Open main menu

Wikiquote β

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from WQ:AN)

This is a messageboard for all administrators.


Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behavior, or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.

To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.

To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.

Pages needing admin intervention:

See also:

Bureaucrat tasks:




Edit warring on Creationism articlesEdit

The images on the Kent Hovind and Ken Ham articles (which another registered user has pointed out don't violate Wikiquote:Image use policy) have been repeatedly removed by an anonymous user ( who first decried the images as "unnecessary", then as "clearly for trolling", despite the fact that the majority of images are of animals or religious art which are perfectly illustrative of the quotes in question. - Mariomassone (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Though there are always potentials for contentions on the use of various images, and there might be valid arguments made for use of some others in some instances, I can agree that these used generally seem to be within the guidelines for the use of images here, to illustrate specific quotes and indicate aspects or issues related to signifiant statements on the pages, and I have again restored them, as has been done previously by others. ~ Kalki·· 12:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The images were clearly posted to try to make fun of them. Wikis aren't the place for that. -- 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Fail to see how a picture of Loch Ness to illustrate a quote about Loch Ness, or an artistic depiction of the devil on a quote about the devil is "making fun". Also, the fact that you removed the quotation from the top image of each article is suspicious. -Mariomassone (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
oh wait, sorry. not all the images were trolling. I'll remove the ones that are. -- 02:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTomEdit

I don't often come to WikiQuote, and am much more active on Wikipedia and Wiktionary, so I was kind of surprised by all the remarks made by the user DanielTom that go entirely against WP:CIVIL. He was vigorously supporting Donald Trump on his article page while adding mostly negative quotes to Barrack Obama. Nothing inherently wrong with that - it's only human to have an opinion. But what did bother me were his provocative and borderline slanderous edit summaries.

These clearly go against the edit summary policy, which discourages uncivil and inappropriate summaries (including snide comments). By doing this, it effectively circumvents WQ:QLP and WP:BLP while still outing unsourced disparaging remarks for all to see; there is no source that Obama was lying or that he made a joke (apart from a tabloid), and many of the remarks are opinions derived from personal conclusions.

But this isn't a discussion about Obama or American politics. My main complaint is something I saw after that, which is his attitude towards other editors (including me).

  • On Kalki's page, DanielTom started a discussion titled "you should be ashamed of yourself", containing the text "So... you don't actually mind images highlighting and promoting "asinine racist delusions", as long as they make your political opponents look bad." I'm not sure where that comes from, but it's hardly an appropriate way to start a discussion and clearly violates WP:NPA. Here he refers to the concerns of him and another editor: "... a flagrant double-standard or politically motivated, [like] IOHANNVSVERVS' or Obama-loving Kalki's".
  • I've seen several snide edit summaries such as this one personally attacking Illegitimate Barrister. Here he immediately threatens him with a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard or Village pump over the use of blogs (which, ironically, he also does as can be seen above). Today (24 July) he also seemed to have been Wikihounding Illegitimate Barrister from 00:07 to 00:38, repeatedly reverting him on 4 completely different articles.
  • I don't know what happened regarding CensoredScribe, I guess there was a fair reason for his ban, but DanielTom's hostility against him is still worrying. Here: "You have added so much garbage and so many off-topic "quotes" to Wikiquote theme pages that it's probably going to take us years to undo all the damage. Your reading comprehension is evidently worse than a 5 year old's, and I even thought you could be mentally challenged, but after seeing this I now believe you are just trolling." Calling another editor "mentally challenged" because of their editing behaviour, no matter how disagreeable, goes so far against WP:NPA that it could probably stand on its own to explain why this user is unfit for the project.
  • Here he indirectly calls Ningauble a "useful idiot".

There's quite a bit more, but I'm sure the other editors involved are aware of that already. It should probably be noted that I didn't want to start with this. When he immediately re-reverted my reversion of his uncivil reversion on Donald Trump with the edit summary "revert troll" (again failing to assume good faith), I went to his page to inquire and saw several edits of him that showed widespread disbehaviour. I tried to confront him on this, but he removed my comment and called me a "troll" (again). I find it unfortunate that he completely rejects criticism and concerns. It's one thing to almost solely make controversial edits, but if one is incapable of cooperation I don't see the point of being on this project besides pushing an agenda. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

By choosing to focus on a very small but carefully-selected number of edits, and ignoring all the others, you can demonize anybody.

Of course I don't "completely reject[] criticism and concerns". And everyone who has ever talked to me in good-faith knows this. But when they come from bad-faith trolls (socks?) like you, I may. Just look at your attitude towards me from the beginning. You restored an edit by a blocked vandal with out of order, poorly formatted and unsourced quotes; of course I reverted you. And I should add, your incoherent and one-sided presentation above only confirms my reservations.

You say I am "vigorously supporting" Trump. I said "Obama-loving" Kalki. The difference is, my comment was relevant to the discussion, which was about possible political censorship. I will actually say that my edit summaries on the Barrack Obama page are accurate, and that I don't find them uncivil. (But I accept that different people have different sensibilities.) I am prepared to defend each one of them, although most them them (if not all) are taken directly from journalistic titles.

On to your "main complaint": you claim that I "personally attack[ed]" User:Illegitimate Barrister because I wrote in an edit summary:

  • "Eugène Ney Terre'Blanche (31 January 1941 – 3 April 2010) was a Boer-Afrikaner criminal" — clearly, it was User:Illegitimate Barrister who wrote the intro
Is this really a personal attack? Or are you just trying to make me look bad at all costs? Do you agree with Illegitimate Barrister's intro? You say that I "revert[ed Illegitimate Barrister] on 4 completely different articles", as if that were a bad thing. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of articles where Illegitimate Barrister's additions are going to have to be reverted, sooner or later. Just like hundreds or thousands of CensoredScribe's edits have been rightly reverted. See here for a short explanation (and an admin agreeing with me).

You then bring up an edit from over 6 months ago, just to pile on. You are new to Wikiquote (or are you?), and don't understand the damage CensoredScribe has done to this wiki. Or how much work it is to clean it up. (Re. "useful idiot", that was obviously a joke. I'm not going to apologize for sometimes writing edit summaries that are funny or entertaining to me. And N. has a sharper tongue than I do.)

