User talk:UDScott/2020

Add discussion
Active discussions
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.

More anti-American pov pushing images+quotes

Hello UDScott, could you take a look at these edits I made? I removed anti-American pov pushing images, and I suspect RupertLoup and peter1c will be reverting them soon, so if I could get your opinion on whether or not they should be on these pages that would be very much appreciated. Thanks again. --1.152.108.116 07:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I took a look - and reverted two of them. But others I think are OK, as they more closely pertain to the topic of the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of the United States

Thank you for dealing with the Pov pushing. Unfortunately - peter1c has reverted your edits on Founding Fathers of the United States. I've reverted him in turn, but he will probably revert it again. --1.136.111.199 01:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Rupert Loup has reverted them as well. --2001:8003:4085:8100:2181:D7FB:6C7F:2106 03:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
My objection was related to placing specific images at the top of the page, thereby imparting some level of emphasis on them over others - which to me demonstrates a pushing of a POV. I do not advocate the removal of properly sourced quotes from a page (if it is relevant to the topic of the page) simply because one does not like or agree with them. Sorting the images alphabetically in order to place them within the relevant letter section alleviates my concern. Please let's try to remain neutral about all this and stand down from the ongoing edit wars. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that is in their interest to remain neutral. Rupert Loup 21:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please range block

The turkish IP LTA has returned, please block this range and yank talk page access. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

Hi, can I have an answer to my question about the ip. I feel that this is not going to stop any time soon. Rupert Loup 10:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

About the Thomas and Friends articles you put under protection...

We cannot take chances that IP vandals will be after them again once the protection expires in two days. I say protect them all for another year or two. DawgDeputy (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandal

Excuse me, can you block DawgDeputy, please? That is because, he's messing up everything at Wikiquote. 207.225.26.200 02:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ignore this hypocritical vandal. It just wants an excuse to vandalize. Block this IP indefinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. It is blocked for a week for now. But I suggest no less than a year, considering this IP's incessant lack of conduct. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

sourced quotes?

iam new and would like to contribute. Any help/Ideas? PoolsHaza181 (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The best places to go to learn about how to properly add and edit pages are the following: Wikiquote:About, Wikiquote:How to edit a page, Wikiquote:Guide to layout, Wikiquote:Manual of style, and Wikiquote:Templates. Or simply click on 'Help' in the menu on the left side of the page. If you have any questions or need further help, feel free to reach out to other admins as well - or better yet, you can post a question on Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard or the Wikiquote:Village pump (which is a place for general questions that any user can respond to. Best of luck. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Request protection reduction

