admins and told plainly some of his quotes aren't memorable and seem to be only meant for POV-pushing. While criticising me, Kalki criticised Jedi3 as well tating the biases are leading to "lapses of both logic and fairness".

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 don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeos calling them.

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32].

Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [33], [34], [35], [36], [37].

In some of these cases there were only one quote or the quotes were not as Jedi3 had added them. Despite pointing out so, he doesn't accept it.

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring: [44], [45], [46].

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [47], [48], [49]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [50], [51]

His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [52], [53], [54] and [55]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [64], [65] and [66]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [67] and [68]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.

Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "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."

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [69]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [70], [71]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result. He even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.

Please block this disruptive edit-warring vandal immediately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called a massive and almost indiscriminate removals and which as disruptive vandalism are surely a blockable offence.

This is what other editors have said about MonsterHunter32:

• isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes critical of Islam (as you yourself have pointed out). It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.

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

• You have been told by an admin that you need to generate WP:CONSENSUS before your content can be accepted, and in order to generate consensus, you need to start answering questions that are being posed. Claiming that it is all clear, "read it for yourself" etc. constitute stonewalling. They get you no closer to any form of consensus.

• "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 find it morally repugnant when people .... simply seek to remove quotes if they are not complimentary to the views they favor, to the extent they can — MOST of your edits seem to be CENSORSHIP ....

• " 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."

• And if you don't stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you will end up getting blocked. Please be warned.

• If you persist in .... that has been questioned without getting consensus first, you will be either topic banned from Indian subjects, or blocked for disruptive editing.

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

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

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.)

Wikiquote is not prepared to handle persistent, disruptive editors like MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).--Jedi3 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 selectively omits his own criticism This is what other editors have said about Jedi3:

• 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 - UDScott

• Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. - UDScott

• I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. - Kalki

• * 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.

• Even though another user removed his quote saying the article is about Ambedkar, not Elst, though he presumably made a grammar mistake. The reason used Jedi3 to revert? Falsely call the user a vandal.

Wikiquote certainly isn't a place for disruptors like Jedi3 who make false claims. He should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Babur

Can you please take a look at this discussion and comment on it [72] I have given my responses, now third party comments are needed. AS others have noticed too, in discussions he always refuses to make the slightest concessions that others might have different opinions, and keeps on stonewalling the di that is why third party opinions and comments are very important in all discussions with MonsterHunter. This discussion is not about the censorship, (although he has censored other quotes on that page), but it seems to me he is using it as a justification for his mass-censorship on wholly unrelated pages. If you read it and ask me to clarify any unclear points I will happily clarify them. The article of the dispute is Babur. Thank you. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Babur and actually many others

It is ironic User:Jedi3 is talking about stonewalling when he never even concedes on one of his quotes being non-notable and neevr even apologises for mistakes and false claims.

What is also ironic that the discussion he points to, the whole fiasco at Babur was due to his own misleading edits where he never bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources. Jedi3 was using a very obscure Hindi translation from SAA Rizvi of Baburnama he himself hasn't accessed.

I didn't find the other quote earlier, only found a contradictory one, so I simply shifted it to another section jnstead of removing it. Only after my edit, did he bother to Jedi verify it from an English translation by Annette Beveridge. However, the quote wasn't exactly the same as Jedi3 had originally added

After being able to verify the similar quote, I added it back and rewrote it to match the source. Jedi3's disruptive editing and never caring for anything, even checking what he is adding is becoming really troublesome.

Also as already said, is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [73], [74], [75]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [76], [77] So please also comment on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already given my responses, see here:

1. After you moved the quote to misattributed here [78], I moved it to disputed [79], as I explained on the talkpage here
2. Your edit summary was "The actual description of Baburnama is completely different then what Goel claims. All Rajputs nearly almost exterminated themselves, there is no mention of any slaughter or darul islam. Can't even find it in the Thackston version)"
3. Here I could easily have called you a liar, as you have called me and other editors multiple times, but unlike you, I was assuming good faith. You linked to this page here, and this page clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
4. So the points you made (that you cannot find the quote in your translation, and that you cannot find any mention of a massacre and of Dar-Ul-Islam) can be easily proven false by just reading the very page that you linked to.
5. But still unlike you I was assuming good faith and did not call you a liar, like you usually do.
6. Also the translation by Rizvi is not obscure, it was published by the reputed Aligarh Muslim University. You can google Aligarh Muslim University and find out for yourself that it is very reputable, I don't need to repeat what you can google in one minute. Also, calling a book obsucre because it is written in an Indian language, or because it is not online, or because several decades later in 2018 there are sources that are more widely used, or because it is from Aligarh University, is just bias.
7. Your claim that I did not read the original source (besides violating the Assume good faith rule) is a straw man. There are thousands of quotes on WQ that were added from secondary sources like here Dance#Hoyt's_New_Cyclopedia_of_Practical_Quotations or here Dance#Wisdom_for_the_Soul:_Five_Millennia_of_Prescriptions_for_Spiritual_Healing or here and I do not for one second believe that they were checked against the original source. But I did include the secondary source as a source for the quote, so I don't see where the problem is when the secondary source was even noted below the quote. Also of course, the original quote was written in the Chagatai language, an extinct language, so checking the original is not even very feasible in this case. Besides, most translations into English were translated from Chagatai language to Persian language, before being translated into a modern language. I assume this is also the case for the translation you used. Were you checking your addition against the origianl Chagatai language version, or at least against the Persian version? In any case, while in this case I checked only the version from the secondary source and did not check not the original version in the Chagatai language, the most I could have done, without knowledge of Chagatai language, is checking muliple English translations. This is not a requirement at wikiquote, but when feasible and appropriate I will do it. I read the secondary source from which I used the quote, I clearly marked all the sources below the quote, including the secondary source. That is all that is needed. I did not read the Rizvi book, but this is also not required (and you would have to assume that I can read Hindi, you also didn't read the source in the original Chagatai language). I take your suggestions how to improve by comparing with multiple translations, although this is also not a requirement and which I did not do it in this case, but I am open to all suggestions how to improve, and as appropriate and feasible, I will to the best to improve using also your suggestions. But all this should not be used as a poor excuse for you for your massive censorship in other unrelated articles.
8. At the end of the day it is just one more example you were unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles.--Jedi3 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I said that you were unjustly using it as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles. Your reply is again misleading, when you delibarately quote only half of the sentence. You were using this and other equally misleading examples as poor excuses or arguments [80].