You say I am "incapable of cooperation". Not true. I often seek feedback and ask questions when unsure about how to best improve articles, and have learned a great deal from more than one editor here. And I sometimes (many times, if I include here finding sources for quotes) help other editors with their questions. You've looked at my edits, so you know you are purposefully being unfair and dishonest. You say I am only on this project to push an agenda. I started editing Wikiquote in 2012 adding quotes to the Bertrand Russell page, and the overwhelming majority of my edits from then on have been (and continue to be) to literature pages. But you want to make it all sound negative. I understand that. Have a nice day. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to address one thing. Prinsgezinde claims he started this section because of my allegedly "uncivil reversion on Donald Trump". Let's see what he's actually referring to:

  • CensoredScribe's edit: "Two more gay quotes and one on hand shaking. Ivana Trump and Gene Simmons." Notice the first quote CensoredScribe added is worse than unsourced: it made a previous quote appear unsourced, and claimed for its own a source where the new quote isn't found. This is typical of CensoredScribe, as anyone who is familiar with his incompetent editing knows. The second quote he added appears to be floating with no source (again, typical) and the third is not in chronological order.
  • I revert CensoredScribe's edit: "first two are out of order and unsourced – Undo revision 2141703 by CensoredScribe (talk) feel free to add them back carefully, properly ordered and adequately sourced". Nothing uncivil here. Prinsgezinde's claim is false! CensoredScribe then reverted me back (as he always does), and I reverted him again with the edit summary: "I don't have to fix your mistakes and lazy editing". (Ningauble appears to agree.)
  • Prinsgezinde restores the vandal's edit: "Undo revision 2141714 by DanielTom (talk) - Unexplained revert and uncivil response. They are sourced, and "out of order" is not a valid reason." Notice that right away he starts with bad-faith. And right away he claims my response had been "uncivil". But that is false. (And the first quote is not in the claimed source, that I can see. It is unsourced. It, along with the others, messed up the article's formatting too.)
  • Prinsgezinde follows up by restoring a quote from a blog: "Rv biased censorship of criticism" So he also accuses me of censorship. Notice that poor-quality quote is taken directly from a blog, is not quoted anywhere, and is accompanied with an image caption that reads "Trump has aligned himself with the white." which is not even a full sentence.
  • I revert him: "Undo revision 2150304 by Prinsgezinde (talk) "Trump has aligned himself with the white." is not a full sentence, makes no sense. Blogger is not a presentable source" My first interaction with Prinsgezinde. No incivility. Then I saw that he had also restored that CensoredScribe's edit which had messed up the page and that had unsourced material, with an edit summary claiming "Unexplained revert and uncivil response". Again, that was false, because I had explained the revert, and had been civil.

So it was Prinsgezinde's lies detailed above that led me to revert him with the edit summary "revert troll". He got upset that I called him as a troll (even though his false edit summaries were trollish), and that motivated him (as he admits) to start this hit-job section. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I think you're very wrong about being able to find edit summaries like these for most editors. It is unusual and rather POV to make judgment calls about subjects in edit summaries. BD2412 T 03:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm wrong about something I never claimed I could do? Most editors don't make such edit summaries – even I rarely make them. What I said was that (1) they are not inaccurate, and (2) if you google "my" edit summaries on the Barrack Obama page you will see that they match exactly with the headlines of many of the newspapers that reported the quotes. But from now on I'll voluntarily limit myself to "+1" ("add quote", or equivalent) edit summaries at least on that page (and others where controversy may arise). ~ DanielTom (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. Ah, you were probably referring to my very first sentence, but just to clarify, I wasn't thinking of edit summaries there, exclusively. ~ DanielTom (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe, and that's why I wanted to confront you about it at your talk page. But since in both the interactions we had you dismissed me and called me a "troll" (while recommending I do exactly this), I don't know why you'd respond in such a way. As I said before, I'm sure you had reasons. But that doesn't excuse such incivility towards other members of the project. I provided their names to hear their side of the story. Naturally, if as you said the editors in question know that you are a good faith editor and that you were kidding or joking lightly in your mentions of them, they can vouch for this and it can be verified. But you can't know if others perceive a remark the same way you wish them to perceive it. As for my revert, it was indiscriminating. I noticed you had reverted several edits of CensoredScribe and IllegitimateBarrister using such edit summaries as "I don't have to fix your mistakes and lazy editing" (which was the one that I found uncivil). At this point I didn't yet know that there were problems with CensoredScribe, but still, this is not an acceptible edit summary. Another thing that should be noted is that when starting a discussion at the AN, it's the point that I provide diffs and my complaints. You said so yourself. But that doesn't give you the OK to call me a "bad-faith troll" (again with the troll) and accuse me of being a sock for no reason whatsoever. This isn't a fight. I'm voicing my complaints and if you have complaints about me, you can start one on me. If you have complaints about my complains then that's fine, but argumenta ad hominem and appeals to hypocrisy are unhelpful.
PS: Yes, I am "new" to WikiQuote. That's between quotes because that means I don't often come here, but have been here since I started on Wikipedia. I addressed this in the first line of my complaint. But incivility is frowned upon on all Wiki projects alike.
PPS: I forgot to link User:IOHANNVSVERVS. Prinsgezinde (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
My calling CensoredScribe's lazy editing "lazy editing" was not uncivil, and hardly justifies your own incivility, smears and misrepresentations towards me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The locus of this dispute, as I see it, is the restoration of previously removed content in the Donald Trump article by Prinsgezinde. This was removed again by DanielTom,[1] which gave rise to a brief, abortive exchange on DanielTom's talk page.[2]

    Before delving into criticism of DanielTom's conduct in other regards, which may have merit but are only argumentum ad hominem with respect to the contested edits, let us examine the three edits of Prinsgezinde that are in dispute.

  1. Prinsgezinde's first edit to the page[3] restored content, originally posted by CensoredScribe [4] and removed by DanielTom[5], that included unsourced quotes and a patently false citation, contrary to Prinsgezinde's assertion that they are sourced. On appeal by CensoredScribe the removal had been endorsed by myself[6] and by UDScott[7]. It may be possible to salvage some parts of that edit, but restoring unsourced and false content is not appropriate.
  2. Prinsgezinde's second edit to the page[8] restored content originally posted by Illegitimate Barrister[9] and removed by DanielTom[10] and myself[11]. First of all, Prinsgezinde's edit summary, "Rv biased censorship of criticism", is plainly false. Far from being critical, the quoted blogger expressly says "this is a very positive development for America" in the linked blog post. (2) I stand by my original rationale for removing the quote: it is not widely quoted, and this blog post is not notable. (Cf. my position on bloggery at Wikiquote talk:Quotability#Tweets, blogs, chatrooms, &c..)
  3. Prinsgezinde's post on DanielTom's talk page[12] made no attempt to enquire what was wrong with the reverted edits or to explain why they should be retained. It was entirely and exclusively an attack on the person.
Whatever may be said about DanielTom's demeanor (which may indeed be over the top in some respects), regarding the actual edits in dispute here, Prinsgezinde is in the wrong. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you misrepresent my point there. That wasn't my complaint. I couldn't care less about that edit, am fully willing to admit I was wrong, and care solely about the way it was explained and how the behaviour was later justified. It should also be noted that I only posted in his talk page after seeing how he treated other editors. I feel that after seeing that, my statements were appropriate and definitely not an attack. I could have expected it would have been easy for DanielTom to paint me as an angry editor out for revenge, so to speak, but this is solely and exclusively about his behaviour. I would still like to hear from the other editors. I believe you and DanielTom have a reasonable relationship, but his comments towards the other editors were a lot more severe. So, in summary and once and for all: this is about DanielTom's editing behaviour in general. If people for some reason want confirmation that I don't seek revenge about people who annoy me, have a look at my history (on Wikipedia, for instance). But I would consider accusations of me starting this topic for other reasons as being an ad hominem, and not helpful in regards to the issue in question. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"(Undo revision 2221155 by incompetent CensoredScribe (talk) wrong section, and you messed up a citation)." I'm compiling a list of words that officially don't constitute personal attacks on the basis that DT uses them and no one does anything. I mean if I used them I'd get banned, but anyone else with that many edits and years spent here can probably be just as mean and get away with it. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, "remove 2 (added by incompetent CensoredScribe) that mention wind only in passing)" From someone whiny who selectively capitalizes sentences than complains about grammatical errors. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
then* ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Daniel Tom, that's one of the few times you've actually tried told me specifically what I did wrong and provided constructive criticism, instead of incivil comments that fail to explain what you know to others and indicate an unwillingness or inability to effectively communicate. But for the second time please remember to capitalize the beginning of even an incomplete sentence, an as·ter·isk just doesn't cut it grammatically and teaches others to write incorrectly as you do. Please feel free to list the times you actually had a constructive criticism as I'm listing the many times you did not.