@UDScott: Please reduce the protection on Template:QOTD Ranking and Wikiquote_talk:Quote_of_the_day to semi-protected or unprotected (currently they are fully protected). These are project pages. They are not policies or guidelines. There may be some disagreement among some editors regarding the content of parts of these project pages. There is no existential threat to Wikiquote in reducing the protection of these pages. Thank you for your support of developing consensus on content through the bold-revert-discuss cycle and to fostering broad participation in our project. JessRek6 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I, of course, object to any reduction to the protection on these pages. I also have posted some remarks on the Admin noticeboard regarding recent actions of JessRek6 which I invite you to examine and discuss. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott: Thank you for your service as an administrator of Wikiquote. Please reply to a legitimate inquiry from a non-admin editor regarding a recent administrative action of yours. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding sooner - but I am not inclined to reduce the protection at this time, as it appears that your dispute on this topic is not yet settled. I am not saying whether or not there is merit in your arguments, but until there is resolution, I do not see the need to reduce the protection. Please continue dialogue to come to some resolution. If you still disagree, feel free to appeal to other admins and argue your case. But at this time, I believe that further discussion is the way to go, rather than opening up pages for potential edit wars. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, no apology necessary. Yes, one editor is opposed to documenting our QOTD processes toward widening participation. May I respectfully ask, what would satisfy you that there is resolution? The only way forward I can imagine is wider participation, perhaps eventually a request for comment, but in the mean time, I am an editor in good standing, and I am due the privilege of using our bold/revert/discuss cycle to hone successively more acceptable text in preparation for a request for comment. The protections are delaying resolution. Again, the two protected pages are not policies or guidelines, this is a content dispute regarding project pages, there is no threat to the project, there has been no vandalism, there have been only good faith edits. There has been no edit war; I have no doubt I will be routinely reverted, but there will be no edit war. I feel the tools are being used inappropriately here. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I guess I fail to see how the protections are limiting you in trying to resolve the issue. Nothing prevents you from making proposals for general discussion. It is in such discussion that the text could be successively honed. This is not meant to be a slight to you or your standing in the community, but I don't see the need to relax the protections - I don't see how that would change anything in your discussions. Rather than alter such a central part of the project in a hasty manner, I would rather leave things as they have been for quite some time and let the discussion carry on to its conclusion. Then when, or if, there is consensus, the changes can be made. As the discussion progresses, I may change my mind about that, but not so far. Again, feel free to reach out to another admin if you continue to disagree. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again for your reply. Respectfully, let me turn the question around: what is the basis in policy or guideline for protecting these two pages? no vandalism, no edit war, no threat to the project, so...what? The BRD cycle is our main tool for iterating toward consensus, the protections take BRD off the table. After all, the two recent edits to these two pages that have survived, so far, were both bold edits that were partially reverted and partially refined by another editor, products of a BRD cycle, this needs to continue. We have a rampant problem with talk page rambling and lack of focus on content; the BRD cycle helps promote focus on content by advancing a series of concrete texts for discussion. The protections are preventing progress. JessRek6 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I have always been partial to the process of discussing proposed changes to project pages (more so than content pages) before enacting them. Yes, of course it can be effective to allow users to boldly change pages and then have others object, revert the changes, and then discuss. But again, and especially for pages like this one that are so central to our project, I feel that a better course is to make proposals first, discuss them, and then put them into use when consensus is reached. This feels like a situation that is already so inflamed that should the page be opened up, I suspect that an edit war would occur - I would rather see some consensus be built around your arguments before making substantial changes. But, as I've said, I am just one person - and I really don't have any illusions that I have a standing greater than yours. I suggest you reach out to other admins (perhaps on the noticeboard) to see if others agree with your views. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Thank you for explicitly stating your concern regarding the possibility of future edit warring. There will be no edit war. I feel the possibility of an edit war in the future is an inappropriate use of protection. After all, we do not generally protect project pages. However, in order to accommodate your personal view, and to accommodate another editor's pattern of involvement, I will voluntarily limit myself to ONE edit per day (counting uninterrupted consecutive copy edits as one as per the usual) at each of the two project pages (perhaps slightly more than one per day at the respective talk pages). If there is edit warring, we can protect the page and I will support the protection. Please my first preference would be to resolve this between us. Please reduce these protections. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
You wrote above: "Rather than alter such a central part of the project in a hasty manner, I would rather leave things as they have been for quite some time and let the discussion carry on to its conclusion." The QOTD is not "central" to Wikiquote. The QOTD is Wikiquote content, more visible than most, but fundamentally content. The two pages you protected are not the QOTD, they are two project pages related to the QOTD. We do not routinely protect project pages. We do not even routinely protect Main page content; for example, any confirmed or autoconfirmed editor may edit "New pages". May I respectfully ask again, with specific reference to Wikipedia:Protection policy, what is your basis for protecting these two pages? Thank you for your careful consideration. JessRek6 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism afoot; immediate action requested against all parties

We have another persistent and unrepentant vandal on our hands, with sockpuppets to boot.

Mario Loud 70 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
86.190.1.253 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
86.189.228.28 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
Spongebob Loud 1999 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

I request serious action be taken against this unrepentant vandal, and that all pages it vandalized receive indefinite protection.

Meanwhile, another vandal is back in the form of this IP:

162.225.244.194 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) I request this vandal be blocked for no less than two years (since it learned nothing from the trouble it got into previously), and all pages it vandalized be protected for no less than that same period of time.

I tried reporting them to the noticeboard, with no response other than an LTA vandal (who should have been banned permanently in the first place) trying to remove the reports. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Mario Loud 70 just refuses to stop. Action requested. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little confused on this one - I looked at this user's most recent edits and I really don't see anything that was objectionable about the edits. What vandalism has occurred? In one case, I saw that WP links were added - nothing wrong with that. In another, I saw some emphasis added to a quote - nothing really wrong with that. So could you be more specific about what problems you are seeing? Based on what I saw, I am not inclined to block this user. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessarily excessive emphasis, for one. That was beyond objectionable. There was everything wrong with that. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Review help request

Hello greetings,

I had created a stub article named Aurat, wanted and want to expand it further. I had already given my justification of creating separate article Talk:Aurat#Intended article scope(further updated talk page comment today).