The Aligarh Muslim University is a reputed institution, you can google it. There is no requirement that such a translation from Aligarh Muslim University is not valid as a source, it only betrays your bias against Indian languages. In any case, I did not oppose you in changing it to another translation that, in 2018, is more widely available online. I agreed to these changes about this particular quote, so there shouldn't even be a dispute anymore. It is normal that quotes can be changed by editing, and I agreed to these particular changes on this quote.

The translation and the page you linked to did clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.

When you then link to the very page that, if you fully read it, mentions the very points you make, and disproves your very points, I could have called you a liar this is what you would have done if I had done anything like it --Jedi3 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that I have given my responses, comments from others are needed, which is why I asked UDScott for a comment. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's see who is misleading actually.

• User:Jedi3 doesn't mention that the translated quote I added actually isn't exactly the same as the one he originally added. They are quotes from different translations or so it seems.

• I couldn't find a quote about Battle of Chanderi earlier, I only found a quote seemingly contradicting the quote's events. So I simply shifted it to disputed section. The original source used by Jedi3 was a very obscure translation of Baburnama by SAA Rizvi. It is not accessible.

• Only later did he find a similar one from a separate translation by Annette Beveridge, however it isn't the same.

• I added the quote from Annette Beveridge instead of SAA Rizvi as the former was verified.

It is ironic Jedi3 is creating drama over this when he himself showed at Talk:Babur that he only went to find the quote after somebody took action against him. Even then it wasn't exactly the same. Is there any more proof needed of how much misleading he is? Please block him immediately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

And apparently Jedi3 saying it's just a "content dispute', even though he is disproved by the original source is called answering. I don't call that answering. This is actually more like refusing to accept wrongdoings and deflection: [81], [82]. please take back your false comments and apologize for your behavior Jedi3. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Why does it take so long until a vandal gets blocked?

User:UDScott, can you please take a look at MonsterHunter32 edit-warring and massive and indiscriminate censorship here:

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=MonsterHunter32&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=

I appreciate an answer to the questions I asked the community. "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion? How should I react when he continues to disregard everything and delete and censor and revert all my additions without discussion, without even moving the quotes to the talkpage? I need to know how I can continue editing articles in this case. Also I would like to know when it was said that it is being looked at, but there is still no sign that it is being looked at, when will it be looked at?

What will be done when as is clear MonsterHunter continues his edit-warring and his censorship without even starting to move the censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasonsing, as he was told many times by multiple users?

He has been warned enough already. He just ignores the warnings.

He has been told enough times already that he should at the very least observe this rule:

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.

It is plain to see that MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) will forever continue like this, there is nothing in MonsterHunter32 comments so far to indicate that he will change in the slightest.

• 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 different quotes in the same edit in a three word edit summary)
• He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
• MonsterHunter32 has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged personal beliefs.

He has also been abusing socks.

Wikiquote is not prepared to handle pessistent disruptive vandals like MonsterHunter.It cannot be in WQ interest when a vandal can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with plain vandalism and censorship. How is Wikiquote going to handle such cases? Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough? --Jedi3 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

My time on the site has been severely limited in recent times as real-world concerns have consumed much of my time. Because of this, I have not had nearly enough time to digest the blizzard of comments the both of you have left nor to consider the additions and reversions that both of you have performed. That being said, I still do not have a proper sense of who is right or wrong in this conflict. I am extremely annoyed by the constant badgering of myself and others as each of you attempts to get the other blocked. This only pushes me in the same direction I moved before - that of blocking you both. Please tone down the rhetoric and allow the community to consider the situation. Your behavior is doing nothing to bring this to a quick resolution as every day seems to bring piles of arguments to reconsider. Please refrain from such behavior and soon enough action will indeed be taken to resolve things - but allow the process to continue without constant reminders about it. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter mass censored the quotes without even at least observing the rule (as he was told to you many times):

• All deleted quotes 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.

You are not the only one who is annoyed. Do you think his mass censorship of sourced quotes is not intimidating behaviour/harassment? Do you think that I am not harrassed and annoyed by the massive censorship of MH32 and by the lack of repsonse from admins about it?

Other editors are annoyed too and have said, "isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes".... It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.

I find it extremely objectionable when you are making it sound like it would be fair if both of us are blocked with the same block length. i find it very objectionable when making it sound like there is any equivalence between the actions of a vandal who indiscriminately mass censors sourced quotes without explanation on talk [83], and another one who constantly discusses the censorship on talkpages before doing any reverts. I have been trying to discuss the obvious vandalism and censorship that is committed by one editor.

All the more so because MonsterHunter has basically admitted that he is being so disruptive so that he get can get both of us blocked. His goal is to get blocked, as long as I (unfairly) get blocked too. That is why he is being so disruptive.

Last time I was punished with the same length block when I was the one who started the discussion on the censored quotes, when I (and others) notified MonsterHunter that he must at least move censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasonsing, which he refuses to do. I did Notify you that after your warning, he continued the reverts and the edit-warring. I did ask you if Template:Remove can be enforced, to which you replied "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." Based on this, I understood that Template:Remove is valid and should be enforced. I asked for your confirmation.[8] I used the edit summary "(see User_talk:MonsterHunter32#Warning and discussion with UDScott. All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 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" Prior to that I left a note and explanation on his talkpage (which he promptly deleted). Shortly afterwards I left a note on Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress. MH32 then immediately editwarred again. Then I asked on your talkpage "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion?" [9] Then I was blocked with the SAME blocklength as MonsterHunter32. I was discussing and notifying, not plain edit-warring like MonsterHunter32 but got punished the same. Just 30 minutes after you warned both of us, MonsterHunter was ignoring your warnings and continued his edit warring. On the other hand, I did all the steps specified on your talkpage. I didn't just revert like MonsterHunter who continued his edit-warring and there was no sign that anything was being sorted out and no replies when I pointed out this behaviour already long ago. I simply didn't do any of the same blatant edit-warring as MonsterHunter that others have called extremely disruptive, but got the same block. I hope admins are being more fair in the future.

