Open main menu

Wikiquote β

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

Archive
Archives


This is a messageboard for all administrators.

INSTRUCTIONSEdit

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:

Bots
Renaming
Promotion

Tools:

DiscussionsEdit

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 (24.184.132.160) 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. --24.184.132.160 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. --24.184.132.160 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)

User:TheKosmozoanEdit

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. en.wiki, wikidata and it.wiki) 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)

IP 69.178.194.65Edit

I just checked in very briefly here and blocked 69.178.194.65 (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 173.174.78.172 (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:179.60.100.236Edit

My Dear Administrator

We want the user ID:179.60.100.236 to be banned because he has been spam the regular show season 8 Wikiquote:https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Regular_Show_(season_8) 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: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Regular_Show_(season_8)&action=history--Belrien12 (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
Antz
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 24.212.194.146 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: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. 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: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=0

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 24.212.194.146Edit

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 71.224.12.113 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
  • 24.151.94.76
  • 24.107.231.252

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”)
1.
indicating the point in space at which a journey, motion, or action starts.
"she began to walk away from him"
2.
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)
@Risto hot sir:: Please try using edit summaries, or I cannot easily support your edits. Please be civil by not calling anyone "idiot" or I will have to consider blocking that I do not really want to--Jusjih (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC).

User:MonsterHunter32's massive censorship of sourced quotes without discussionEdit

I have alerted about this problem already here Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#User:MonsterHunter32 and at Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 (where most of the censored quotes are listed) but it didn't help.

The user MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has:

  • MonsterHunter32 edits almost only consist of censoring and deleting my additions, or those of others he considers "biased", most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary)
  • He refuses to discuss to discuss his deletions on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
  • MonsterHunter32 has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
  • MonsterHunter32 has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged personal beliefs "in favour of Hinduism" "or in favour of Hindus", using religious or political smears against me and others. As Kalki has said in one of the deletion nominations it seems that MH is acting "because the creator of the page is disliked" by him.
  • He not only continuously refuses to discuss the removals at talk and to move the quotes to talk, as was asked to him many times by multiple users, he even deleted my article talkpage discussions and quotes (that were moved by me) to the article talkpage.

It was agreed with and told to him by multiple editors many many times that the rule from Template:Remove is valid and must be observed by him:

  • All deleted or blanked quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.

However, MonsterHunter continues to completely ignore this, and continues with his censorship without discussion. He was warned dozens of times, in talkpage discussion, at Vandalism in Progress and other places, by other users including UDScott and DanielTom, but he just ignores the warnings. Other users have also said that "MonsterHunter32 is being extremely annoying and disruptive".

  • For example, on Swami Vivekananda and Historical negationism he completely ignored the discussion I started on the talkpage and just reverted again. [39] [40] without bothering to reply to the discussion I started.
  • On Aurangzeb he ignored that the article was marked as "inuse" and reverted all my edits back to "his" censored version, deleting many (more than 10 quotes) in one go without any discussion at all by him on the talkpage of any of the deleted quotes. His edit summary was also misleading as I was not edit-warring and he didn't restore quotes, he just reverted back to his censored version.
  • He continues the same behaviour at other articles like Muhammad bin Qasim and others, where he continues to delete many quotes in one go and refuses to even move quotes to talkpage with full reasoning. It is me who has started a talkpage discussion again but he is not replying, just reverting. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wrong, on policies and guidelines about quotes it is written that, Wikiquote is about notable quotations. If you don't believe me I'll cite them right here. He's even added quotes that are not related to the topic. Even non-notable authors can be allowed here per guidelines. Anyone can make a quote and it can be sourced. I can make one right here.
My problem is Jedi3's consistent disruptive behaviour where he keeps inserting whatever he wants edit-warring instead of providing any legitimate reasons. I don't oppose quotes with any kind of view whether negative or positive. I have added quotes with opposite views as well. What I simply oppose is Jedi3 disrupting because of his own views. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
J.A.R.N.Y You should read the policies. Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced.
WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable."
Template:Fame - "Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field."
Do note none of them say just about anything because it is sourced. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 21:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Quotes need to be notable, not just about anything. This is a website only for notable quotes. That said, I haven't opposed discussion over the quotes with Jedi3. Problem is, Jedi3 either keeps on making false claims about what his quotes are despite knowing what he is saying is false, and making deliberate false claims is a major violation. Or he stops discussing abruptly at the talk pages. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 is using socks to manipulate discussions and votes for deletionEdit

MonsterHunter32 is using sockpuppets to manipulate discussions and votes for deletion. At many discussion pages, and several times, in discussion with admins and with editors, MH32 has been trying to prove his point by referring to a page and a sentence at Wikiquote:Wikiquote that one of his socks manipulated some days ago. See this edit by his sock Beefybufoon.