Some one deleted my earlier content claiming to be non notable and redirected the article page to women which is already overflowing beyond 134000 bytes. I am not sure the user who deleted my content checked my talk page comment.

For example today I wanted to add a relatively recent much debated quote from Pakistan ""Jo aurat hoti hai woh bewafa nahi hoti, aur jo bewafa hoti hai woh aurat nahi hoti’ (A woman is not a cheater, and the one who cheats, is not a woman)." Ref [1] But more than this cultural experiences of Women are much associated with word 'Aurat', though I am not a old generation or far from being conservative but I do not want to suppress PoVs and life experiences do not match with mine. As student of south Asian studies I feel it would be justifiable to have a separate article for Aurat though I am not sure how much Wikiquote rules allow for the same.

This is a kind request to review possibilty for indipendent article for word 'Aurat'; if that is not at all possible I will start adding those to Main article Women

Please do keep me informed

Thanks and Warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi please block this Ip. Thanks --Samuele2002 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Assistance requested

It concerns one Pratap Pandit (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

It constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup, დამოკიდებულება, and myself, and refuses to admit defeat.
Plus, it has a history of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. We cannot take any chances that it may take its frustration out on Wikiquote.
And in this edit, it claims დამოკიდებულება has a "weird name", and it demanded დამოკიდებულება add an English name in his signature, just because it claimed it would be "easier to communicate". I request action be taken against this user immediately.
Plus, it falsely accuses me and Rupert loup of harassment and edit warring (which it started while we tried to stop), but it has provided no sufficient evidence. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you please delete Mass deletion of pages added by Wikinews? Thanks--ValeJappo (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this was already taken care of. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. Why drop the dialogue subsections in the Princess Bridge quote page?

Hello. Just wondering why you thought the subsections were unnecessary. It's helpful in my opinion to be able to jump to a specific dialogue quote, rather than scrolling through the somewhat lengthy list. I had put a comment in the talk page already :-) Cheers - Xanderox (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I did not have any particular objection, but had reverted simply because it did not match the template. But, of course we do have a similar layout for the Monty Python and the Holy Grail page, and upon further reflection, I can see the appeal for pages such as this that have a number of classic quotes. I would not object if you were to bring it back - I might make one stylistic suggestion: as on the MPATHG page, I might remove the quotation marks in the subsection titles (just think it looks better). Cheers. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey cool! Thanks for the tip. I'll get right on it! Best. Xanderox (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Outlast

I recently did a Lint cleanup on this, but would appreciate a second opinion on which quotes are non-notable or generic dialouge, so they can be removed (per fair-dealing limitations.)

The user that revamped the page seems to be remarkably focused, and if you an admin/custodian/curator here I would suggest you leave some "friendly" advice on how things are done on Wikiquote. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this page - yes it needs a lot of trimming. The entire plot section should be removed and the list of quotes should be trimmed way back. I would say that many of the listed quotes lack quotability and should be removed (e.g. Little pig!, No. No., What is that?, or I hear a little rat.) In fact, I'm just looking at the version when you trimmed this down to ~4000 bytes - that was a good edit. I would go back to that - and when the editor in question challenges (or reverts) that, I will be sure to step in. I will also leave him a note regarding the page. Thanks for your efforts. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Lint...

Hi I'd appreciate an admin taking a look at my recent efforts, and the three templates I have repaired in sandbox.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It looks for the most part that your cleanup efforts are fine (although I was unfamiliar with the Lint term until I read about it - I'm not really a technical guy, in the sense of not having a coding background). Some of them (especially in archived deletion discussions) may not really be necessary, but they're fine. Thanks for your efforts. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Lint - Your user pages...

As part of an effort I was making to clear down some of the LintError concerns...