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?

How would you feel if I were also to remove all your quote additions, using very poor excuses, only calling them non-notable and biased in the edit summary? Would you like that?

If you woulnd't like it, don't you agree that it is understandable that I try to discuss the issue, and shouldn't you be understanding of this? It would also be more helpful if you could indicate what you mean by soon? It could be anything from one hour to several months... Because it was already said that is being looked a long time ago.

Are you aware of the mass censorship of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter? Did you look at this link here?

It only take a few minutes to ascertain these facts. This is what another editor said:

"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 will stop asking you about this issue unless it is necessary. Also, please let me know if you have a different interpretation of what I wrote above. --Jedi3 (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It is ironic User:Jedi3 is talking about stonewalling when he never even concedes on one of his quotes being non-notable and neevr even apologises for mistakes and false claims.

What is also ironic that the discussion he points to, the whole fiasco at Babur was due to his own misleading edits where he never bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources. Jedi3 was using a very obscure Hindi translation from SAA Rizvi of Baburnama he himself hasn't accessed.

I didn't find the other quote earlier, only found a contradictory one, so I simply shifted it to another section jnstead of removing it. Only after my edit, did he bother to Jedi verify it from an English translation by Annette Beveridge. However, the quote wasn't exactly the same as Jedi3 had originally added

After being able to verify the similar quote, I added it back and rewrote it to match the source. Jedi3's disruptive editing and never caring for anything, even checking what he is adding is becoming really troublesome.

Also as already said, is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [84], [85], [86]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [87], [88] So please also comment on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already given my responses, see here:

1. After you moved the quote to misattributed here [89], I moved it to disputed [90], as I explained on the talkpage here
2. Your edit summary was "The actual description of Baburnama is completely different then what Goel claims. All Rajputs nearly almost exterminated themselves, there is no mention of any slaughter or darul islam. Can't even find it in the Thackston version)"
3. Here I could easily have called you a liar, as you have called me and other editors multiple times, but unlike you, I was assuming good faith. You linked to this page here, and this page clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
4. So the points you made (that you cannot find the quote in your translation, and that you cannot find any mention of a massacre and of Dar-Ul-Islam) can be easily proven false by just reading the very page that you linked to.
5. But still unlike you I was assuming good faith and did not call you a liar, like you usually do.
6. Also the translation by Rizvi is not obscure, it was published by the reputed Aligarh Muslim University. You can google Aligarh Muslim University and find out for yourself that it is very reputable, I don't need to repeat what you can google in one minute. Also, calling a book obsucre because it is written in an Indian language, or because it is not online, or because several decades later in 2018 there are sources that are more widely used, or because it is from Aligarh University, is just bias.
7. Your claim that I did not read the original source (besides violating the Assume good faith rule) is a straw man. There are thousands of quotes on WQ that were added from secondary sources like here Dance#Hoyt's_New_Cyclopedia_of_Practical_Quotations or here Dance#Wisdom_for_the_Soul:_Five_Millennia_of_Prescriptions_for_Spiritual_Healing or here and I do not for one second believe that they were checked against the original source. But I did include the secondary source as a source for the quote, so I don't see where the problem is when the secondary source was even noted below the quote. Also of course, the original quote was written in the Chagatai language, an extinct language, so checking the original is not even very feasible in this case. Besides, most translations into English were translated from Chagatai language to Persian language, before being translated into a modern language. I assume this is also the case for the translation you used. Were you checking your addition against the origianl Chagatai language version, or at least against the Persian version? In any case, while in this case I checked only the version from the secondary source and did not check not the original version in the Chagatai language, the most I could have done, without knowledge of Chagatai language, is checking muliple English translations. This is not a requirement at wikiquote, but when feasible and appropriate I will do it. I read the secondary source from which I used the quote, I clearly marked all the sources below the quote, including the secondary source. That is all that is needed. I did not read the Rizvi book, but this is also not required (and you would have to assume that I can read Hindi, you also didn't read the source in the original Chagatai language). I take your suggestions how to improve by comparing with multiple translations, although this is also not a requirement and which I did not do it in this case, but I am open to all suggestions how to improve, and as appropriate and feasible, I will to the best to improve using also your suggestions. But all this should not be used as a poor excuse for you for your massive censorship in other unrelated articles.
8. At the end of the day it is just one more example you were unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles.--Jedi3 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I said that you were unjustly using it as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles. Your reply is again misleading, when you delibarately quote only half of the sentence. You were using this and other equally misleading examples as poor excuses or arguments [91].

The Aligarh Muslim University is a reputed institution, you can google it. There is no requirement that such a translation from Aligarh Muslim University is not valid as a source, it only betrays your bias against Indian languages. In any case, I did not oppose you in changing it to another translation that, in 2018, is more widely available online. I agreed to these changes about this particular quote, so there shouldn't even be a dispute anymore. It is normal that quotes can be changed by editing, and I agreed to these particular changes on this quote.

The translation and the page you linked to did clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.

When you then link to the very page that, if you fully read it, mentions the very points you make, and disproves your very points, I could have called you a liar this is what you would have done if I had done anything like it --Jedi3 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that I have given my responses, comments from others are needed, which is why I asked UDScott for a comment. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 himself is lecturing admins now and attempting meatpuppetry. I never remove a quote under any non-genuine reason. When I can verify a quote, I never remove it. Even at Babur, where I couldn't verify the quote I simply shifted it to to disputed section instead of removing. When I did find a different translation from Beveridge as the source used by Jedi3 was very obscure, I added that translation instead of jedi3 as Jedi3 himself hadn't verified the original source of SAA Rizvi he claimed it o be from. he himself indirectly accepted it.