See the article history https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Wikiquote&action=history

See for example here User_talk:UDScott#Jedi3's_disruptive_edits (in discussion with UDScott) or [Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:MonsterHunter32's_massive_censorship_of_sourced_quotes_without_discussion here in a discussion with JARNY] (and many other places, in discussions with other admins and editors) where MH32 is using the manipulated page and manipulated sentence as a "proof". He is referring to the manipulated page and sentence for example here "Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced." or here: "J.A.R.N.Y You should read the policies. Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced.".

He used the manipulated sentence and page as "proof" for his arguments here:

He has done the same in discussions with other admins, and with others users.

So he is quoting the page he manipulated with his other sock previously as proof in his discussions.

I am sure this is a sock of MH32 and I can provide evidence to admins of this.

So when he tries to make a point by referring to a page he modified with one of his socks, that is really very dishonest. But this is just the same kind of misrepresentations that he has always been displaying.

On the Votes for Deletion pages, and especially at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Varanasi, MonsterHunter32 and some IPs made the same vote with very similar arguments. Previously, and especially at that time, MonsterHunter32 was editing with IPs from the same region also. These edits also made very similar edits like MH32 at wikiquote (and at wikipedia). It very much seems that the IPs and MH32 are connected. I can provide more information if needed. --Jedi3 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jedi3: please report that here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
DanielTom, Thanks. I have made a report. --Jedi3 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway forget it. His frivolous complaint has already been rejected. Jedi3 has been using all kind of tactics to disrupt me. Not just hone complaint, but all of his complaints have been only motivated because he could never counter what i said about his actions. If I wanted, i could have complained Jedi3 long ago at various places. Regardless of his continuous disruptions which i showed, admins don';t bother to take actions. Some say they are too busy, others don't seem bothered. It is clear complaining has become useless and admins won't take action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

MH32Edit

Above I have said I will comment more later. But since it seems that MH32 said the truth when he told admins and others that he quit [41], I will add only a few points (but will expand if necessary).

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

Action Jedi Comments
Asking admins about observing rules, especially also Template:Remove. I did ask admins to confirm that Template:Remove should be observed by MH32 and should be enforced, to which UDScott replied "I agree that prior to removal, since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed."
Notifying admins of edit warring despite warnings and notifications about observance of rule (discussed above) and asking admins to enforce rules. I did do that. And I asked on UDScotts talkpage "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion?"
Notifications to MH32 on his talkpage I gave many notifications.
Using edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions) I did use edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions). See also please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes. I did use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes.
Moving quotes to talk per Template:Remove After MH32 refused to do it in almost all cases, despite being asked so many times, I moved quotes to talk for him.
Applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion I did apply Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion
Asking UDScott what happens if MonsterHunter32 continues censorship and edit-warring. [42] And asking admins that they should enforce the rules per Template:Remove, and that if MH32 continues to refuse to observe Template:Remove, he should be blocked, or the page should be protected. On 22 March I asked UDScott if what happens if MonsterHunter continues with his edit-warring and with the massive censorship of sourced quotes without moving the quotes to talk and without giving full reasoning for the censorship, as told to him is required just before and so many times before by multiple users.
Explaining all edits and restorations on the talkpage (following Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion) Jedi explained all edits on the talkpage. On many articles, MonsterHunter32 did not even once use the talkpage (including at Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Swami Vivekananda, Talk:Historical negationism). In other cases, where he used the talkpage, he did not give full reasoning why he removed the censored quotes. Only in very few cases did he address SOME (not all) of the censored quotes on the talkpage of the article. He used poor excuses like that explaining the deletion of sometimes 10 or more quotes in the same article with 3 word edit summaries is enough. But he was told please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Asking the community for opinions. I did ask the community for opinions and comments, see Admin noticeboard and many other places. Jedi: "I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? [43]
Asking UDScott again what happens if MH32 again refuses to agree on the rule based on Template:Remove. Also asking UDScott to please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes it. Also asking to please let me know if admins have a different interpretation of any of it.[44]
Notifying MH32 again that the rule must be observerd by him You have been notified of this rule dozens of times and you have chosen to ignore it dozens of times. But if you do not observe this, you will be blocked. Previous time he deleted the notification. This time he didn't delete it, but he ignored it again, as he also ignored your warnings.
Notifying UDSCott that MH32 has continued edit-warring, without reverting MH32 again. Jedi said "You said, I agree that prior to removal (by MonsterHunter32), since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Observing this rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:"
Notifiying MH32 that he must stop the edit-warring Jedi made again many notifications.[45] [46] [47] But each time MH32 ignored it and just continued.