It was noted that your user page tries to wrap SMALL tags around a list. The underlying HTML generated is thus badly formed as SMALL is intended to be applied to SPAN style inline elements NOT to a block level element like a UL or OL (generated by the wiki-text syntax)

In this instance on your user page, SMALL tags around a list can be replaced with:

 
<div style="font-size:smaller;">
...
content
...
</div>

The current use of single P tag to mark an 'inline' paragraph break, whilst currently working is also might not play nice with the parser or browsers in the future. It can be replaced with <p></p> or if certain formatting tags are present on either side of the P {{Pbri}}, which was created for this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, a lot for me to digest. As I've mentioned before, I am very much a technically challenged member of the community. My admin status has always been more based on content than these types of issues (I'm still not even sure where you are pulling your information regarding these errors). That being said, I believe I understand your points with respect to the smaller text, but you've lost me with respect to the P tag. Please forgive my ignorance, but maybe give me the "For Dummies" version? :-) Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, I fixed the first issue I believe (please let me know if not). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. Certain formatting in HTML is intended to be balanced. A P tag marks a paragraph, and thus in well structured HTML, it's supposed to be paired with a closing tag to mark the end of the paragraph. It used to be that Mediawiki, attempted to "tidy up" internally when it found an opening P but no matched closing tag. However, that "tidy" isn't necessarily now done the same way, and the way Mediawiki tries to resolve mismatched HTML tags has also changed. This means that tags like P must be balanced up.
  2. Formatting like bold and italics cannot extend over a 'break' of context (such as starting a new paragraph with P.) In practice this means that they can only be used for single contiguous run of text. Placing a P inside italics, breaks the context by starting a new paragraph, and hence confuses the parser when it tries to "tidy". (Wikitext formating for bold and italics being converted to B and I HTML tags IIRC, which can't contain block level elements like P.) (Aside: The break of context caused by P, DIV, OL, UL etc. which are block level elements, is also why the SMALL tag (a character formatting element) cannot be used to wrap lists.) {{Pbri}} was written using a CSS tweak, to give the visual appearance of a paragraph break without causing the break in context that using P would. Being a SPAN , it can also be placed within elements like I, B and SMALL which are normally used for text formatting.)
  3. The reason I noted what I did on your talk page is that for good reasons your user page was protected against random people changing it. :)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and the great explanation. I have a better understanding of the topic for sure. But unfortunately I'm still not clear on how to specifically change my user page to correct the issue. I was just trying to use the p to create a bit of white space between lines (in fact, I've used this often on pages, especially to separate song lyrics between verses). If this is my intent, what is the best way to insert such a blank line? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I have also been scolded by people who are vexed by using the <p> tag as a paragraph separator, rather than using the pair <p>...</p> to enclose a paragraph. Virtually all browsers support using <p> by itself to indicate a paragraph break (by automatically closing any virtual paragraph). There are billions of web pages that use "unclosed" <p> tags and, in my opinion, the MediaWiki developers would be crazy to break it. Some of them threaten to do it, and I am not saying they are not crazy, I just don't want to waste effort on that possibility. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ningauble: Given most of the single P I'm finding are precisly the use case you outline, I think there is a case for ignoring these, and that it's the linter that needs updating NOT the pages. However, that still leaves the need to search for situations like '' This has <p> a tag inside italics.'' because the current parser doesn't 'distribute' the formatting across the paragrpah break. ( By eliminating a lot of claimed misnesting, I hope many of those instances have already been eleminated.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
{{Pbri}} was the work-around. It creates the visual appearance of a paragrpah break without breaking the structure. <br/><br/> can also be used, but that's not as trackable.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Gork2010

I'd been doing some lint-fixes on this page in good-faith... However, given that they seem to have been blocked on English Wikipedia, and claim to be an admin on their Meta page ( which they don't seem to be). I was thinking that perhaps you should have some discussions with your equivalents on other wikis. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello UDScott/2020,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Carsten Thiel

Hi UDScott, could you take a look at Carsten Thiel? I'm not familiar with the wikiquote policies (mainly working in de-wp), but the article looks like it was created for promotional purpose („Carsten Thiel is a highly experienced commercial professional“). Thanks! --Johannnes89 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - I agree with your concern and have nominated the page for deletion using the PROD process. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! --Johannnes89 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm very proud of you! 152.26.199.24 12:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you with me or against me

Why isn't anybody ever nice to me? —This unsigned comment is by 152.26.199.24 (talkcontribs) .

Is anybody gonna answer me or is this section getting removed? 152.26.199.24 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
What is it you are looking for? I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do I know why anyone is or isn't "nice" to you. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hi UDScott, I posted a question on village pump but haven't gotten a reply yet. Can you help me out? I don't know where to get quotes from sourced/unsourced. Thank you.