When I can verify a quote is also notable, never remove it. I have let many of Jedi3's quotes remain, even those that are not notable. His thousands of quotes mean little as they're added from a few right-wing leaning sources without bothering whether the quotes are memorable. 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 don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them.

And here's the biggest difference between me and him; Jedi3 will never accept a mistake even if his quotes and claims are not genuine. isn't he the one who keeps calling them "content dispute" even when he is disproved? What else can one be called but a liar?

I don't know why Jedi3 is repeating the same thing again and again on every other page. But here's some examples of his non-genuine edits and his refusal to ever accept his mistake.

• User:Jedi3 doesn't mention that the translated quote I added actually isn't exactly the same as the one he originally added. They are quotes from different translations or so it seems.

• I couldn't find a quote about Battle of Chanderi earlier, I only found a quote seemingly contradicting the quote's events. So I simply shifted it to disputed section. The original source used by Jedi3 was a very obscure translation of Baburnama by SAA Rizvi. It is not accessible.

• Only later did he find a similar one from a separate translation by Annette Beveridge, however it isn't the same.

• I added the quote from Annette Beveridge instead of SAA Rizvi as the former was verified.

It is ironic Jedi3 is creating drama over this when he himself showed at Talk:Babur that he only went to find the quote after somebody took action against him. Even then it wasn't exactly the same. Is there any more proof needed of how much misleading he is? Please block him immediately.

If you find the time please also comment not just on Babur, but also on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. As it Jedi3 who refuses to accept responsibility for wrongdoings on these articles and still refers to them as "content dispute" despite being disproved with original sources: [92], [93]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 again edit-warring

Despite being blocked in the past, Jedi3 is again back at edit-warring. Will you please take action and block him? It is clear he won't stop and improve his behaviour until stern action is taken. All he does instead of actual discussion is edit-warring and complain.

Already two reverts have been made by him: [94], [95]. It seems clear he won't stop.

He has already been blocked today briefly because of his disruptive edits. See User talk:Kalki#Brief block of massive posting actions. It is time further action was taken. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's reverted at three articles now: [96] besides the other two reverts [97], [98]. Will you please do something? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

UDScott, Jedi3's sole purpose in his edits has been POV-pushing to spread hatred against non-Hindu religions even if his quotes are not memorable. Please be careful of his intentions and edits. And please if you can, give your opinion at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Cross-talk (discussion by principals. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding a category for gaming equipment or categorizing playing cards, chess and go as toys.

Wikipedia has a category for gaming equipment, including sports gear, which I would not consider a toy, though I doubt we are going to have many notable quotes specifically about sports gear. Poker is a game, not a toy, and distinguishing the many different card games from the cards they are played with is useful, unlike having a page specifically for chess pieces or the chess board itself. I think categorizing playing cards, chess and go as toys would be appropriate even though wikipedia does not have them categorized as such, defining what the difference between a toy and a game is is an interesting endeavor, simply providing entertainment isn't the defining factor as that would include objects more generally viewed as tools like paint brushes or musical instruments, perhaps a lack of diversity of usages is a factor that excludes chess and go as being toys, however playing cards are used for magic tricks as well as their more structured usage in games which I think makes them qualify as toys, though similarly coins are used for magic tricks as well but would not be classified as toys. It reminded me of when I wondered whether a lock should be categorized as technology so I thought I'd best ask a second opinion before going forward with any potentially controversial additions regarding categories. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

What is your question? If it is whether or not to classify playing cards, chess, and Go as toys, I would say no. I would not consider these objects to be toys, but rather games. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy delete https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Gerald_Whitmarsh,_Jr.

Why did you delete my page https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Gerald_Whitmarsh,_Jr. ?

It's something that actually means something to me that I want to share with others.

I would like people to be able to see the things I've said and be able to reference them

It's not a place to post meaningless bullshit. All of it has meaning

Isn't this what this site is about? XForbin99 (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

How many people have to know about my page for it to be relevant Scott? How many people know about you? Should someone speedy delete you too? XForbin99 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually yes - if I was to ever create a page for myself, I would expect someone to delete it as I am not a notable person. Wikiquote is a collection of notable quotes said or written by notable people. And it is not a place for personal quotes to be listed (see here for more). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

José Rafael Cordero Sanchez

Hi Scott, You took care of José Rafael Cordero Sanchez back in 2013, could you delete it again, please? Thanks, Sam Sailor (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi! Have you noticed that the amount of visitors on main page has doubled during 9 days? In november 2015 the number was over 30 000 - but that was only one day. What might be the reason?--Risto hot sir (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Locating topics on the village pump

Can you help me find https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump#Boldface_in_all_%22last_words%22? It doesn't appear to be on the village pump any more. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 19:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Please semi-protect The Prince of Egypt. It has become victim to IP address vandalism. Thank you. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 02:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just returned online after a work-related absence, but I see that Kalki has already taken care of this. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Internet Trolls

Does Wikiquote have a policy regarding users like this? He/she has not edited yet, but I think it's fairly safe to say that this user does not intend to edit constructively. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 17:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really (there is one for offensive names, but not for this). But I also noticed it and will be keeping an eye out for any suspicious edits. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminship

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions) - J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 18:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

24.156.198.139

• 24.156.198.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This IP user has added multiple nonsense pages including BeeMovie, Dr. Pepper, Opposite Stuff, Elmo's World, Thomas & Friends, Bee Movie 2, Pocoyo. Additionally, he has vandalized Sesame Street, Shopping and others. Please block him immediately. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 22:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

About cleaning the titles in my contributions

Hallo UDScott, You are now busy cleaning my contributions, especially the titles. I try to make the quotes on Wikiquote more accessible for the people who are searching for them. That people can find them rather easily on the Internet. That's why I use the titles to mention the name of the person and the word 'Quotes'. This combination is rather essential, so that people can find them, if they are searching on-line.