So far I've learned incompetent lazy and clown (which I actually didn't mind all that much, because unlike you I can write something humorous and original) are all acceptable slurs. Want to add anymore samples of your charming means of educating and witty edit banter, so that newcomers can learn what exemplifies a proper edit summary instead of petty soap boxing and personal attacks? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well observed. One "l" too many. My default language setting is Portuguese, so spell-checker doesn't help me here. Of course it's always possible for me to make mistakes without noticing (though probably not as consistently as you), and I always appreciate it when they're pointed out to me – so, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for what is, I think, the only compliment you've ever given me. This threads length and the number of people who've contributed to it shows not a lot of people here find your edit summaries and POV pushing very funny, so like when Kalki pushed political POV through links I recommend you join a comedy wiki; just as you've recommend a certain editor on the page for God write a book, Encyclopedia Dramatica or Rational Wiki is probably a better fit for your visceral condescending tone than Uncyclopedia in any of its languages. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, as Daniel Tom notes in the discussion on Illegitimate Barrister "I don't believe in "punishment". Currently IB has more bad edits up than me, and yet they call for me to be banned still which sounds an awful lot like punishment to me and like Daniel Tom is painting an inaccurate picture of themselves.
Also from DT, "You then bring up an edit from over 6 months ago, just to pile on. You are new to Wikiquote (or are you?), and don't understand the damage CensoredScribe has done to this wiki." Or how much work it is to clean it up. I would like Daniel Tom to elaborate on what their grievances are, whether it's a count of how many of my edits they've personally reverted or edits they would like remove, I would gladly compare the number to IB's number of reversions and address remaining pages DT and I have been too "lazy" to revert.
Also, "(Re. "useful idiot", that was obviously a joke. I'm not going to apologize for sometimes writing edit summaries that are funny or entertaining to me. And N. has a sharper tongue than I do.)" I'm glad Daniel Tom is having fun at other peoples expense.
I agree with Prinsgezinde, "I find it unfortunate that he completely rejects criticism and concerns, however most of Daniel Tom's edits involve well known literary and political writers from before the invention of the electric light bulb, so calling their edits nothing but controversial is a bit of a stretch for me. Perhaps a topic ban for Daniel Tom and Kalki both if they continue to push politics in links and edit summaries, not a ban for editors who have contributed thousands of edits expanding wikiquotes understanding of the classics, though perhaps a block of up to a week, I've been blocked for over a month due to confusing something Daniel Tom said with something Ninguable said, so a block for intentional incivility and continuing maliciousness seems appropriate. It seems the primary basis for this discussion along with condescending edit summaries and an unwillingness to speak to others outside of a select circle of friends and admins regarding criticism. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

YouTube comment added as quote by WQ adminEdit

Hey there folks, now I'm not a Wikiquote editor, I've stumbled upon this completely by accident, I don't have any idea about the ins and outs of this project, I'm a couple of months late, and I'm not much for internet drama, plenty of that at our local wiki, so feel free to tell me to buzz off if I'm way off base here. But I'm pretty sure basic wiki project rules and Wikiquote:Wikiquote and whatever still apply.

One of your current administrators (!?!), User:Illegitimate Barrister, has seen fit to add a YouTube comment to three pages on here about a year ago and then again in January this year, even rendering the YouTube screen name TheDreadBaron123something as "T. D. Baron" in the attribution. Here [13], here [14], and [15]. As I said, I got basically zero clue as to how you do things here, but what the hell.

I also first posted this over at VP a while ago, because I'm dumb and didn't realize you guys also got an admin board, which ought to have been quite obvious. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing this inappropriate content. "What the hell" is about right.

Adding a non-notable pseudonymous/anonymous post from an open comment/discussion thread was very poor judgement, and it is almost unbelievable that an administrator would use such a misleadingly bogus citation: the quote is not from the titled work, nor is the (mis)identified person author of the work. (I say "almost" unbelievable because I have actually seen this sort of thing before, from the same administrator.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it was not a good addition. However, ultimately the process works. The bad is spotted and removed. BD2412 T 23:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Like seriously, what is going on here? I got curious and User:Illegitimate Barrister looks to have done this many times in addition to the above! Random guys from a discussion board, sometimes with usernames changed to look like actual people in case their screen handles were off – but not always?! See [16] and [17] and [18], but that's not all! It's a major pain to go through literally hundreds of diffs, so I checked this out and just ctrl+f "civil war talk" in the articles listed. I'm absolutely flabbergasted.

You'll see the same process applied to United States (a quote attributed to a 'Red Harvest'!), Abraham Lincoln (two quotes by 'Forever Free'), Republican Party (United States) (three quotes from that forum, by 'Brass Napoleon', 'J. Peter' who is actually jpeter on those boards, and 'Forever Free' again), Georgia (U.S. state) ('Brass Napoleon' again), Confederate States of America (one by 'Forever Free', another by 'John Hartwell'), John Brown (abolitionist) (a quote attributed to 'Dan Wykes' who however actually goes by 'Danl1860' on civilwartalk), American Civil War ('Brass Napoleon' and 'J. Peter' again).

And that's just a single topic/site – don't forget my original post was about a YouTube comment, not the civilwartalk site.