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

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

This really is the bare minimum that must be enforced if necessary by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion or by page protection. If MonsterHunter32 as a rule continues to refuse to do this, I don't see how any meaningful discussion of the deleted quotes is possible at all.

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

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

Please let me know if anybody has a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 The only one censoring is you. Status quo doesn't mean edit-warring. There is no justification for an edit-war. Remember that clearly
Anyway The admins have already told us to avoid each other. And as I said I would quit of action isn't taken action against you. The constant back and flrth is becoming a harassment.

There is no point in fighting further as admins won't take action even after anyone's behaviour is complained.

And no I'm not censoring, I never remove any quote that i notable and memorable. It is you who is censoring actions that act against your disruptive actions.
The first bare minimum is don't edit-war. You will never fulfil that and admins don't take action. So it doesn't matter.
Now I could show that the only one culpable here is you. Let's stop wasting time. Do what you want instead of repeating your claims here or there. If you haven't read my comments, I already said I'm quitting. Have a nice day. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I agree it is best to avoid each other. This will be my last post about it if you stop following me and removing my additions in the same manner like previously. And since what you said, we can close the discussion. Have a nice day. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine. As admins have said to avoid each other, it is best not to interfere in each other's edits anymore or edit-war and it is best to avoid any interaction. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's socks and disruptionsEdit

I am not using any socks which Jedi3 keep sclaiming when he has nothing else to do and no reason to justify his quotes. Jedi3 keeps blaming me. But he and DanielTom have an oddly similar behaviour, edit-warring for no reason that too over a petty dispute. Oddly similar right-wing view Also I am not Beefybufoon. If you don't believe you can check my IP.

But Jedi3 should be himself checked. He gives the same reasoning of making every quote notable under false pretenses, or claiming I'm doing "censorship". Jedi3 refuses to cooperate just like DanieTom did at here.

Also Template:Remove is not a quote. So doesn't matter. Regardless I've discussed, but it's becoming difficult due to Jedi3's disruptions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverting like that, especially vandalism or what appears to be attempts at censorship, is common practice in Wikiquote. That said, if you believe Jedi3 and I are somehow related (of course, we aren't), please file a report and Checkuser request here, otherwise it should be taken as a personal attack. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
User:DanielTom How does it appear censorship or vandalsim especially when I asked discussion here. "Censorship" or you are edit-warring because your bias overrides everything else? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
My "bias" is restoring sourced material, which I do in all sorts of articles. You always cry wolf "edit-warring" but even admins are beginning to see through it (e.g. here: [48], [49]). ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No your bias is non-notable and improperly quoted material. You must mention variations. As for credit-warring, but let's say your friend has himself been warned. Do you need examples? I can happily give them. Maybe you forgot to add the same admin you talk about, had warned both me and Jedi3: [50]. And he himself has been blocked as well. Why don't you just admit the truth of what you did and stop taking sides over for ideology or being same as him? Your view must not outweigh rules of Wikiquote. Do not disrupt, do not lie. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorshipEdit

The user User:Jedi3 is keeps falsely blaming me of censorship and keeps edit-warring. He is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source.  He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic.

Or making up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

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

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

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

Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revert is a revert whether partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. I would first like to check all his quotes and then discuss them one by one.

He is also attempting meat puppetry by sending messages to various users even though he's been categorically told by User:UDScott his quotes are not memorable. At an unrelated article, Talk:India, he is making false comments of censorship at me again. He edit warred there also. Even though this article isn't related at all to any of the issues between us, he is deliberately vandalsing it. I haven't stopped discussion with him and I am discussing at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles. But he is taking to completely unrelated articles where I didn't even made an edit. He may invite anyone and discuss any problem he has, but the talk pages of the articles are meant for that. He is clearly not interested in cooperation and only edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Inviting users to comment, if done in a neutral way, is not "attempting meat puppetry". Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him. These are very reasonable concerns. To stop the wikihounding, there should be an interaction ban between MonsterHunter32 and Jedi3. If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The first of your points is a content dispute, the place to discuss these is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes). These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles.
When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you. --Jedi3 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the first of my points is you making repeated false claims. Oh and I have not said I will never discuss. It is you who is refusing cooperation by making false claims again and again. It is you who has added or removed quotes under false reasons. Removal of quotes is censorship. Didn't you first realise those quotes will be removed? Anyone can. Add that to your already made false claims regarding quotes, it is clear you are only interested in disruptive edits with malafide intent.
While you claim I censored you, I have already said i am not removing anything because of your views but simply because your quotes are not memorable and in some cases added under false claims. I added the quotes at Talk:Aurangzeb and you picked one from Will Durant. We are discussing it. If you refuse to continue discussion, then that is your fault. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Also please note that User:Jedi3 has tried to wriggle out of any attempts at discussion by demanding an interaction ban. I can understand a block. But it is clear this person is making all attempts to stifle discussion so he gets what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them. Yet in bad faith he claims censorship, when he knows that the only problem is his addition of whatever non-notable quote that too just to further his view. It is clear he only cares for what he wants even if he is being disruptive and edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And will someone please tell User:Jedi3 to resume discussion instead of abruptly stopping it at Talk:Aurangzeb where I removed his non-notable quotes. He's back to again repeating the same old made-up claims at Talk:India which never worked at befooling anyone at Talk:Somnath temple and Talk:Aurangzeb. What's more this India article isn't even related to any of our issues. What is the point in dragging and repeating the same old claims at an article where we had no issue instead of the article where the issue is? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