I did a little research - finding on-line the quotes of 3 well-known persons. This I did to find out how Wikiquote appears in these searches. I hope you are willing to read this here. I sent it also to Kalki. I did the little research with Google, because in January 2018 74.52% of the searches worldwide were powered by Google. Only 7.98% by Bing (the second most popular). Baidu did c. 20%, but this search-engine does not work in English. Moreover: Google is dominating the mobile/tablet search engine market share with 93%.

- first search I am searching for Quotes of Beethoven. So I search with two words: Beethoven' & 'Quotes. As result Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Beethoven as 5th link. The first four links are all commercial quotes-websites with a lot of advertising. They really take care for their searchers!! Morover: the Google.com-link to Wikiquote says: 'Jump to Quotes about Beethoven'. It means that Google refers to the second title of the Wikiquote-page: 'Quotes about Beethoven' because the first title there only says Quotes!! Beethoven is not mentioned.

- second search: I am searching for Quotes of president Kennedy. So I search with 3 words: John' 'Kennedy' 'quotes. As result Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Kennedy as 14th link - the second link-page of google.com! The google.com-link says in this link: 'Jump to Quotes'. Because the name Kennedy is nowhere mentioned in any title of the Wikiquote-page of John Kennedy. A part of the reason why Google gives Wikiquotes on the 14th place in the row of links.

- third example: I am searching for Quotes of Bob Dylan. So I search with the 3 words: Bob' 'Dylan' 'quotes. Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Bob Dylan as 22nd link. This is on the third link-page of google.com! The google.com-link says in the link: 'Jump to Quotes', because the name Bob Dylan is not mentioned in any title of the Wikiquote-page of Bob Dylan.

My conclusion: Search-engines look for security. That's why titles are very important for Google to check them for reliable search-words, in relation to their content. You cannot cheat in your titles because titles promise something to the searchers - and Google knows that! But Google also want to verify the search-words in the texts, do they appear there also... If they are only in the title and not in the texts, there comes alarm from the spy-robots of Google and your link-range goes down…

Wikiquote on the contrary is very busy for years already with keeping itself clean. It is eliminating and removing the important search-words – out of the titles and from the texts. Now many of my attributions are getting a cleaning by you.. .So the important search-words are lost.

I think Wikiquote is a very precious and valuable public source for people all over the world. In fact it is property of everybody, I believe. Just the same as Wikipedia. Wikiquote is the only website worldwide with sourced and reliable quotes! It creates so human history. I am very glad to attribute to this project! But then Wikiquote must also accept the responsibility to take care that people who are searching for quotes are able to find them. It must create the necessary accessibility on-line. There is one fundamental law on the Internet: you must name your content. If you don’t name your content, you are not found by the people who are searching for you. You make your project less useful. In fact you hide your precious content, for a part. It is a waste of all the energy and work and dedication. kind regards, FotoDutch (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are most concerned with how the pages here might be found in Internet searches. I can understand this, but simply creating your own template for pages is really not the way to go. Better would be to start a more general discussion (perhaps on the Template talk pages). But the reason for not adhering to the standard you are espousing is that it presents redundancy and does not present the cleanest and best looking pages here. The other changes I have been making to the pages include removing bolding for every quote, sorting the quotes by a more standard period of time (e.g. by year or decade), removing extra text about the quote's source, and sorting the About section alphabetically by author. All off these changes are also in the template for a people page. The bottom line is that it would be better to propose changes to the templates in discussion rather than having a whole swath of pages with a different look and feel. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is how it works on Google Search - I searched for 'Quotes Andy Warhol' and this were the first five links, given by Google as best source:

1. Andy Warhol Quotes - BrainyQuote www.brainyquote - (this website is triggering the spamfilter of Wikiquote so I removed the link) Feb 22, 1987 - Andy Warhol Quotes. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art. They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself. Don't pay any attention to what they write about you.

2. Top 10 Andy Warhol Quotes - BrainyQuote www.brainyquote - (this website is triggering the spamfilter of Wikiquote...idem) Top 10. Andy Warhol. Quotes. Art is what you can get away with. If you're not trying to be real, you don't have to get it right. In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. Don't pay any attention to what they write about you. They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself ...

3. Andy Warhol Quotes (Author of The Philosophy of Andy Warhol) https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1203.Andy_Warhol Andy Warhol > Quotes. “They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.” “Don't pay any attention to what they write about you. “People should fall in love with their eyes closed.” “When people are ready to, they change. ‎Don't think about making art ... · ‎They always say time changes ...

4. 20 Brilliant Andy Warhol Quotes | AnOther www.anothermag.com/art-photography/3995/20-brilliant-andy-warhol-quotes Oct 9, 2014 - I think everybody should be nice to everybody" – this and 19 other brilliant Warhol quotes.

5. Andy Warhol - Wikiquote https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol Jump to Quotes of Andy Warhol - Warhol, 1962: 'Soup Cans', synthetic polymer paint on thirty-two canvases; - quote of Warhol, 1973: '..just look at ....

this Quotes of Andy Warhol is the title you are removing now . Here it is a big part of the reason of position 5. Not bad for Andy Warhol.. FotoDutch (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

When I just searched for 'Picasso Quotes' with google.com I get a 10th ranking for Wikiquote, just at the bottom of the link-page there. And that is very probably, because now in the page the title says: 'Quotes of Picasso' This is already since 23 March 2018, when I enlarged the title. From then the Wikiquote-statistics give a considerable monthly increase of visitors till now: February 2018: 2279 visitors, March: 2661; April: 3029, May: 3644, June.. But when when the title go back to 'Quotes' only - I bet the ranking for Picasso on google.com will fall down to c. 20th in a period of 2 months. Also the amount of visitors in the Wikiquote-statistics will fall back from 3644 till probably again c. 2280 a month. I consider that as a waste of energy of us all. A loss of 1/3 of visitors.. just because of a few words difference in the title..