Now I don't mean to be rude but how the hell is this not vandalism or against the rules, and how is this guy an admin, seriously? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just couldn't let it go. So guess what I did? I went and randomly opened a couple more contributions by the user. In one I found a blogger being quoted[19]. In another, A REDDIT POST!!! [20] There's actually two quotes from 'Irish Fafnir' from reddit there but I just didn't have the strength to look up the second diff. In the next, a self help metaphysical preacher guy? Diff[21] & about the author[22] (not as outrageous as the others maybe, but still a rather dubiously notable addition, no?). Then literally some random dude's blog[23] (since removed). Joke car reviews – admittedly from a 300k YT subscribers author[24] so maybe not completely off. A joke about Detroit/Cleveland from a user of an alternate history forum[25]. Also tons and tons[26][27][28] of sourcing quotes to the aforementioned civilwartalk forum – I'm no expert but the quotes are probably fine judging by some googling, why ref them with a message board though. And these are just random finds from less than a year ago. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The first bunch of "additions" (the Civil War Talk stuff) I mentioned in my 2nd post should be gone now. I have also removed two more things. First, a GT Yelverton quote which I believe does not pass notability but I pretty much stumbled upon it by accident. Second, SOMEONE'S COMMENT ON A BLOG (like, not even an article, but from the comments!) which was attributed to a random dude who happens to share the name with a rock guitarist[29].
I want to stress again that I don't know how you guys do things here, but this is beyond bewildering. It seems pretty clear to me that the above edits are just
  • the tip of an iceberg (as evidenced by a bunch of random edits from the past couple of months turning up more and more of this stuff),
  • clearly indicative of a hardcore POV/agenda (as much as, at its core, I might actually agree with it – just not like this at a wikiproject!),
  • and they go beyond this "simple" (though, I think, still clearly unacceptable) treatment of the topic of ACW to the bizarre realm of adding a joke from some message board.
As if literally quoting random people from the internet talking about the ACW was not bad enough. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Another tip of the iceberg: Amazon customer reviews. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad CCCVCCCC has raised this issue. I also noticed that User:Illegitimate Barrister has been making edits that seem to be motivated more by a political agenda than by the intention of creating a high quality Wikiquote website. This includes quotes from non-notable and marginally notable sources. It includes quotes on theme pages that are marginally relevant to the theme. DanielTom has raised this issue with Illegitimate Barrister before. Illegitimate Barrister responded by merely deleting the attempt to begin a discussion. This seems to me contrary to the spirit of resolving disagreements by open and civil discussion. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Illegitimate Barrister added comments from LiveLeak too. (In one of them he links to the non-existent Wikipedia article "Captain Kuntflaps".) ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I would remove every quote linked to a speaker with a non-existent Wikipedia article. BD2412 T 18:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Linking to a nonexistent Wikipedia article is a common enough mistake for newcomers, especially when just following boilerplate examples. (I have inadvertently done it enough times myself, mostly due to typos or missing disambiguation, that I long ago acquired the habit of checking links in a preview before posting.) When an administrator with tens of thousands of edits does this habitually, I have to echo CCCVCCCC's exclamation again: what the hell! ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree completely. In this instance, however, I am proposing a rule of thumb for removing questionable additions rather than governance for future additions. BD2412 T 14:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to be out for blood or overly zealous or something of the sort, I was wondering if... well, if anything at all has been done to address the issue? I mean other than editors having to painstakingly check Illegitimate Barrister's edit history and revert reddit comments, youtube comments, fan message board comments and other examples of widespread vandalism. I had previously noticed he seemingly quit editing WQ and thus might have not noticed the message left at User talk:Illegitimate Barrister, but about two weeks back he had made a return. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

My two cents: because I don't believe in "punishment", and because Illegitimate Barrister hasn't abused his admin tools, I wouldn't !vote to remove his adminship. He seems to understand what the problem is, and to have stopped adding YouTube comments (and the like) by anonymous people as quotes for good. Of course if he starts adding such quotes again, I'll change my mind. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this very reasonable assessment. BD2412 T 15:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
As I have said before, I am not an active WQ editor so it doesn't feel like it's my place to get overly involved here, but let me just say that I can't quite believe what I'm seeing here.
We're talking about Illegitimate Barrister, an admin vandalizing dozens of pages and acting in very bad faith (see attempts to pass off youtube users as quote-worthy individuals with wiki pages). And ignoring the discussion here, or on his talkpage, which he simply "archived" without responding to Ningauble's request to comment – which doesn't quite strike me as understanding the problem here, unless there's been e-mails exchanged.
Incidentally, this is doubly peculiar because it's the same kind of "understanding" he had shown in the past when DanielTom had pointed out the exact same problem we're discussing here, as described by Peter1c in his Aug 7 post above. And while he might not have abused his rights, WQ:ADMIN does mention that admins ought to be "trusted" and "trustworthy" members of the community.
Oh and just to top it off, when I checked IB's recent activity, one of his first edits after coming back was reverting another admin's (Mdd) edit (summarized as "removing pov pushing" – and deleting about a dozen Michael Totten (?!?) quotes), while labelling it as "reverting vandalism"[30]. A change that was then re-rev'd by yet another admin.
So let me get this right – months of vandalism & unreliable pov pushing, getting warned or asked to stop or explain not just once, but twice, and not even responding to either request, and continuing at least in part in said behavior... and what happens is literally nothing? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't get it. Or, if he does, it's vandalism. Either way, I'm starting to think Illegitimate Barrister is too incompetent to edit Wikiquote. (Very similar to CensoredScribe – they both desperately want to up their edit-count, so they add all kinds of trash to WQ articles. Illegitimate Barrister's only redeeming quality at this point is that, unlike CensoredScribe, when his many bad edits are reverted he doesn't revert back.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Illegitimate Barrister replaced many YouTube links with ListenOnRepeat links. This is a huge problem, to which there is no easy solution. (At least I know of no way to find ListenOnRepeat links on Wikiquote, even though they are all over the place.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In addition to his continued vandalism of WQ, dubious POV pushing, and labelling reverts of these by other users including an administrator as "vandalism", he has now been asked to explain himself at least three times on his talk page (see above & talk history). Every single time there was no reply other than an immediate "archival" of the question without an actual reply. I would like to know what are the admins going to do? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

They aren't going to do anything, apparently. Here's another issue, just for the record: Illegitimate Barrister has no sense of balance, and very often creates pages with only pejorative/negative/insulting (sometimes racist) "quotes". This is especially concerning when they are about whole countries. Most of these attack pages' quotes are either by unknown authors, or hardly quoted anywhere (or both). He added many such extremely poor pages created by himself to Wikiquote's "Selected pages" on the Main Page (under "Places"). I objected at the time, but they are still there. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that nothing is going to be done about the above, which is both rather bemusing and amusing, but I just wanted to point out that IB has now been asked at least four times to explain his behavior – without a single response. Other than immediately removing any attempts at discussion from his talkpage, that is. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has had problems with adding quotes from obscure web sources to theme pages in the past, perhaps Illegitimate Barrister would be willing to speak with me about this issue, as I am facing similar concerns with about sections. If the page for Maddox is any indication, quotability from a secondary source isn't necessary for quotes from an internet celebrity with a wikipedia page, at least when it comes to their wikiquote page. I think Illegitimate Barrister would face much less resistance in creating new pages for niche interests than adding quotes to existing pages, though I doubt any of these Youtubbers and bloggers actually notable, unlike eye witness accounts of something like 9/11 quoted in a newspaper which are obscure but acceptable. PS: FYI Daniel Tom, if I wanted to up my edit count I would have made all the additions to Nuclear weapons, Nuclear power, Nuclear war and Organic chemistry quotes one by one instead of one hundred at a time. I also wouldn't show others collections of quotes I've found so I could have all the glory of systematically improving wikiquotes science coverage for myself one weekend at a time. As Daniel Tom's user page also mostly consists of an edit counter, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@CensoredScribe:  This thread is about the conduct of Illegitimate Barrister, not Daniel Tom. If you are attempting to refute Daniel Tom's arguments in this discussion by criticizing unrelated conduct elsewhere then it is ad hominem . ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Daniel Tom doesn't believe in punishing an admin because of misuse of the privileges of a regular editor but they believe in punishing me and I have less bad edits up than IB right now, I don't have a page solely dedicated to my edits pending admin review, arguing I'm more problematic than that is a poorly constructed lie. My vote is a warning the next time it happens than the second time a three day block for wasting everyone's time: admins aren't above the rules. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


