Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/021

Would an uninvolved administrator care to take a look at the emerging edit war over the image caption at Werner Erhard? It might be appropriate to restore the status quo ante until a consensus is reached but, having participated in the discussion, I am not in a neutral position to do it myself. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Until there is any solid consensus on the quote caption for the image, best to just not have any quote at all for the image and just have the caption state the name of the person in the photo. -- Cirt (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also have been involved so will recuse. However, I agree with Ningauble that in this sort of dispute restoring the status quo ante makes sense.--Collingwood (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. I'll be indisposed for the next three hours or so, but after that. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The status quo ante was zero quote in the image caption box, see June 2010 version that had been stable for one year. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This anon. has come back after a two day block to repeat exactly the same pattern of replacing high-view pages with promotional content. I'm thinking that a longer block would be in order. --Tryst (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for a week. We have to be careful with an IP in case someone else uses it, so I haven't made it indefinite.--Collingwood (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a familiar long-term pattern of vandalism from someone who rarely re-uses the same IP address. I might have used a longer block, but he will be back anyway. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD for 11 & 12 June 2012


The quotes at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/June 11, 2012 & Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/June 12, 2012 need to be placed on the project pages at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/June 11, 2012 & Wikiquote:Quote of the day/June 12, 2012 pages by an administrator. ~ Kalki·· 00:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on whether to promote this page to a guideline has been inactive for a week, and therefore probably should be closed. --Tryst (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had been too busy to do much here lately, and added a comment on noticing this statement. I regularly encourage a slow pace in increasing restrictions on the liberties of editors to develop pages of various sorts, and have always had a rather low opinion of the attempts of people to formulate binding policies for all others. ~ Kalki·· 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in most cases binding policies should be avoided. Hence why it is proposed to be a guideline, and not a policy. --Tryst (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. And one other thought - the proposed guideline does include exceptions, so it is hardly a "blanket banning" as you characterized in your opposition statement. It does allow for such pages to exist if they meet the criteria outlined in the Exceptions section. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user continues his/her disruptive edits. He/she continues to complain almost every time his/her edits are undone. All his/her edits were unnecessary changes. The quotes were fine the way they were. WikiLubber (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like an edit war over a triviality than deliberate disruption to me. Have you discussed the punctuation with her ? --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 21:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of it. WikiLubber (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readding spam content that was deleted from his/her user talk page, possibly just a bot. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 09:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Blocked. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike's talk page should probably be semi-protected, as he is not very active here but receives IP harassment. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 17:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily semi-protected the page. If the vandal returns I will apply a longer term IP range-block. (Need to research whether the IPv6 upgrade has changed the way range-blocks work.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could an administrator semi-protect this page, as it is a regular target of spam, and there have been no recent productive IP edits. Thanks. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 21:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 N Not Done Not necessary at present; the responsible IP has been blocked for a month.--Collingwood (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long term pattern vandal with a variable IP address. The vandal has recently focused on a couple of pages but the long term pattern is actually quite indiscriminate, so page protection would not have much effect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd respectfully disagree - if we'd semi-protected the page for a year when the vandal first edited it, we wouldn't have had to revert him nearly 20 times since it started. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have reverted him more than that, on more than 20 pages. So it goes... ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Database error


Is anyone else experiencing a database error when trying to edit pages? I am seeing the following message intermittently when trying to edit or even view pages:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "SqlBagOStuff::set". Database returned error "1114: The table 'pc005' is full (".

Any ideas? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen that message, but I am seeing other symptoms of server overload, such as pages rendering without CSS. I take heart from the error message, because that means it is logged as a sysadmin alert and somebody in a position to deal with it is at least aware of the problem. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks - it does seem to be working better now; perhaps the problem has been fixed. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for permissions


Hi, I would like to request the right to use AutoWikiBrowser. I've read Wikiquote:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, and I understand how to use the software and the limitations on its use here. I intend to fix typos, correct spacing etc. Thanks. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 12:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! Hope I can make good use of it. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney


Mitt Romney is alledged to have said "He can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him!" by a classmate in 1965, only to be remembered as such in 2012. Is there any evidence that Romney said those exact words? How can this be allowed on Wikiquote? Are there no standards for second hand quoting of a living person? Such a quote would never stand up to wikipedia's BLP policies and I am suprised that such a standard would be allowed here. Contentious quotes like this should require a higher standard of verifiability before attributing to the actual person. I have noticed that unsourced quotes are being removed from WQ, and even though this is sourced it is a second hand claim with no other witnesses. Furthermore, there is no actual date on which this is alleged to have happened. 04:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is sourced to the Washington Post, one of the world's leading newspapers. Further, the source says "The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another." The evidence of five eyewitnesses cannot be described as "a second hand claim with no other witnesses". We have an approximate date, Spring 1965, and I cannot see that we need a more precise date. I do, however, think that this is not "particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant" and would ask other admins if it could be removed on those grounds.--Collingwood (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not, at present, something that needs administrative action (e.g. blocking or protection). It is an ordinary issue of editorial judgment that should be discussed on the article talk page. If discussion there does not receive sufficient attention to form a consensus then the best place to request additional input is the Village Pump, rather than the Administrators' Noticeboard.

    (I would not be surprised if, as the election nears, we encounter disruption that does necessitate protecting pages on the candidates, as happened four years ago, but this is not now the case.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would suggest moving this quote to an "Attributed" or "Disputed" section to the page (depending on whether Romney has expressly denied the statement). BD2412 T 00:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Feafgsfda (talk · contributions) vandalizing everything. Needs a block and a mass rollback. Quiddity (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deblanked a couple of articles he tinkered way that idiot's gonna be an admin. And wow, he's no concentrating on blanking my talkpage and my reversions of his edits? What desperation, have seen it in other gloating jackasses who've come here and went (especially that 63 anon). Headsup: he's got another troll named Feafgsfda_2. This is rich too, he's got a real hard-on for me, he uses the same edit summary in every article he's blanked: "reverted edits by Eaglestorm to last version by Moo." --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update to admins; there are some articles that the troll vandalized but we couldn't revert because of spam protection. Karl Popper's a case in point. We should not be gamed by this editor. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the Karl Popper page by using "nowiki" to evade the spam filter. However, if this site is so bad that it needs filtering, why are we using it as a reliable source? What are the other articles?--Collingwood (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QOTDs for 1st & 2nd September 2012


The contents of Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/September 1, 2012 and Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/September 2, 2012 will have to be placed in Wikiquote:Quote of the day/September 1, 2012 and Wikiquote:Quote of the day/September 2, 2012 by an admin, as the rolling protection is currently preventing me from editing those project pages. ~ Kalki·· 19:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has altered the "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" page, deleting most of the quotes, and leaving a rude comment. Just thought someone should know.

Checkuser request


User:Sir Knolte, User:God! No., and User:VERIFYNAME were all created around the same time, and have all made similar aggressive edits to DragonballZ pages,[1], [2], [3], along with various abrasive comments, [4], [5], [6]. It seems pretty likely that they are sockpuppets, and I'd like this checked. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call; all three have been editing from the same IP address and device. I also caught StopEditing (talk · contributions) and Tony Soprano (talk · contributions) in the same check, though it is a public IP address and common device (won't go into greater detail here on-wiki). Given their similar behavior (focusing on DBZ pages, an odd obsession with Zarbon's talk page, account creation within a single 30 hour window), I think it's safe to say StopEditing is a sock; the Tony Soprano account is at least mildly productive, so I won't block them, but they are highly suspect (specifically, anytime a suspected sock reverts a confirmed sock, I get suspicious). Feel free to block them if you deem it necessary. EVula // talk // // 00:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than suspicious. I've seen this game played before, and I'm putting an end to it. BD2412 T 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check User:Recreated it, who re-created Jizz, previously created by this puppetmaster.--Collingwood (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Never mind, it's obviously the same person and I'll block.--Collingwood (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still finding socks. I just blocked Potato-Man67 (talk · contributions), as he came up with the exact same IP and device configuration as Hellpraiser (talk · contributions) and the aforementioned Tony Soprano. Basically, if they're editing a DBZ page and editing Zarbon's talk page, they're probably a sock... And at this point, I'm pretty sure they're all Wiki-star (talk · contributions). EVula // talk // // 16:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are these more of the same: User:IShallRule, User:CrazyBaby49, User:YouWillDie4321, User:Shaboink!? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I didn't see this post; for the record, yes, it's the same person. I've started hardblocking the underlying IPs for longer stretches of time, and that seems to have had a pretty noticeable impact, and I've been able to catch some of his extra accounts before he's had a chance to edit with them. I'm hoping he'll lose interest soon. EVula // talk // // 18:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting problems on QOTD