I did some more searches on google.com, to get a better picture - they differ completely in results:

- 'Einstein quotes': 21st ranking - beginning, third link-page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Faulkner quotes' 3th – beginning, first link-page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Sartre quotes': 4th – beginning ,first page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Leonard Bernstein quotes': 7th – bottom, first page

- 'Janis Joplin quotes': 10th – bottom, first page (a small Wikiquote-page)

- 'Pablo Neruda Quotes': 8th – bottom first page (a comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Sara Teasdale Quotes': 5th - first page

- 'Stephen Hawking Quotes': 33rd – fourth page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)

- 'Gandhi Quotes': 8th – bottom, first page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)FotoDutch (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Great - I think you are building a solid case for this to be considered. My point was that rather than making wholesale changes to a group of pages, the best way to go about this is to start a discussion about and make a proposal for change. If other users took it upon themselves to make changes to templates, there would not be any sort of consistency in how pages are displayed here and we would quickly lose control over the project. All I am suggesting is to open a dialogue and make a proposal before making such changes. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! But I have no experience. Can you help me to start, how and where?

The easiest way would be to go to Village pump and open a new topic. There you can request feedback and lay out your arguments. To further bolster the discussion, you could also place a note on the Admins' noticeboard, with a link to the VP discussion, that references the ongoing discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try.FotoDutch (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I opened a new topic on Village Pump. I don't know the link to it, for placing a note on the Admins' noticeboard. Can you help me in that? I hope you will come in the discussion also.FotoDutch (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I placed a note on the Admins' noticeboard, with a link to the VP discussion. Can you please check, I did it in the right way?FotoDutch (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

John Sterling (sportscaster)

17:09, 12 October 2016 UDScott (talk | contribs) deleted page John Sterling (sportscaster)

I created that with sources, I thought. And I didn't know it had been deleted until now. There was no ping on my talk page. I'm an admin on Wikipedia. Can I see the content that was deleted so that I can improve it so that it can be kept here? There are plenty of sources for his home run calls.[99] Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See your talk page, where I copied and pasted the content of this deleted page for you to work with. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

help

• UDScott, you are can help me with work in English Wikiquote? I have article about game Call of Duty 1 in Russian section Wikiquote, but problem, English article Call of Duty (series) about series and not about one game. How i can make redirect at Call of Duty 1 in article Call of Duty (series)? I.G.I.cool (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason why this is combined into one page is that we have limits here on the number of quotes that can be listed from a work - for electronic games, the limit if three quotes. Because of this, rather than have a string of pages for this series with only three quotes each, they have been cobined into one page. Feel free to change the listed quotes, but please stay within the limit (if you add one, remove another). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help with disruptive IPs...

Peter Pan

One user continuously adds nonsense and completely unnecessary (and completely inaccurate) extension to certain quotes. I request that that article be protected and this user be blocked indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this one was already protected. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And the vandal continues its vandalism by vandalizing Aladdin. I mean, "screaming bloody murder" is from the vandal's point of view, not everyone else's. WikiLubber (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thomas and Friends-related articles

Especially in The Adventure Begins, where the IPs continuously change Sir Topham Hatt's name to The Fat Director (which he was NEVER called in either the TV series nor the films). I request that these IPs be blocked indefinitely and that the pages be blocked for no less than the same period of time. I reported them months ago, but no matter how much I try, these IPs never stop. WikiLubber (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added another year-long protection to the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Please do the same for the articles for each separate season, as well. WikiLubber (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Scooter Libby deletion

You put "hoax" as the reason. That isn't true. The line I included was written on page 81 of his novel https://books.google.ca/books?id=obXWAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA81 Please restore his page. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - when I first tried that link, it did not properly show the book. I've restored the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Category: Family films

The VFD entry says there is no consensus, however I count 5 votes voting in favor of deletion, one neutral, and only one for keeping it. I was under the impression that the neutral votes were like abstaining, seeing as how the congresses of most countries don't allow neutral votes on issues and people don't vote neutral in their elections. Statistically it's the difference between 83% in favor not factoring the neutral vote and and 71% in favor of deletion, I know 75% is the number required for a vote on administrators, but is that also the percentage needed for VFD as well, I thought the administrator voting process deliberately had a higher threshold to pass than other votes on wikiquote? I'm wondering where on Wikiquote this matter is defined. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get your figures. In that discussion, the votes that were provided before the date of closure show 2 deletes, 1 keep, and 1 neutral. I would not call that consensus in any way, and thus I closed the vote with a Keep result. Your additional delete vote was registered months after the closure date of the vote, but even if it were included, I still do not see enough of a consensus to act otherwise (even if I disagree with the result). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad, I arrived at that incorrect figure by counting you and Ningauble both twice, along with Cirt once despite being in may of 2013 after the vote closed, hence the five figure; I did not actually factor in my own vote from 2015. Sorry about that, I'm a tad sleep deprived, I'm normally capable of basic math and looking at dates and signatures; I used to be more adept at operating under under the less than optimal conditions of minor sleep deprivation, but I see now from this instance that is no longer the case for me.
Either way, I think I'm going to list this for deletion again as it's another subjective movie marketing term that is seemingly applied mostly to movies that were never marketed that way, and can be easily confused for films featuring families as a central dynamic, which may not actually be appropriate for all ages, such as many of the entries for the wikipeia category for films about dysfunctional families. I hope discussing this matter with you doesn't count as canvasing for votes, I assume I would have to contact more than one person or start a thread on the village pump in order to meet that definition. Sorry bout that.CensoredScribe (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem . Cheers! ~ UDScott (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Hello. What unsourced quotes did the pages Robert Morrison and Harp have just before being deleted? Thanks in advance ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

For Robert Morrison, the lone quotes was "To do what ought to be done but what would not have been done unless I did it, I thought to be my duty." Harp had two unsourced quotes: "The harp is a whole orchestra, if the performer can use its great potential appropriately." by Anna-Maria Ravnopolska-Dean and "Harpists spend 90% of their time tuning their harps and 10% playing out of tune." by Igor Stravinsky. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Zhu Ming (thinker)

Hello, UDScott. You had deleted the article about this person which had been created under various names. However someone has creates another article under the title Zhu Zhe (thinker). The article is exactly the same and might be the same person who made the other articles. Can you see about banning his IP range if he doesn't stop. The subject is not even notable, I can't even find him when I search his name. While searching for the source, I have only come across one result: . MonsterHunter32 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

GazWild

GazWild emailed me to ask that his block be lifted, and promising to behave in accordance with policy. As you were the blocking admin, I refer this to you. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Smita Nair Jain

Dear Sir, Please see the citation. Thanks - —This unsigned comment is by HemantLko (talk • contribs) .