User:DanielTom claimed about me some time back that I am "censoring quotes critical of Islam". How when the topic is in most cases not Islam? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.

He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them. Also I'm only taking action against Jedi3's disruptive vandal edits and non-notable quotes. Stopping disruptive edits is in no way Wikihounding. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Also DanielTom claimed that a neutral request for comment is not"meat-puppetry". Except Jedi3's request was never neutral. He kept on blaming me of the same thing he has balemed here to cast me as the "bad guy', instead of making a simple neutral request. As the same comment is on other pages I'll show some few of his non-neutral "requests" to attempt to influence others against me aka "meatpupettry": [51], [52]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Another important thing I think should be mentioned here is while Jedi3 accuses me of "blanking", his actions are disrupting my ability to contribute to Wikiquote articles. It is Jedi3's disruptive edit-warring and his constant arguing that too with false claims that has caused a huge load of time wasted. Because of this I haven't been able to find time to freely edit many articles including where he has added non-memorable sources. I am not blanking, actually I wish to make all articles better. But the thing is Jedi3 is indirectly preventing it.
I have even discussed with him. But since 25 March, Jedi3 hasn't replied on Talk:Aurangzeb, [Talk:india which by the way had nothing to do with our edits as we never had any argument over the quotes in the article India. Since 5 March, no reply at Talk:Somnath temple.
  • In past I tried to improve upon Aurangzeb where Jedi3's quotes were mostly non-notable. After removing non-notable ones, I started adding actually memorable/notable quotes. But while I was adding them, Jedi3 kept intruding to restore his non-notable quotes, causing a huge wastage of time on his repeated edit-warring which also resulted in me not being able to devote time to addition of quotes.
Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [53], [54], [55] and [56]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64].
The above are only some of the reverts which caused a time-wastage and left me with no energy to make additions to the article.. While he keeps claiming I do not cooperate, I have discussed a lot with him. I already told him not to discuss everything at once. What will be beter is one quote discussed at a time as Jedi3 doesn't stop edit-warring or is stuck even over one quote like he did at Somnath temple.
  • Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [65], [66] and [67]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [68] and [69]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.
Jedi3 is very disruptive. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition Jedi3 has at many times refused to admit outright that some of his quotes were made-up or unrelated to the topic. Even after that is pointed out to him, he refuses to admit or tries to justify it and keeps on changing to stand.
  • At Sikandar Butshikan, he added modified wording of a quote from the historian Ferishta which isn't there in the original source concerning the Martand temple. I pointed this out while removing it and also provided the original source ie., Ferishta's work, as the proof (https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.501767/2015.501767.history-of#page/n505/mode/1up), that the quote is not as he claimed it to be, At Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indicated it clearly that it was copied from Wikipedia with the modified quote being due to Wikipedia claiming it such. This despite Wikipedia should not be used as a source. He also claimed that he still believes that Ferishta mentions it, despite him offering no prrof that he make such a quote and me offring proof that he didn't make such a quote. Do note that my contention is not about whether Sikandar Butshikan destroyed Martand temple, but simply whether Ferishta mentioned Martand in a quote about temple destruction.
When I told about this at Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress, Jedi3 shifted his stand to that Elliot and Dowson write that "Firishta' attributes to Sikandar the demolition of all the Kashmirian temples. On Talk:Sikandar Butshikhan, he however made no such claim, Jedi3 said, "As I said, Wikipedia made the connection between that quote and Martand. If that connection is now disputed, I'm fine with not using the image for the quote." What's more, all I asked was whether Ferishta ever mentions Martand in a quote. This is not Wikipeia and i'm not disputing Sikandar's temple-destruction. The only dispute is whether the quote from Ferishta has made-up claims added to it. Jedi3 still doesn't admit wrong-doing. Now he has again shifted his stand, claiming here at AN that it is a content dispute. Actually it's about the quote being-made up. To avoid admitting his wrong-doing he keeps making false claims.
  • At Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, he removed a quote: "(The Muslims had) enriched our culture, strengthened our administration, and brought near distant parts of the country... It (the Muslim Period) touched deeply the social life and the literature of the land." For this at Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent he claims "This quote is not about the conquest or invasions, it better belongs to an article on Islam in India, moved to article Islam in India.". Then he dropped the latter part and shifted his stand: "The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes)." Despite the quote never mentioning Islam in India and clearly mentioning he Muslim period or Muslim rule/conquests of india more appropriately. Apparently while he claims he doesn't think it is about conquests it is okay for him to shift articles to an article about Islam in India, even though the quote never talks about Islam in India.
This is no content dispute as he claims. He is only making false claims and then shifting goalposts to when confronted about his behavior. Ir is clear Jedi3 is a very disruptive behavior. I don't know why for any reason who keep son edit-warring, disrupting and constantly making deliberate false claims is allowed to continue. Action should be taken against him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