I happen to notice that User:TheKosmozoan has a similar edit pattern as User:CensoredScribe adding youtube links [31], adding quotes to not-directly related topics [32], adding large quantity of text [33], [34]; and starting articles with incomplete source data [35], which includes random bolding... and he is also working in the same field, and uses the same uncommon html-tags. What hit me at first was the number of quotes made in a short period of time [36], which suggests we are dealing with an experienced user. Any ideas what to do here? -- Mdd (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC) / 16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything that leads me to suspect this is the same person. I am inclined to assume this new user is acting in good faith, and might benefit from a little polite and diplomatic feedback about improving their contributions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • An "experienced user"? Ha, I wish! -- I'm rather quite new to this whole 'Wikipedia editing' business, as I can image (or at least suspect) is rather obvious at this point, given the long grocery-list of errors I seemed to've made, and as you've pointed out above. As for the incomplete articles you mentioned, I apologize; being new here, I thought I might just go ahead and create them using what little editing experience I had at this point in hopes that other more experienced users would correct/enhance them in due course. The way I see it, a modest but incomplete entry on a subject is better than no article at all! :P ...or perhaps I'm wrong on thinking as much? (Not a rhetorical question by the way, I really don't know the answer! Again, this is all very new to me.) As for Ningauble's input, if there's any help/pointers/advice (etc.) either of you can give a guy like me, I'm eager to learn and willing to listen. (PS I have no idea who this 'CensoredScribe' is). ~ Cheers, TheKosmozoan

Wrong categories and MW userbot to be blocked?Edit

In the last days Special:Contributions/Babel_AutoCreate is creating user language categories with wrong capitalization. They should be deleted (just those created in August 2016). In addition, in other projects (e.g., wikidata and the account has been blocked until the problem will be resolved: the bug on phabricator is phab:T63993. This doesn't mean you must block it, it was just for you to be noticed. (but of course if you don't block it, please check his contributions every while). --Superchilum (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first time the bot has gone off the rails. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. If not, I will escalate the issue to global functionaries. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I saw your post on Phabricator, thanks. Meanwhile, more categories. --Superchilum (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 Y Blocked pending resolution of phab:T63993. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Now in GreekEdit

Yesterday I created the Administrators' noticeboard in Greek Wikiquote.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea a wikiquote could go that long without an incidence requiring administrators. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Unprotect Tenth Doctor pageEdit

There are several inaccurate quotes on the Tenth Doctor page, and for some reason it has been protected for an entire year by Ningauble, yet doesn't seem to have been needing protection. Jeffknight (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not know why this was protected for an entire year, and was going to change the protection level, but let it remain for now, as it is only protected at the level of new and unregistered users, and thus you should be able to edit it soon. ~ Kalki·· 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it had been indefinitely semi-protected and I reduced the duration by setting it to expire (log). (I did this with many pages I reviewed after a recent discussion about over-use of indefinite protection.) I would not object if someone removes the protection altogether. Since the article no longer covers the show's current season, as it did at the time it was originally protected, there is probably less inducement for bloating and edit warring. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sam AllardyceEdit

Hi, please could an administrator place the content of the deleted Sam Allardyce page somewhere in my userspace so that I can see what's there and try to clean it up - or if it really is a lost cause, start again from scratch. Thanks, Waggers (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It contained only a single unremarkable remark that was misquoted from this news story. It would be better to start from scratch. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


I just checked in very briefly here and blocked (talk · contributions) for vandalism, which was clear enough on many edits, but did not revert or delete the last 2 edits made, as possibly legitimate and retainable. I just thought I would note that, but don’t have time to stick around. I must be leaving now. ~ Kalki·· 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I see they have been reverted, and have no argument against that. Just noting that before rushing off. ~ Kalki·· 14:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Uck Feaglestorm (talk · contributions)Edit

Judging by the multiple edits and the obviously HATER nickname, this is some guy who got called out for his trolling. I think I can draw up a couple of suspects. Somebody please shut down this loser. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Y Blocked as an unacceptable username. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Steinmetz2020 (talk · contributions) is another and wow only one contribution - on my talkpage! Jig is up kid. all of those socks' edits should be deleted because they got nothing to contribute but hate on me. this is probably an outgrowth of Garth Raider (talk · contributions) and his BS.--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: Both accounts have been locked and belong to the user Garth Raider. RadiX 03:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Can their contributions be deleted from the pages they worked on? It seems their names may be gone but their idiotic rant summaries remain.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. please expunge all associated details on my talkpage's history and the contribution details on all the pages they vandalized. Oh and Garth Raider who the F you are, suck some eggs.--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would just like to know the person behind kalki.Edit

Please. ௐ. Ѻ

Deletion of User:Risto hot sir "Definitions of... in recordings" ‎pagesEdit

Per the discussion in Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Definitions of love in recordings and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Definitions of hell in recordings, I have deleted eight other pages created by User:Risto hot sir with the same format for other subjects (life, death, war, home, God, etc.). I believe it would waste the community's time to relitigate the same scope issue for each. BD2412 T 05:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, fine. They were all enumerated in the nomination statement, and do not need to be discussed individually. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You've just deleted half of the music sites in Wikiquote! These songs have been visited 5500 times during last months. Could You please count the votes! What are the rules (one vote came too late)?. --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Risto hot sir, the discussion is over and it is time to drop the stick. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
My country and me will never "drop the stick" when we are right. We've got "sisu", of which You can learn from the Winter war against the Soviet Union. All the material You've deleted is in fi-Wikiquote (and also the "Words represented the first time in recordings" - the 5th longest site). So You're welcome to study Your own language and music on our sites! --Risto hot sir (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikiquote is not to facilitate the study of language and music. It is to provide a reference database for quotes. BD2412 T 16:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
How about the notability? Now it seems that every idiotism with sources is welcome. --Risto hot sir (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
That is a separate issue altogether. BD2412 T 02:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Do what You want!: concentrate in entertainment. But other Wikiquotes have very different ways of thinking. --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Your objection on this point would be more salient if it were not in pursuit of adding snippets of pop songs. BD2412 T 03:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism incident on the SBSP pagesEdit

I was about to read one of the lines from the episodes, but as soon as I started reading them, I discovered explicit language not featured in any of the episodes. So, when I nominated them for deletion as an attack page, they got declined by the admins as not being met, but this is a serious situation on the pages.