So it's better that you now have a link to another site. Unfortunately, citing the quote to goodreads is not very good. This site is just a place for its users to put quotes, often without sourcing them to a primary source, which is what is needed here. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Buffy pages

Please stop deleting the Buffy Quotes I keep adding. There is no reason for you to do so. And don't try to say that there can only be 5 per episode. There a numerous episodes of this and other series that have plenty more than 5. Just check out the Sherlock page. ~ —This unsigned comment is by 134.192.250.81 (talk • contribs) .

Be that as it may, just because other pages may violate the limit does not mean that the Buffy pages should as well. And by the way, that is why Sherlock is tagged for potential copyright violation for having too many quotes. I will continue to trim the quotes as needed to keep them at 5 per episode. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well then I guess I'll just keep un-trimming them. You should really focus on cleaning up the Teen Titans pages. They're a complete mess and somebody keeps erasing literally every line Raven speaks so the rest of the dialogue makes no sense.

Zhu Ming / Zhu Zhe

Good day. Can you please delete and salt Zhu Zhe (thinker)? Original rationale was: "re-creation of previously deleted material by long-term abuser - Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Zhu Ming (thinker)". I have to contact an admin for this because the IP editor keeps removing the speedy deletion template and makes other disruptive edits. Thank you. PlyrStar93 (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The Biggest Little Railway in the World

Please undelete The Biggest Little Railway in the World. Reasons. 1: I the creator was not informed and I would have immediately have contested it. While not mandatory not informing the creator is a technique to avoid dealing with a contest. 2: I as probably a lot of wikiquote newbies I only visit wikiquote intermittently. 3: Nobody did due dilligence to note this was referenced from another wiki. 4: At the time of creation I was 'helped' by another editor which gave me some confidence there was no issues. 5: Observe you did not delete the talk page at the same time which is something I would question ... is that common practice of Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

IP vandals 74.70.79.191 and 67.187.116.140

Continuously add nonsense quotes to articles, such as the Toy Story series, the Shrek series, etc., and not to mention quotes that do not exist from characters that did not even appear in the films! Plus, they send messages on my talk page bragging about their edits just because they think they are funny. But vandalism is not funny. I request these IPs be blocked indefinitely, and all pages they vandalized be protected for at least a year. WikiLubber (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that Kalki has already addressed this issue. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Another IP vandal at work...

IP 98.214.101.235 constantly adds the category Cartoon Network shows to Alvin and the Chipmunks (1983 TV series). But this series was originally run on NBC. Cartoon Network did not even exist until two years after this series was cancelled. I request action be taken against this IP and the page be protected. WikiLubber (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

And this user continues by adding a Disney XD category to Power Rangers RPM, which NEVER originally aired on any Disney-owned network except ABC. That is why I undid that user's edits before, because I fail to trust it after all of its history of misrepresenting facts. WikiLubber (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Is page mover a thing that exists on WQ? Because it would be super useful when I...totally hypothetically...accidentally create Category:Category:Sportspeople. GMG^talk 13:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Interface admin

I posted a very brief request here: Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_interface_administrator. Do you think this is the correct way to go about this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm actually not sure. It does appear to be the right place - and the next step would be for a Bureaucrat to grant entry into the new group able to make such changes. But I'm not quite sure how to go about granting it. This is my primary shortcoming as an admin - I am all about content, but I lack understanding of some of the technical side to things. I would recommend reaching out to BD2412 (a fellow Bureaucrat) who may know better. All I have ever done in this role was to rename users (when we used to do that locally) and I'm not sure how to proceed on this. Sorry. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Fictional characters

Looking at Suppandi. Is there not guidance somewhere saying that we should have articles for fictional works and not for individual fictional characters? I could've swore I read that somewhere, but now that I'm looking I don't see where. GMG^talk 12:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of Wikiquote:Fictional characters, where it talks about how we generally do not have separate pages for fictional characters (unless a specific character is so iconic as to have more general quotes about them - e.g. Superman). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

w:Suppandi is quite popular, if you ask me (and he is popular by his quotes). Maybe you haven't heard of it, but I'm not sure why it should be deleted (and please let me know on my talkpage; I was looking to add quotes when I found it missing). Thanks. Leaderboard (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Better would be to add a page for the magazine from which the character came (with quotes sourced by magazine issue number and date). The quotes are not the issue, but rather having pages for individual characters taken from other works - it is always better to have such quotes contained on a page for the work. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see my talkpage for response. Thanks, Leaderboard (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Responded to your latest question there. Leaderboard (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Abuse filters

Hi again. It seems that some users are creating spam articles like User:Reuben3163‎ and Www.jfbtv.com on Wikiquote. I suggest that you consider importing Wikibooks' edit filters into Wikiquote. For reference, the spam which I linked above will not occur on Wikibooks as the filter will catch it (and has been very successful for us) (see this).