  • I have already replied to most of this elsewhere. Why are you avoiding to discuss the topic which is your censorship, by bringing in irrelevant content disputes that I mostly replied already to elsewhere? 95% of your text is completely unrelated to the censorship issue, and it concerns only 1% of the quotes. But despite that I replied already you are repeating the same stuff over and over again. About Muhammed bin Qasim, the place to discuss this is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... Now you are telling me that you explained it in the edit summary. You used 3 words in your edit summary, and I and other users expect to see your full reasoning on the talkpage as told many times by many users. I will not look for edit summaries, I will look for talkpage discussions. And besides, your 2 or 3 word edit summaries are extremely inadequate for giving your full reasoning, especially since you deleted in some articles over 15 quotes at once! Elsewhere you are complaining about edits from you that I didn't challenge for various reasons, but with these points you are simply trying to avoid discussing the topic here, which is your unexplained censorship of sourced quotes. These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles. When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you.

This discussion would not be necessary if you had followed what was asked to you by multiple users many times:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

Now you are again doing deliberate misrepresenations when you claim you have discussed the quotes. You have almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What I ask as a minimal first step from you is that you move all your deleted quotes to the article talkpages with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

This is a minimal first step that is required to enable the further discussion of the removed quotes, and that you have refused to do despite being asked so many times by multiple users. Until you do that, what you say are just poor excuses. I did not abrutptely stop any discussion. You have failed to provide your reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage despite being told many times by many users. And in most cases you did not even move the censored quotes to the talkpage.

  • All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.
  • As long as you refuse to even move the censored quotes to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, which was asked by many people many times, you are just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved. --Jedi3 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User;Jedi3 Instead of avoiding taking responsibility, you should accept when your lie is caught. I have already pointed out your false claims to you. The appropriate place to apologize is anywhere. Also please don't keep shifting your stand. that only shows you are not bothered about anything but what you want at all costs even if you lie, a serious breach.

  • At Sikandar Butshikan, he added modified wording of a quote from the historian Ferishta which isn't there in the original source concerning the Martand temple. I pointed this out while removing it and also provided the original source ie., Ferishta's work, as the proof (https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.501767/2015.501767.history-of#page/n505/mode/1up), that the quote is not as he claimed it to be, At Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indicated it clearly that it was copied from Wikipedia with the modified quote being due to Wikipedia claiming it such. This despite Wikipedia should not be used as a source. He also claimed that he still believes that Ferishta mentions it, despite him offering no prrof that he make such a quote and me offring proof that he didn't make such a quote. Do note that my contention is not about whether Sikandar Butshikan destroyed Martand temple, but simply whether Ferishta mentioned Martand in a quote about temple destruction.
When I told about this at Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress, Jedi3 shifted his stand to that Elliot and Dowson write that "Firishta' attributes to Sikandar the demolition of all the Kashmirian temples. On Talk:Sikandar Butshikhan, he however made no such claim, Jedi3 said, "As I said, Wikipedia made the connection between that quote and Martand. If that connection is now disputed, I'm fine with not using the image for the quote." What's more, all I asked was whether Ferishta ever mentions Martand in a quote. This is not Wikipeia and i'm not disputing Sikandar's temple-destruction. The only dispute is whether the quote from Ferishta has made-up claims added to it. Jedi3 still doesn't admit wrong-doing. Now he has again shifted his stand, claiming here at AN that it is a content dispute. Actually it's about the quote being-made up. To avoid admitting his wrong-doing he keeps making false claims.
  • At Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, he removed a quote: "(The Muslims had) enriched our culture, strengthened our administration, and brought near distant parts of the country... It (the Muslim Period) touched deeply the social life and the literature of the land." For this at Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent he claims "This quote is not about the conquest or invasions, it better belongs to an article on Islam in India, moved to article Islam in India.". Then he dropped the latter part and shifted his stand: "The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes)." Despite the quote never mentioning Islam in India and clearly mentioning he Muslim period or Muslim rule/conquests of india more appropriately. Apparently while he claims he doesn't think it is about conquests it is okay for him to shift articles to an article about Islam in India, even though the quote never talks about Islam in India.
This is no content dispute as he claims. He is only making false claims and then shifting goalposts to when confronted about his behavior. Ir is clear Jedi3 is a very disruptive behavior. I don't know why for any reason who keep son edit-warring, disrupting and constantly making deliberate false claims is allowed to continue. Action should be taken against him.