This seems to be a recent glitch that I have only begun to notice in the last couple days, but any admin who has time might wish to experiment with Template:Main Page Quote of the day so as to get the centering of the quote in relation to the frame adjusted properly. I do not know why this is occurring but though the quote is center-aligned in style as the QOTD has long been, the quote as a whole is showing up against the left side of the section on this page and thus the main page, rather than centered properly on the page. ~ Kalki·· 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the template talk page that I am not seeing the same problem. If anybody has any bright ideas, please discuss it there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the work done there, and the finding of a solution to the problem. ~ Kalki·· 11:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block request


Please block Lovesunshine (talk · contributions); it's a non-SUL cross-wiki spambot, which is why I can't globally lock it. Thanks! Trijnstel (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And one more: Andyzen (talk · contributions). Same reason. Trijnstel (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki vandal now active here

edit (talk · contributions) I'm an admin at en:wiki; this user has already been blocked on en, de, and es; numerous pages have been protected because of their ongoing campaign to insert stuff like this in any article relating to Quinn Lord. Google searches reveal the extent of this user's obsession with creating a new nickname for their favorite actor. Since they are on a dynamic IP, protection may be the only course of action (not sure how much collateral damage a range block would entail). Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Running a CheckUser on that IP was very entertaining, since Ohnoitsjamie showed up on the report (just nine minutes after the IP's last edit). Heh. EVula // talk // // 04:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the wrong IP... (talk · contributions) was the IP I meant to post.
Sorted out. EVula // talk // // 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD for 20 October 2012

A society which is mobile, which is full of channels for the distribution of a change occurring anywhere, must see to it that its members are educated to personal initiative and adaptability. Otherwise, they will be overwhelmed by the changes in which they are caught and whose significance or connections they do not perceive.
~ John Dewey ~

The above QOTD has been placed at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/October 20, 2012 but will have to be placed on Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October 20, 2012 by an admin, as the rolling protection on the page has already kicked in. ~ Kalki·· 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs should not be deleted for seven days


Can we please clarify that an article with a PROD should not be deleted until seven days after the PROD notice has been placed. I have twice had to undelete articles recently. Two of the articles I undeleted have now been fixed (one by me) and no longer merit deletion, but that would not have happened had I not undeleted them.--Collingwood (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the process (as stated here). They should not be deleted before that amount of time has passed. You were correct to restore them. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I see it's seven (7) days, I thought it had been five (5) days. This could have all been avoided had the above party chosen to take 30 seconds to engage in discussion with me at my usertalk page, instead of deciding against that and choosing to revert instead. Hopefully, in the future, more polite methods of communication will be attempted, first. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt himself welcomed me when I started editing here. I am grateful to him for that, and I have always tried to follow the message he left. When I saw Cirt deleting pages too soon, one page only about four hours after the PROD notice for no sourced quotes was placed, I assumed it was a one-off error and silently corrected it. In the case of the "four hours" page, I then added sourced quotes, so the page is fine. Someone else fixed another page. Obviously, that could not have happened if I had not undeleted the pages. As I say, I made no fuss, and that should have been the end of it.
Then the same thing happened only a few days later, with Cirt deliberately saying he deleted the page after five days when the PROD page could not be clearer in specifying that we should wait seven days. To notify Cirt and wait for him to undelete would have taken some time. The whole point of the system is that such pages should be listed for seven days, and leaving the files deleted for several hours would defeat the system. Thus as Cirt himself said on my talk page, it was necessary to be bold.--Collingwood (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Collingwood (talk · contributions) had been so gracious as to reach out to me in discussion which he failed to do multiple times, I would have gladly self-reverted, which is a more favorable outcome than having Collingwood (talk · contributions) revert multiple times without any attempt at prior discussion. Collingwood (talk · contributions) did not. Collingwood (talk · contributions) chose to revert. Multiple times. Thank you, Collingwood (talk · contributions), for working in the future to improve this most inappropriate and troubling behavior pattern. -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: perhaps Collingwood could have discussed his planned actions with you (and maybe there would have been a better outcome), but I don't think that his actions were really wrong. To me the good of the project supersedes any hurt feelings. And I would not characterize his actions as a "most inappropriate and troubling behavior pattern." In the end, maybe things will happen differently if there is a next time, so that's a good outcome at least. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When this happened back in January,[7] I quietly reverted the mistake without controversy. I assumed it was a simple mistake of not paying attention to the date, and saw no need to discuss it. I did not imagine that an experienced administrator was ignorant of the policy. The seven day waiting period is clearly stated in the Proposed deletion policy and prominently indicated in the {{prod}} template itself. The current cutoff for deletion is also given at the top of Category:All articles proposed for deletion. (The latter is not always accurate, due to server cache latency. Cirt is aware of this, as indicated on the category talk page, but it is easy to overlook.)