FcoonerBCA (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I've responded on the VP. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I know who you are and I saw what you did.

Okay, I don't really know who you are. But I see your contributions to Wikiquote and I just want to take a moment to say "thank you." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

DawgDeputy/WikiLubber

This user is the same one who started an edit war on the page for Liar Liar two years ago for no apparent reason. I'm very sorry to say the same thing has happened on another movie page now. I was just about to ask for assistance with this when this user filed a none-too-objective report about me on the Admin notice board, demanding that "drastic action" be taken against me for "belittling" and "calling [them] names". This is all besides the point and in no way recognizes what DawgDeputy, formerly by the username of WikiLubber if I have it right, has been doing. I started doing some edits on the page for Planes, Trains and Automobiles and all of those edits were in good faith. I have never operated any other way on this site and my many edits and new pages I've created can and do attest to that. I don't like being so critical but, for all I can see, DawgDeputy is operating exactly the same way as when they were known as WikiLubber- unfriendly, even hostile and largely just interested in getting their way. I don't know what else can be said about that. This report that they posted was NOT a remotely objective description of the situation. It exclusively paints me as the villain and is trying to get a decision made completely in their favor. I would like to ask, as plainly as possible, for assistance with this. This user has been a problem before and does not appear to have changed in any way from 2 years ago. --AC9016 (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Planes, Trains and Automobiles was already in perfectly good shape (albeit without the essential images) before AC9016 got involved and made his unnecessary edits and started name-calling. I must never be addressed as anything but DawgDeputy. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I have commented on the Admin's noticeboard and have reverted the latest changes to this film's page. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I find it *incredibly* ironic that a user with a well-documented history of legalistic and hostile behavior has been crying foul, painting me as the sole villain of the tale, and repeatedly decried me as having engaged in "name-calling". I did no such thing, except identified you by your former username of WikiLubber, which, for reasons totally unknown to me, you now take as an extreme personal insult to even have it *mentioned* to you. I don't know why you switched usernames and now pretend the first one didn't exist, but all the rest of this is just you wanting to get your way. --AC9016 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

William D. Leahy page

The Wikiquote page for Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, USN, seems to have missed your usual excellent support. Often times when I create a new page, you come along and helpfully fix it up with the additional links and such that it needs, namely taking the bolded name of the page and linking it to the corresponding page on Wikipedia. Could you assist with this page when you have some spare time? It would be greatly appreciated. --AC9016 (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Your continued support of regular users and their work is one of the greatest assets this site has. --AC9016 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit war over the “Star Wars” page

I’m having a problem with the Star Wars page. This user, Eaglestorm, keeps reverting my edits on the Han Solo vs. Greedo quote because he comments that I have a history of ramrodding my own version of things as called out by other editors on my own talk page. As a result, the user and I are currently engaged in an edit war over the Star Wars page. Here are some links of what I’m referring to:

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=2889865
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=2890314
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=2890762
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_%28film%29&type=revision&diff=2890780&oldid=2890772

Could you please help us find a way to stop this so that the user doesn’t keep reverting all my edits from the Han Solo vs. Greedo quote on the Star Wars page? AdamDeanHall (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see, looking over the edit history of the page, is that it does not appear to be a major disagreement over content, but rather a back and forth regarding punctuation. This seems like a relatively minor issue that has now grown to be an edit war, with requisite tossing of insults in edit summaries. I would ask you both to refrain from continuing this. I fail to see the importance of solving the disagreement and would ask that you both stand down and leave the page as it is. I would also note that both of you have had issues in the past and been called out for them - please learn from that and try to minimize the actions that have been identified as not constructive. @Eaglestorm:, @AdamDeanHall: Do you agree? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ann Landers for deletion?

I have added a source. Can your deletion notice be removed? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to remedy the issue, but actually we do not consider Goodreads to be an adequate source. This site allows anonymous users to add quotes without proper citation. If we simply use the site as our source, the problem is not really resolved. Take a look at Wikiquote:Citing sources for more information on providing sources. Once we have better sources for the listed quotes, the deletion notice may be removed (by any user). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank for replying. I tried to explain on Talk: Ann Landers why coming up with an acceptable wikiquote article is difficult. I hope someone takes the time to read what I wrote. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting category

Hi, can you please delete Category:Animated TV shows about friendship, Category:TV shows featuring anthropomorphic characters, and Category:Animated TV shows featuring anthropomorphic characters? I looked at these categories and it seems that they're empty as there are not any pages in these categories. - —This unsigned comment is by Funny Moneys (talkcontribs) .