Apologize or face action for lying. Also Template:Remove is not a policy. Still I don't oppose discussion. But I suggest you stop running away from discussions if you want to discuss. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Current statusEdit

Here you see an overview with the current status (which does not even include all of the deleted quotes):

Article Discussion page Number of censored quotes MonsterHunter32 moved censored quotes to talk? MonsterHunter32 gave full reasoning for deletions on talk? Current status
* Talk:Aurangzeb About 37 quotes. The quotes added on 23 March were NOT moved to talk. The previously added quotes were added to talk. Reasoning for ONE quote (Will Durant quote) given, but no consensus achieved. Reasoning for the rest (about 36 quotes!) NOT given on talk. Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the rest of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.

Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Somnath temple 2 quotes. Started deleting quote on 7 January, moved ONE quote to talk on 21 January. Second quote not moved to talk by MH32. Reasoning given for ONE quote, but no consensus achieved. Second DELETED quote needs reasoning. Comments from other editors needed. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the second DELETED quote on the talkpage.

Comments from other editors about the Wilkie Collins quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Swami Vivekananda 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the DELETED quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Historical negationism 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Slavery in India 3 quotes. No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim About 15 quotes. No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Malabar rebellion 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.

True account of Jedi3's edit-wars and disruptionEdit

Article Number of non-notable quotes removed Jedi3 stopped edit-warring? Last edit-warring revert? Jedi3's disruption allowed MonsterHunter32 to move quotes to talk? Template:Remove requires moving? Satisfactory reason given? Jedi3 completed discussion on one quote anywhere?
Aurangzeb Almost 30 quotes, not 40. As already explained to Jedi3 some of his new quotes keep getting removed due to his own edit-warring which I revert, see [70]. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 march. Apart from now, he never discussed on talk page since 23 March. Moved. The new 10 quotes he claims I "censored", were only removed due to his edit-warring. I've already said he could restore them if they are notable. Another quote he claims I removed is still there. NOT ALWAYS. YES. NO
Somnath temple 2 quotes. No. Still edit-warring: [71]. Last date of talk before today. 5 March One moved. The other not, as I was too busy arguing on Talk:Aurangzeb with Jedi3. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Other given too in edit-summary. NO
Talk:Swami Vivekananda 1 quote. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Historical negationism 1 quote. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Slavery in India 3 quotes. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [72], [73], [74] NO
Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim About 15 quotes. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. Second one as already said is not about Qasim especially. NO
Malabar rebellion 1 quote. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit-summary: [88] NO

This person is clearly not interested in "cooperation" or any real "discussion". he has edit-warred dozens of times even recently despite being warned by administrators. Please have him blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

DanielTom's disruptive edits.Edit

User:DanielTom has accused me of several false and bad faith accusations in the past. He has also edit-warred. He has been warned for disruptive behavior in past as well.

Just after his first revert of my removing a non-notable quote, I invited him to discussion. Notably, I had started the discussion even before DanieTom first reverted me.

He still reverted me three times more: [89], [90] and [91]. I still kept inviting him for discussion in my edits.

I had already offered him a compromise meanwhile. Despite my good-faith gesture for hours even befiore he came, he still accuses that he though of it as "censorship".

At this noticeboard he baselessly accused me of censoring quotes about Islam. As I already said: The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots. He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible.

He still made his unsubstantiated false arguments against me of "censoring". I ask hm to apologize. He doesn't. i repeatedly ask him, and he keeps removing my message. And then he calls me a troll. Ajedi3 hasd amde a depply insulting atatck earlier also by calling me annoying.