Have a look for yourselves. They contain profane words not featured in the episodes:

These words were added by a crew of anonymous users who wanted to put curse words onto the lines, which is what I don't want. These pages have to be deleted to begin investigation of the problem. These users also have to be blocked for a long period to prevent further damage. Thanks for advice. 2600:1:B14A:C964:982F:5BF7:8F4C:6FB0 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeff SessionsEdit

Please semi-protect this page, or at least block (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Both have now been done (by other, faster admins). BD2412 T 03:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ban user ID:

My Dear Administrator

We want the user ID: to be banned because he has been spam the regular show season 8 Wikiquote: for too long with a false ending claiming it will be continued to the next season too many times and we want him to be banned. Proof: (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Belrien12--Belrien12 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the show or all the issues that might be involved in the edit warring which seems to have gone on for a while, but for now I am favoring the assertions of named accounts which indicate many of the anon IP edits are not correct, and thus I have protected the page for one month from anon IP edits, during which time a clearer assessment of the situation might be possible. A block might have been done were this clearly deliberate vandalism, but I am not sure this is the case, and the ranges of the IP addresses which have done such edits which are similar will also be prevented from editing that particular page, and hopefully a clearer determination of a proper solution can be made within the next month. ~ Kalki·· 23:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Votes for deletion backlogEdit

A lot of the deletion discussions at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion have not been closed despite being open much longer than a week. Can someone please help clear the backlog?--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 20:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm a bit too involved in some of those discussions to close them. BD2412 T 01:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412: How about Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Pavan Kumar N R, where you have not (!)voted or commented?--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 19:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that one I have closed. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I was waiting for that to happen so I could delete its Wikidata item, which I have now done.--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 19:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Requests for numerous page protections:Edit

Numerous IP addresses (presumably from the same vandal) continuously make vandalism edits by either:

1. Adding unneeded emphasis to quotes.
2. Copying/pasting directly from DVD/Blu-Ray subtitles (which are highly unreliable).
3. Adding extra quotes when the article already has enough.

And on the following articles:

The Shrek series
The Toy Story series
Chicken Run
The Incredibles
A Bug's Life
Monsters, Inc.
Mike's New Car
Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) (adding a line from an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants that is NOT part of the film!)
Aladdin (1992 Disney film)

And I am positive that there will be more victims unless you block these IP addresses and protect the articles indefinitely. They will not stop. WikiLubber (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And the vandalism resumes with IP user constantly making the same blatant vandalism edits over and over again (and not to mention on talk pages concerning the films listed, making it seem as if I am encouraging vandalism (which I never do)), completely ignoring our warnings. WikiLubber (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Improved search in deleted pages archiveEdit

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this:

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

CensoredScribe is back...Edit

...copying quotes from various Wikiquote articles and pasting them into other articles where they are mostly irrelevant. Taking into account the extensive warnings he's received over the years about this kind of pernicious behavior and his previous blocks, I believe this edit alone should be enough to have CensoredScribe (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) blocked again – as soon as possible, given that he's made over 100 edits today! I haven't reviewed all of them, but if admins are unwilling to block CensoredScribe at this time, ideally they should carefully review each and every one of his newest edits (which evidently is going to take much more time and care than what he himself is putting into them). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd be glad to discuss these allegedly irrelevant edits with you and all others present at this notice board, I'm guessing God is one of them because the word has a rather loose definition, particularly the Ayman al-Zawahiri quote which defines God as someone who doesn't like America. I was concerned about that quote as well, there are also the improper uses of bold text that you mentioned which I've seen other editors use incorrectly, like the many bare URL's users leave for others. If you want to make bold text based typos that don't effect legibility a ban worthy offense feel free to argue so, and if you would like to actually discuss the issue of quotes not adhering to a theme instead of allowing everyone to imagine it, please elaborate with actual examples. I chose not to label whoever has incorrectly organized Arabic names on this wiki with the single word critiques you use to besmirch my standing here, and allegedly improve quality of writing. To quote Michelle Obama, "When they go low we go high." because right now your scrapping the bottom of the barrel. I look forward to a rebuttal with actual examples instead of taking your judgements on faith and reputation alone. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example of incompetence (the same type that already got him blocked for 3 months, twice). ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You would really block someone over an incomplete citation they than fixed in addition to another users incomplete citation wouldn't you, I guess that's why you're an admin on wikiquote after all these years. I assume you've no issue with the quality of the quote itself you are calling into question or else you would have further complained. Accept that you will never be an admin on wikiquote Daniel Tom, I have, although I am an admin on another wiki, uncyclopedia where you could attempt to tell a joke if you believe the emotion of humor is something you'd be interested in exploring. I say this having seen you recommended to another user in an edit summary that they write a book, your edit summaries are so hilarious and helpful.
Also stop using me as your sacrificial lamb, to try and appease the powers that be into giving you a promotion and go back to editing the articles on Greek classics you are respected for or anything else constructive that doesn't waste this communities time. Notice how many people cared what either of us had to say the last time you bothered to rabble rouse at this "red headed stepchild of wiki media". I also couldn't help but notice that there was no false positives of sock puppetting on my wikipedia account until I offended you last month, what a coincidence. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
That so-called "quote" does not belong in that page. It is irrelevant to most readers and largely off topic. And it is from a Mailing List. You can't find it in any book. When I google it, I get just 5 results. It is not famous, well known, or widely quoted. And it certainly is not "at once mundane and sublime", "the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words". I know you don't understand this. That's why you keep getting blocked, and why you need to remain blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for articulating the point you were trying to make clearly when pressed DT, it means a lot that you talk to me like a person with a paragraph and not like your dog your trying to convince the family to have put down, with your barking out execution orders using less than 10 words. Your one complaint you’v so kindly warned me of the imminent danger of however is a quote several of wikiquotes administrators are personally familiar with from someone with a wikipedia article, who doesn’t seem to produce the most notable interviews to quote from but does elaborate on this theme never the less, so perhaps you can see how that would complicate the nature of it's notability and be a question best left to an open forum. I assume that other editor who adds a constant stream of blog posts you’ve noted on occasions hasn’t been active recently or else you would be lobbying ban threats at them as this isn’t personal, obviously you’re more professional and sportsmanlike than that and want others to know. Now if you’d like to discuss banning that other editor I would be happy to support you on that, though I somehow doubt you’re nearly as interested in them as you are me, despite the fact most of my edits come from transferring quotes from one collection to another. It surprises me you haven’t bothered with adding quotes from science today yet, though I suppose that would be admitting I found something useful. I’m curious what science related quotes you’ve added or whether your additions on wikiquote are almost unanimously political and literary, and you work exclusively with the subjects whose worth is constantly contented by critics and in which there is little peer consensus. Do you not like the additions I’ve made to the page for botany or Tesla, and have you ever once thanked me for anything I’ve done here as I’ve thanked you? Do you like the Rumi quote added to the page for complaint? Thanks for your concern for the project, now is there anything you are thankful for that I've done or do you have only mean things to say about me? I'm warning you as you've warned me that this is an issue that has been raised here before by other editors and that if it continues long enough it may result in you being blocked for a day, on the off chance someone bothers to read another one of our long boring conversations that goes nowhere. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Guess what Wikiquote's first quote about Mythology now is, thanks to CensoredScribe (master of off topic)? Answer! ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that CensoredScribe has also added the exact same quote to the following theme pages: Analogy, Scripture, Tradition, Logic and Probability! Hello?! This is the same behavior for which he's already been blocked here many times before: copying and adding (with little or no thought) quotes with very tenuous relevance to theme pages. @User:BD2412: can you please look at this? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the quote from those pages - you are right, it is not relevant to the topics of these pages. Just because it may contain the word does not mean the quote is about a word. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, thanks for fixing that mistake Scott, and I'll go on to say that I'm reluctant now to add any quotes from Buddha about the eight fold path that simply list right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration without elaborating on those themes.
Also, thanks for the free threat of exile DT, which sort of sounds like you punihsing someone, contrary to what you said about not believing in such things in your conversation on Illegitimate Barrister at the administrator noticeboard. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@UDScott: "Just because it may contain the word does not mean the quote is about a word" – perfect description of the problem! Here's another example from today. CensoredScribe is engaging in somewhat subtle but no less damaging vandalism; if he is doing this unintentionally, then clearly his abysmally weak reading comprehension makes him too incompetent too edit. In either case, he should be blocked, or at the very least prevented from adding more quotes to theme pages (a kind of "topic-ban"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually UDScott I was going to ask you whether Martial's quote would be more appropriate for critic instead of complaint. Also I'd ask you to chime in on the conversation about Daniel Tom's incivility, which is another loose term that can be used as justifications to block someone. It's unfortunate I can't spin Daniel Tom's incivility out of proportion as "hilariously" as he does my occasional errors, if you think I've made too many errors over too soon a period of time there's really nothing I can do to convince you otherwise outside, of making good additions until blocked.
I would argue that quote is a witty way of addressing complaints and the fact Daniel Tom doesn't realize that has to do with the fact they constantly complain and are unaware of that calling people retarded is acceptable for X-Box live and Youtube comments and internet forums that allow doxxing, not a wiki, certainly not in a school, a workplace or a professional sporting event. It seems his nature to lie about his vindictiveness is a symptom of socioapthy, a serious psychological disturbance best left diagnosed by professionals much like my untreated reading comprehension issues the schools never noticed, by which I assume he means not reading Greek and Latin; monolingualism, unfortunately an epidemic among American public schools. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet another example. This will go on indefinitely. Why isn't CensoredScribe re-blocked? I don't understand. Now he is copying huge chunks of text from Wikipedia and adding them to UNRELATED Wikiquote theme pages. Please, admins, either block CensoredScribe or prohibit him from adding more quotes to theme pages. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the word is not even mentioned. Here's an example (from today): "Why are the heavens not filled with light? Why is the universe plunged into darkness] [sic]?" added by CensoredScribe to Space. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There are other sorts of incompetency at play here. As an example (from today too), CensoredScribe added to Adultery the following quote:

  • You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not murder,” and “anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.” But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment … You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.” But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
    • Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28 (NIV)

The first verses are about murder, not adultery, but CensoredScribe still included them. Why? Because he is extremely incompetent and lazy, copying everything from Wikipedia with zero thought. He copied this from Thou shalt not covet where it reads: "The New Testament describes Jesus as interpreting the Ten Commandments as issues of the heart's desires rather than merely prohibiting certain outward actions." And they give these verses about murder and adultery as illustration. There it makes sense. Here, in a page exclusively about adultery, it doesn't. (I fixed the quote and citation this time.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point on excluding the sentence about murder, that is lazyness and that you rally behind it establishes I can't include a single unnecessary sentence in a paragraph of text without a block threat and must meet your standards of perfectionism and wait for someone to agree with your level of condemnation, which I'm still waiting for to be echoed by your usual crew of polyglot perfectionists that only factor bad edits into judgements and clearly don't care about any improvements to any of the sciences or religious and political figures that I've made, as you all possess one sided scales. However as I'm sure aware quotes that don't immediately mention the topic in the first sentence are allowed and you could omit those sections yourself while keeping the part of the quote you don't question, unless you are of course too lazy or busy to do so; just complain for hours.
As for outer space I'm afraid that's the area literati are referring to when they say the night sky even though it's not specifically spelled out it's rather obvious from references to light and dark regions of the sky, the fact DT can't read poetry written by a scientist shows extreme levels of incompetence in both fields or more likely that they have run out of logical ways to call for me to be banned and are trying to make visceral emotional appeals having seen it work in politics like many bullies are learning from Washington these days.
I call for whatever actions they call against me being taken on them instead, as they believe it fair treatment for incompetence. If I was as bad ad editing as you make me sound I'd be arguing that night and space are always synonymous regardless of the context and putting "Space...the final frontier!" on the page for night. "Why are the heavens not filled with light? Why is the universe plunged into darkness?" would also work for the pages for universe and heavens, but alas I was too lazy to add them there and thought heavens more in reference to the sky than the afterlife, despite the fact many ancient people viewed those concepts as synonymous just as they imagined deities personifying those concepts. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me propose a voluntary litmus test for Daniel Tom if they would like to demonstrate their superior abilities in determining the appropriateness of quotes on subjects outside of their field of expertise.
  • Whereas some ascetics and Brahmins remain addicted to attending such shows as dancing, singing, music, displays, recitations, hand-music, cymbals and drums, fairy-shows, acrobatic and conjuring tricks, combats of elephants, buffaloes, bulls, goats, rams, cocks and quail, fighting with staves, boxing, wrestling, sham-fights, parades, manoeuvres and military reviews, the ascetic Gotama refrains from attending such displays.
    • M. Walshe, trans. (1987), Sutta 1, verse 1.13
This quote could be paraphrased as essentially though shalt not go to X, which for purely cultural reasons works for the Ten Commandments but would not work for this list of prohibitions, so on what page do these Buddhist commandments belong if any I ask you? I would say it pertains to the list of games Buddha doesn't play and would also work for sports and entertainment, though I obviously wouldn't add it to video games even though the sentiment would probably carry.
Now let's try something a bit more culturally relevant which also just drops some themes. I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.
Now already this excerpt from "It's a Wonderful World" is over the 10% allotted for LOQ, and without the first two it's unclear why the world is wonderful, so in accordance with the rules of LOQ and being on topic, how would this widely popular song best be quoted and on what pages? I would provide this excerpt only for the page for wonder as it simply drops a theme than moves on, much like the ten commandments doesn't elaborate on any of them to great detail. If anyone thinks they have the correct location for these two quotes, or can explain why they are best left where they are I would appreciate their leadership and think it would assist me in correctly placing quotes from Buddha and other religious leaders and public speakers who cover a lot of different moral high grounds very quickly sometimes. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The question falsely assumes that the specific quote belongs in Wikiquote at all, outside a page on the work containing it, or perhaps the its author. That is not necessarily the case. BD2412 T 02:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I may have picked a bad top charting song and major religious leader's moral code as examples. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikiquote is not Wikipedia's dumping ground (despite your best efforts). They have very different purposes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Now quote-dumping CensoredScribe is engaging in likely copyright violation by copying the quotes selected and given at "Today in Science History" in a massive scale, without even bothering to reformat them. And we're not just talking about quote selection, because he is copying the references too, word-for-word, without double-checking them, and without attribution. See this edit and this one, and contrast them with this page and this one. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @CensoredScribe: If you did copy these quotes en masse from another site, please revert this addition before it needs to be reverted for you. We can not copy like that, even from garbage sites. BD2412 T 01:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I will not add any further quotes from Today in Science if it presents a copyright presentation concern in your opinion BD2414, though I thought (perhaps mistakenly) I once heard you say no copyright notices have been given to the English Wikiquote before throughout it's history, I know copyright issues shut down the French wikiquote. I will note this was never mentioned during the additions to Botany, Organic chemistry or Nuclear power; nor were any changes made to these quotes, even the formatting, during the months since when I was blocked, which strikes me as odd it's an issue suddenly now. I've added a lot of quotes to review, though I don't doubt the legitimacy or quality of any of them, and any formatting issues are minor given they are full citations, an issue similar to turning more text into links or the inappropriate use of bold text to emphasize a passage; though I imagine this has more to do with the copyright than the formatting.
I have the feeling the next edit I make could be my last so I'll do something else. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As CensoredScribe keeps adding obscure and unremarkable "quotes" (or excepts) to theme pages at an alarming rate, I once again urge admins to impose a "topic-ban" on CensoredScribe prohibiting him from adding more quotes to theme pages. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