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Seamless movement between wmf-projects

Hi UDScott/2020

I noticed you removed the "w:" here. I know it appears the original was a typo, but actually it is an idea I have been toying with recently.

Back in April, when I started contributing here, I had a short discussion with User: ~riley who welcomed me to the project. At that time I was unhappy about being sent off to read content on enwiki when I was not expecting to find myself outside of wikiquote, and could have easily got myself into sock-trouble if I did not notice the switch. I am sure there are other contributors on Wikiquote, who for their own reasons do not want to contribute to wmf-projects outside wikiquote.

So, to make a long story short I now intentionally precede my wikilinks to enwiki with a visible "w:".

Am I making sense? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

While I understand your rationale (now that you have explained it), as long as I have been working on this project, it has been considered poor form to leave the 'w:' before links to Wikipedia. I am so used to correcting it when I see it that it looks strange to me. That is why I made the change. I suggest that something like this be discussed before making widespread use of it, because most editors will also change it upon seeing it. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletions of additional citations

Hi UDScott,

I have noticed that additional citations have been deleted from wikiquote articles. There are only two users doing this on wikiquote. One is Rupert loup, the other is the blocked User talk:Xsaorapa.

For example:

There are many more examples on many articles, where additional citations ("as quoted in", "also quoted in", "attributed by", ...) are deleted.

According to Wikiquote:Manual_of_style#Citation_style, additional citations (one or two) can be useful as long as they don't clutter too much. They can be useful for

  1. online verification (if it is an online source)
  2. to help the reader find additional context and discussion about a quote
  3. or simply to acknowledge as a matter of fairness the source where the quote was actually found

and should not have been deleted in my opinion.

Also, it seems to be a form of censorship, where references are removed with this excuse because the source of the reference is disliked for some pov reason. If there are too many additional citations that can clutter too much then they should only be moved to hidden text IMHO using <!-- Hidden text -->

Is there a consensus on wikiquote about this issue? Are such removals acceptable? -- (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, I believe you are correct in that additional sources for a quote, while not necessary, can be beneficial provided there are not so many that they produce clutter. In this case, the user removed them and cited the use of POV spam. I do not see evidence that having this additional source introduces POV nor that the links represent spam, so I would disagree with the removal for these grounds. In short, I believe you are justified to question the removals - and in fact are in the right to replace them, should you choose. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. -- (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Serious Vandalism by anonymous user

There is a problem with significant and serious vandalism in progress by an anonymous user, operating under the IP address 2603:6080:A608:500:556A:9FC8:D9E7:5ADC. They have been vandalizing numerous pages and DawgDeputy has been making extensive efforts to revert the damage. - --AC9016 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
It looks like most of this is already cleaned up. I cleaned up the rest and the user is blocked. (NOTE: I trimmed some of the content of this message to avoid having a link on my talk page). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Understood, that all makes sense. Thank you. --AC9016 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a question

Now, I'm not trying to be a troll or anything or vandalize, but how did ClownDeputy get blocked for a month, but that anon get blocked forever? That just doesn't make any sense. 2603:6080:A608:500:CD9E:7ED2:B8BC:50CA 15:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We have no complaints about the nonsensical IP getting blocked infinitely (though the IP should have been denied talk page access, as well).
ClownDeputy, however, should have gotten the same, with talk page privileges revoked. That user's edits were nothing but vandalism. And I had reported that user to the WMF before the user was blocked. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
It is a fair question - we do not usually permanently ban right away, unless the exhibited behavior is completely disruptive to the site or contains spam. This latest incident bordered on such actions, which is why I initially put the indefinite block in place. I have reconsidered and feel that a month-long ban is more appropriate. However, should the behavior continue when the ban expires, a permanent ban is the likely outcome. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Remember, ClownDeputy is a sockpuppet of Oohtqejjhh, a user who was also blocked infinitely for the same pattern of vandalism (whose edits should also be stricken as if they never existed). DawgDeputy (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "UDScott/2020".