I ask he be warned and made to apologize. it is clear he is supporting Jedi3 merely because of similar pattern of thinking and ideology. It is clear to DanielTom, it doesn't matter if he is being disruptive. not just disruption, but he has made false claims. He should be blocked of a week if he doesn't apologize. This is so he realizes his mistake. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

According to MonsterHunter32, if you restore sourced material that he chooses to remove, you are being disruptive. (Notice, by the way, that in the case he cites here I did discuss at the talk page, and in the end he himself added the quote he had removed back to the article!) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
UDsoctt didn'tt take action even after I stated that Jedi3 has again started edit-arring. I am sick of this now. You two keep on making bad-faith edits against me. I only removed your quotews because they were non-notable nothing else. I valued rules above all else. Sources aren't the mere criteria. But no one one listens to me. If admins don't take action against Jedi3, I quit. DanielTom should be warned meanwhile. I am flabbergasted by his accusations against me. But it is clear no one won;t so anything. Either action be taken against at least Jedi3 tomorrow, or I quit forever. Then you and Jedi3 can do what you want. I am sick of wasting time here. I never wanted to do this anyway.. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Action should have been taken against DanielTom as well. It is clear his past behavior hasn't improved. But no one seems to be bothered. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes critical of Islam (as even admin Kalki has recently pointed out). One quote added by Nvvchar years ago was removed, restored by me after discussion on my talk page, and now months later MonsterHunter32 removes it and calls me an "ideological edit-warring vandal" for undoing his removal, which was done without prior discussion and against consensus. It's very clear that he needs to be blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
DanielTom, the previous complaint of you disparaging your hated subjects, your false claims about me censoring quotes "critical of Islam even though most of my edits re not about that, you repeated edit-warring. What does that show? So don't blame me, blame yourself. Someone shoudl block you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends disruptive IPsEdit

Multiple IPs continue to make edits by adding non-existent quotes (like this edit, for instance) and unneeded narrator quotes that are far from relevant. I request that all Thomas & Friends articles be protected for a long period of time, because anything less than half a year will not stop them. WikiLubber (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A week later, the vandalism goes on, and the IP users constantly refuse to respond to or heed my warnings. WikiLubber (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

IP vandal 75.187.99.153Edit

Constantly adds notability-lacking single quotes (most of which were incomplete, particularly when it comes to character subsections) and writes quotes based solely on how they are written in DVD/Blu-ray subtitles (which are far from trustworthy and are never without error). I request that this IP be blocked for a long period of time and that all articles it vandalized be protected indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A week later, the vandalism goes on, and the IP users constantly refuse to respond to or heed my warnings. WikiLubber (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 mass-censoring pages againEdit

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is mass-censoring pages again, without even discussion on the talkpage. Can someone please stop him? --Jedi3 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm only removing his non-notable and non-related quotes. Besides Jedi3 can discuss anytime when I'm free. Do remeber that this user while talking about discussion is still edit-warring at Somnath temple until a few days ago, where he still hasn't finished the argument at Talk:Somnath temple. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Besides give me a break. I didn't even remove all the non-notable quotes. If I did many of the articles would be empty. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Here are his reverts, [92], [93], [94], [95], [96].

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

He actually made 6 reverts, another one without any reason : [97]. He has lied multiple times, but I don't want to edit-war.

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [98], [99], [100]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [101], [102]

Some false claims of "massive blanking" despite only one quote being removed: [103], [104], [105].

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [106]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [107], [108]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

Action needs to be taken against this disruptive person otherwise it's a mockery of moderation and the Wiki policies. I didn't edit-war with Jedi3 and reported him to Kalki and UDScott too. But no action has been taken. That's why i was forced to remove his non-notable quotes. Please take action against him. I haven't stopped him from discussion. It is he who often abruptly stops discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @MonsterHunter32: It appears to me that you are reverting too quickly to have actually checked your work. Here, for example, you removed a completely appropriate hatnote on Francis Bacon pointing to Francis Bacon (artist). Please restore this hatnote. This sort of thing leads me to wonder if you have actually taken the time to check the availability or notability of the quotes that you have deleted as non-notable. BD2412 T 14:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, if you look through MH32's contributions, you will find that he is only here to censor, delete and blank quotes he does not like, especially anything that I added.
He has been warned more than enough times already of this plain vandalism masked with extremely poor excuses. Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?
He should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called massive and almost indiscriminate removals and blanking with poor justifications and which as disruptive vandalism is surely a blockable offence.--Jedi3 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
BD2412 Sorry. Mistakes are made especially when editing quickly. But unlike Jedi3, I admit them. I don't mean to remove anyone else's edit except Jedi3. However, problem is that Jedi3 keeps on making false claims about his quotes like how they are poignant, witty etc even when they have nothing to do with their basic dictionary meaning. Jedu3 even stops discussing abruptly some times. That's why I decided to revert so many of his edits because discussion goes nowhere because of him. I'll correct other edits that may have been accidentally removed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 should be blockedEdit

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

He has been warned enough already.