CensoredScribe continues to dump material from Wikipedia articles into Wikiquote without the slightest alteration (this time from w:Inferno (Dante)). While some are quotations, others are simply explanatory notes. I don't see the point of quoting translator's explanatory notes out of context. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright than DanielTom, than I won't do so anymore, with this being the first time this particular problem has occurred. Problem solved. Any other grievances? I would like to point out your soap boxing in edit summaries would get you banned on wikipedia and the fact wikiquote has entirely different and seemingly undefined rules regarding soap boxing is rather bizarre. If you want to call for me being banned, this is the correct place, not every single edit summary in which you revert me. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Kedar JoshiEdit

Link to blogspot raises eyebrows. Page recreated circumventing due process (deletion review). See Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Kedar Joshi and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Kedar Joshi. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why the link to blogspot should raise eyebrows when he appears to have been quoted by independent, reliable sources. There is objective evidence that he is quotable. Hinduresci (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Y Deleted and salted. This topic has already been deleted multiple times on multiple wikis. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

IP user

This user has made numerous unnecessary/vandalism edits (even on talk pages, such as these edits) and refuses to persist.

Even this edit was vandalism. Shrek said "swamp", not truck. Shrek has no motorized vehicle. I request that this user be blocked for a long period of time, and all of the pages it vandalized be protected indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
And now it is attempting to vandalize talk pages on Wikipedia. Take this edit for instance. Minor, but still vandalism. WikiLubber (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 30 days.--Abramsky (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Returning vandalEdit

IP user is at it again after a year of being blocked. I request this user be blocked for at least twice as long. WikiLubber (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

And nearly a month later, the IP's vandalism continues. Examples:
A Bug's Life and Bug (2006 film) -- changing "bug" to "horse"
Monsters, Inc. and Monsters University -- Changing "monkey" to "monster", "Art" to "Student Slug Monster", and vice-versa

This vandalism must desist, and in addition, lest any sockpuppets appear, protect all pages this IP ever vandalized for a long period of time. WikiLubber (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked again and protected the pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you a great deal. WikiLubber (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Block ban-evading Daveydolphin sockpuppetsEdit

Please long-term block the following sockmaster/sockpuppet accounts and IPs from Wikiquote. This user repeatedly ban-evades for over a year and shows no sign of stopping. These accounts have already been blocked from Wikipedia (see the sockpuppet investegations/archive from the English Wikipedia here [[37]]. This user often creates self-promotional wikiquote articles of quotes from himself and his non-notable fictional works, such as "The Garbage Can Man Show." I'm tired of cleanup up after this guy.

Accounts/IPs to block (not all have been used on Wikiquote, but all are socks of the same user):

  • Cactoboi1
  • Ben12312
  • TheCanonGuy
  • Preston109876
  • The Garbage Can Man Show
  • BubbaMan123
  • Mr.Johnson123
  • G-WIZ123
  • BigP123
  • Preston Hazard

Thanks, GretLomborg (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Donald TrumpEdit

Given that Trump is incredibly controversial, vandalism comes daily. I think semi-protection is in order. Thanks, hiàn 18:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just provided that page protection to auto-confirmed users for a span of 3 years. ~ Kalki·· 19:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please block User:Risto hot sirEdit

For his removal of perfectly valid categories without explanation, and edit warring, here, here and here (and in many other pages). ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) And for his refusal to listen to other users, instead insulting them in order to defend his policy violations. [38] - J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 21:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What the hell! Some categories like "Americans" and "Authors" are really useless. DanielTom has no idea of the big picture. Believe or not, I'm the expert in this field.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of categories is to sort articles. If someone is an author, a Wikiquote visitor should be able to find him listed among the people at Category:authors. - J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"Authors" is the category worth nothing.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
What makes it worthless? Suppose someone wants to find quotes from/about authors. Wouldn’t it be helpful if there was a category? J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It's just as usable as "people".--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That's just your opinion. Many people we quote, like some artists and religious leaders, never wrote anything. "Authors"/"writers" categories are used extensively on Wikipedia and other sister projects. You should be blocked for continually removing valid categories without previous discussion (and for edit warring) against consensus. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with DanielTom. This isn’t the first time that Risto hot sir has refused to cooperate with other users. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've edited thousands of categories without anyone complaining but you. If some idiots don't understand, what can I do?--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that your only reply is to call us idiots does not bode well for you. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)'
Who's the idiot? The texts tell that.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The idiot is the one who thinks that “author” and “people” are synonymous. The idiot is the one that thinks that 102 articles are a brief excerpt. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Let's think Barack Obama. Hawaii was not the most important place in his career, it was definetily Chicago.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but he was born in Hawaii, and that means that he is from Hawaii.
(definition of “from”)
indicating the point in space at which a journey, motion, or action starts.
"she began to walk away from him"
indicating the point in time at which a particular process, event, or activity starts.
"the show will run from 10 to 2".
The start of a person is their birth, therefore the “People from...” category should tell where they were born and nothing else. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 02:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Some essential places can be told if the birth place ain't enough.--Risto hot sir (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but say it in the intro, not in the category section. Saying that someone is from a place where they are not from is lying. This is why users want you blocked. You refuse to listen to others, and when confronted with logical explanations for why what you are doing is wrong, you resort to insult instead of agreeing that you made a mistake.
Administrators, if you are reading this, please look here to see all the places where he has done this. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 21:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The city where a person was born should be first, possible other states after that. This is not Wikipedia, and there you can search more specific information just clicking once.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the categories, isn't to display information. They are there to sort the articles, and in this case, the category, "People from..." is sorting them by place of birth, not by major place in a person's life. There is no way to argue against this, unless you disagree with the definition of the word "from". J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. Let's see what other editors write.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Who made you the authority on the definition of English words? Right now, that right belongs to the Oxford Dictionary. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I was born in Seinäjoki, but if someone now asks where I'm from it's Lahti. Do New Yorkers really read Oxford Dictionary?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Oxford is the official authority on the English language, regardless of whether anyone in New York reads it. I personally use it many times when I'm looking up words, although I also use Webster's. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 23:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
But it's posh?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a dictionary. The meaning of words remain the same. American English, and British English are different dialects of the same language. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)