Hi - I suggest you post about this at either the Admins' noticeboard or the Village pump. I am unfortunately not very adept on the technical side of the site, although we do have several members and admins who are. I'm sure your suggestions will be put into place by those who have better knowledge on this. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

about Articles and Quotes

• In English Wikiquote, i can create new page with 1 quote? I.G.I.cool (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine - you would also add a stub tag to such a page though (and be sure the quote is properly sourced). ~ UDScott (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Hi. Could you revert the contribution made by SaltMeansPeppee to the page about Albert Einstein? When I'm trying to rollback the edit it takes for ever and ends up in a database error. -- Tegel (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Y Done. I am seeing the same problem ([W6ZkjwrAAEAAAIFKo3sAAABF] 2018-09-22 15:49:52: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError") where I cannot undo, rollback, or even view the diff. However, I was able to load and re-save the previous version of the page, effectively reverting the problem-edit manually. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Protection

Hey, thanks for the protection on my talk page--but did you stick in the wrong year? Look what happened right afterwards. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I protected it against IP vandals, but this user actually created an ID, so was able to avoid the protection. The next level of protection would limit it to admins, which I doubt you would want. It's unfortunate we have this active vandal, but we'll have to keep an eye on it. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Could probably protect this page also. GMG^talk 22:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You all don't have semi-protection? Well, in that case, given this, I'll take full protection. Or, now that Kalki has deleted my talk page again, you can just salt it. Either way--it is incumbent on you all to stop this kind of harassment one way or another, always keeping in mind that I don't do a goddamn thing on WikiQuote and have no interest in it and never signed up for it. You all signed up, when you became admins, to protect editors. And one more thing, it would be nice if you could ping me if there's a response since, again, I don't do a goddamn thing on WikiQuote and the only time I get a notification is when this fucking incel vandalizes my talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the page again, and this time provided semi-protection, for a period of one year. ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Salt?

Sorry, I couldn't find protection template requests on here but WDHB (the user you recently banned) is known for creating Category:Sex offenders and variations of it like Category:Convicted sex offenders, so I'd like to request salt/creation protection if possible. Thanks Praxidicae (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

IP vandalsim at My Friends Tigger & Pooh

Hello! I've come to your talk page as you're the admin who most recently edited. There's an IP removing content seemingly at random from My Friends Tigger & Pooh. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the latest changes and semi-protected the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

My talk page is being vandalized...

...by unrepentant IP vandals posting nonsense quotes without explanation. I tried reporting them and requesting indefinite protection of my talk page, but no action has been taken. Do you think you can help? WikiLubber (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

IP vandals at it again...

Not the same ones who have been vandalizing my talk page, but pages such as 101 Dalmatians (1996 film), Toy Story 2, etc. These two have learned nothing from their prior blocks. I request they be blocked for at least twice as long as they have the last time, and that the pages they vandalized be protected for at least a month. WikiLubber (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Patrolling

• You are can patrolling my edit (18 November 2018) in article Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines? I.G.I.cool (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Spasibo. I.G.I.cool (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Gladiator

You are can help me with quote from movie Gladiator? If you are have time of course... I.G.I.cool (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What help do you need? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In scene, when Maximus talk with General Quintus. Two version:

Quintus: General!

Maximus: Still alive?

Quintus: Still alive.

or

Maximus: General! Still alive?

Quintus: Still alive.

Who first say General!, Maximus or Quintus. If you watch movie you can see? This is biggest question for me at that week... I.G.I.cool (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe the scene is as follows (plus a couple extra lines that are also memorable):

Quintus: General!

Maximus: Still alive?

Quintus: Still alive.

Maximus: The gods must have a sense of humor.

Quintus: The gods must love you.

Hope that helps. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Your version from screenplay from internet? I watch movie on English lang., I think:

Maximus: General! Still alive?
Quintus: Still alive.
Just...the problem with that dialog. I listen that scene, listen, listen...but I do not understand who first say General!. Ok, thank you UDScott for help! I.G.I.cool (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Grandpa Edit

Did you think my grandpa edit on Toy Story 2 was funny? - —This unsigned comment is by ‎2604:6000:e2cf:c500:5136:1a42:ec64:1878 (talk • contribs) .

Not particularly, no. It was rather juvenile and I would characterize it as vandalism. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No one does.

Apologies, UDScott, but apparently, these IP vandals knew that since they could not post irritating messages on my talk page, they (or IT, seeing as all the IPs are from the same being who should be banned from Wikiquote) try to take it out on the admins. In that event, I request that all these IPs be blocked indefinitely and the pages it/they vandalized be protected indefinitely, as well, lest they vandalize again. WikiLubber (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada

UDScott, there's a problem with another user on the film under this subject title. I checked this film's LOQ and determined it to be approximately 9, at the most 10, quotes for a 109-minute film. Bi-on-ic has decided to interfere and is taking it very personally that I am contradicting their edits of the page. Contrary to what he says, I don't view the page is "my personal blog" (?). The page just cannot be cluttered up with more than 15 quotes, many of them one-liners, when the LOQ is 9, at the most 10. I realize I overreacted some when I moved to add back the skyline image of New York City at night and to cut down the excess quotes on the movie's page, but I am trying to do right here. I gather from his previous attempt to create a separate page for Miranda Priestly and the fact that he has only edited that and this movie means that this user is a fan of the film. I am a fan, myself. The way the page was set up before Bi-on-ic got involved, it was getting close to LOQ compliance and generally had a neat and orderly appearance, which I think is vital for a good Wikiquote page. I'm not asking you to take my side. Just for you to intervene before the edit-war on this movie's page goes any further. I have largely had a good experience on this site and am glad to help out and contribute, and I do not want this to change that in any way. Bi-on-ic's interest appears much more exclusively centered on just this film, which may contribute to him taking it personal (in my opinion) that I have removed the extra quotes he added. --AC9016 (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there were too many quotes added. I'll keep an eye on it and hopefully this won't continue. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

make it better

CARL HULSES (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC) help me for making it better and good and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zaman_Ali

Yellow vests movement

UDScott, oops so sorry.I just noticed that you had corrected this earlier. It's back where you put it - as it should be. Thank you! Om777om (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries! ~ UDScott (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Toy Story vandals continue...

I request all Toy Story articles AND my talk page be protected for no less than six months apiece against this vandal, since blocking it will not stop it.

And I recommend you protect your talk page, too, lest the vandal take its behavior out on you. WikiLubber (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)