In this case I would certainly expect a responsible administrator to double-check the policy before reacting when the error was reverted with an edit summary saying the deletion was premature. Collingwood might indeed have sent a personal note inviting Cirt to review the applicable policy, but I don't see it as mandatory. Reverting the subsequent explicit mistake about the policy with a statement of what the policy says is adequate. It was entirely appropriate for Collingwood to post a note at the Administrators' noticeboard about the situation, particularly since he was making re-reverts.

The multiple ensuing posts by Cirt using an accusatory and demanding tone are unbecoming of an administrator (I am somewhat used to this, having been on the receiving end of it myself.), and the nomination of affected articles at VfD strikes me as rather pointy. Mistakes were made. Ignorance has been rectified. It is time to move on. ~ 19:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is time to move on. I have acknowledged in the future I will do my best to remember to wait the full seven (7) days before deleting any PRODs. I hope that similarly, others will do their best in the future to engage in polite discussion before reverting admin actions. When asked to do so, I will gladly self-revert any admin action pending polite discussion about the issue. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For myself, I claim no privilege of advance notice. If I screw up I expect to be reverted with an explanatory edit summary. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For myself, I'd appreciate in the future at least an attempt at polite discussion on my user talk page. There was zero attempt at this. Even up til now. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I echo Ningauble - if I make an error, anyone can feel free to revert my changes without first discussing it with me. If there is an appropriate edit summary, it should be evident to me why my changes were reverted. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me, before escalating the situation and going to an Admin Noticeboard, if a user politely brings up an issue with me on my talk page, it is very highly likely I will self-revert in the future pending further discussions. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note on my admin actions


When asked to do so, I will gladly self-revert any admin action I've previously made, pending polite discussion about the issue. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've gone ahead and added the above notice to my user talk page. Though of course it doesn't change anything that I'm willing to do this myself and always have been, I would hope all other admins also should take care to make this their future behavior pattern as well — as a form of best practice. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech


I invite all those commenting above to help me expand the page Freedom of speech. I've recently cleaned it up and re-ordered the quotes in chronological order. :) It's an extremely important topic to have a resource on for reference here on the Internet. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, that was a fun little project. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So not to be nit-picky, but actually theme pages should be sorted alphabetically by author (as the template shows). This is so that if people are looking for a particular quote by a particular person on a theme page, they will have a much easier time finding it this way (unless of course they just happen to know the date of that quote). ~ UDScott (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put a ton of work into this. Your first reply has to be instant criticism, and not a single acknowledgement of the massive improvements made to the page? Wow. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is very good work to expand the page - I didn't realize you needed praise for work you do. And I wasn't the first to comment on this (as I see on your talk page). What's the big deal? You sound like a kid talking to his parent. Great work, but just trying to point out something that should be changed. We all do a lot of work on here and I can't recall a time when any of us asked for praise or acknowledgement of that work. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you said it, yes, it was extremely nitpicky to give criticism so readily and be so stingy with any form of acknowledgement. Doesn't come across very well at all. Doesn't encourage contributors to improve pages on this website. Sends message that you're main interest in communication is to criticize. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: See also Talk:Freedom_of_speech#Reasons_for_using_chronological_order. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug>Enough. I've had more than enough of "discussing" things with you - it's just too tiresome. I'm going to return to more fruitful tasks. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging your "nitpicky" nature with regards to above, it's very telling, especially helps to explain recent behavior patterns. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well perhaps we can have another conversation when you've grown up a bit. Bye for now. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I very much hope the exact same thing for you as well!!! :) That would be absolutely wonderful! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is not really within the scope of the Administrator's noticeboard. The original poster may wish to review the instructions at the top of the page for an indication of the type of administrative matters that are appropriate here. If that is not sufficiently clear, there is an overview of the administrators' role at Wikiquote:Administrators. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted, thanks. However, I would hope most netizens are interested in researching Freedom of speech. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP disruption


IP has been warned sufficiently enough by Ningauble (talk · contributions), suggest a block is in order here at this point in time, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to hear Ningauble's views. However, it seems to me that apart from his repeated removal of VfD tags from his own articles, his recent edits do not warrant a block.--Collingwood (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
s/his own articles/articles he created/ — they never were theirs. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that warrants a block in this user's edit history. Maybe there's a learning curve, but I don't see anything disruptive. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ningauble's view:  I don't think a block would have been unwarranted, but I would not consider it really necessary either. On the one hand, doing this repeatedly after repeated warnings might seem to call for an "attitude adjustment" but, on the other hand, if the intent were to disrupt then it didn't really have much effect. It might have been appropriate for the reverting administrator to leave a personal note for the user, since the template notices do not seem to be getting through. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a "final warning" is in order? -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or something like an "appeal to reason". The previous warnings seem sufficiently pointed that I doubt a final, stronger warning would help the user to climb the learning curve. It might as likely be just an iteration on the path to blocking anyway. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this comment by Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries, thanks for the response. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor discrepancy on edit-locked page (Martin Luther King, Jr.)


I recently stumbled across a minor discrepancy on the MLK page; I can't make a change to this quote without assistance, since the MLK page is edit-locked, apparently due to persistent vandalism. The fifth quote in the section Strength to Love includes the following text : "A nation or civilization that continues to produce softminded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan." (emphasis added) However, there is also a link provided at the head of this section to "Online text at Google Books" and if one follows this link, the linked-to text reads as follows: "A nation or a civilization that continues to produce softminded men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan." These differences in the text are quite small and unimportant in themselves, but consistency is important. If a link to a work is provided, shouldn't we expect quotes from that work to agree with the linked-to version when they are extracted and placed on the main page? FWIW. CononOfSamos (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've fixed it. I can't see why you can't edit this page; you ought to be autoconfirmed.--Collingwood (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can another admin look at Zarbon's recent edits. There is obviously some history here that I don't know.--Collingwood (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon's been the target of pretty dedicated sockpuppeteers, and they tended to focus on DBZ pages (example). Nothing about his edits strike me as terribly suspicious, especially since the DBZ pages tend to get overloaded with cruft anyway (so the occasional purge is decidedly a Good Thing). EVula // talk // // 16:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see he has had a colourful career on WMF so I wanted a second opinion.--Collingwood (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable Behavior!


Big black Magic and Melissa from England are carrying on an ungodly sex talk on Big Black's page. I am tired of Melissa coming onto his page and asking for some Big Black Magic! This si unacceptable and WILL NOT be tolerated by us folk with decency. Unacceptable Behavior (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol coming on to my page xD. man you just mad she wants some chocolate and not vanilla. Big Black Magic (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there call for reverting and blocking User:Big Black Magic, User:Melissa from England, and User:Magical Poetic Yuki as pure vandalism, or is this a grey area? We don't seem to have a clear policy for dealing with people who use Wikiquote to socialize in this manner, which is totally unrelated to Wikiquote's purpose. Is User:Unacceptable Behavior helping the situation, or making it worse by joining in and egging them on? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are times I love being a CheckUser, and this is one of those times. All four accounts have been indefinitely blocked. Same IP, same user agents. About as open and shut as it gets. EVula // talk // // 15:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QOTDs for December 2012

Some say I have a beautiful voice, some say I have not. It is a matter of opinion. All I can say, those who don't like it shouldn't come to hear me.
~ Maria Callas ~

I have placed the above quote on Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/December 2, 2012 but it will have to be placed on Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 2, 2012 by an admin. ~ Kalki·· 04:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done.--Collingwood (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the quotes at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/December 11, 2012 will have to be placed on Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 11, 2012 & ‎the one on Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/December 12, 2012 ‎will have to be placed on Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 12, 2012. ~ Kalki·· 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]