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

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

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

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

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

I will also gladly respond to any editor about any questions regarding the invalid and poor excuses that MH32 is giving for his massive censorship, most of which are deliberate misrepresentations or worse, including his most recent one at Babar (where he claimed that he couldn't find it in the source, even though the page of the source he linked does discuss the very issue MH32 is complaining about in the footnote). And what is needed, after the pages are protected and MH32 is blocked, is some input and comments from other editors about the deleted quotes, which I have already asked for many times, since the discussion with someone like MH32 who refuses to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion on any issue is unproductive and third party opinons are needed. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 Also it is funny you are claimimg I made a "deliberately misrepresentation" at Babur about thr Battle of Chanderi. Maybe you forget to mention that you yourself didn't check the quote from the original source. I had shifted a quote from an obscure translation of Baburnama by S.A.A. Rizvi ehich was claimed in another book by another author S.R. Goel, to disputed after not being able to find it. The events of Chanderi are called general slaughter at one page and mass-suicide of all the combatants at another where there is no slaughter, I initially only could find the latter.
You had made no claim in any of your edit on the article you found it. That caused confusion. Only after I shifted it to disputed, did you yourself state at Talk:Babur that you found it. The source used is the much more notable translation by Annette Beveridge. After being able to verify it, i added it back and replaced Rizvi's translation with that of Beveridge.
Had you ever bothered to check the original sources, this confusion wouldn't have happened. Another reason why you should be blocked. Unlike you, I try to verify whether something is said in teh originak source or not. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let's go through it.

  1. After you moved the quote to misattributed here [109], I moved it to disputed [110], as I explained on the talkpage here
  2. Your edit summary was "The actual description of Baburnama is completely different then what Goel claims. All Rajputs nearly almost exterminated themselves, there is no mention of any slaughter or darul islam. Can't even find it in the Thackston version)"
  3. Here I could easily have called you a liar, as you have called me and other editors multiple times, but unlike you, I was assuming good faith. You linked to this page here, and this page clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
  4. So the points you made (that you cannot find the quote in your translation, and that you cannot find any mention of a massacre and of Dar-Ul-Islam) can be easily proven false by just reading the very page that you linked to.
  5. But still unlike you I was assuming good faith and did not call you a liar, like you usually do.
  6. Also the translation by Rizvi is not obscure, it was published by the reputed Aligarh Muslim University. You can google Aligarh Muslim University and find out for yourself that it is very reputable, I don't need to repeat what you can google in one minute. Also, calling a book obsucre because it is written in an Indian language, or because it is not online, or because several decades later in 2018 there are sources that are more widely used, or because it is from Aligarh University, is just bias.
  7. Your claim that I did not read the original source (besides violating the Assume good faith rule) is a straw man. There are thousands of quotes on WQ that were added from secondary sources like here Dance#Hoyt's_New_Cyclopedia_of_Practical_Quotations or here Dance#Wisdom_for_the_Soul:_Five_Millennia_of_Prescriptions_for_Spiritual_Healing or here and I do not for one second believe that they were checked against the original source. But I did include the secondary source as a source for the quote, so I don't see where the problem is when the secondary source was even noted below the quote. Also of course, the original quote was written in the Chagatai language, an extinct language, so checking the original is not even very feasible in this case. Besides, most translations into English were translated from Chagatai language to Persian language, before being translated into a modern language. I assume this is also the case for the translation you used. Were you checking your addition against the origianl Chagatai language version, or at least against the Persian version? In any case, while in this case I checked only the version from the secondary source and did not check not the original version in the Chagatai language, the most I could have done, without knowledge of Chagatai language, is checking muliple English translations. This is not a requirement at wikiquote, but when feasible and appropriate I will do it. I read the secondary source from which I used the quote, I clearly marked all the sources below the quote, including the secondary source. That is all that is needed. I did not read the Rizvi book, but this is also not required (and you would have to assume that I can read Hindi, you also didn't read the source in the original Chagatai language). I take your suggestions how to improve by comparing with multiple translations, although this is also not a requirement and which I did not do it in this case, but I am open to all suggestions how to improve, and as appropriate and feasible, I will to the best to improve using also your suggestions. But all this should not be used as a poor excuse for you for your massive censorship in other unrelated articles.
  8. At the end of the day it is just one more example you were unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles.--Jedi3 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 Sure let's discuss. Completely false comparison of "unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content". I simply shifted the quote to another sectio. because of finding an apparent contradictory narration of events of a battle. I didn't even remove it. Also here is your own past behavior of false made-up and unrelated quotes: [111], [112], [113].
Isn't it true your own source says the original translation is in Hindi? Can you access Rizvi's translation of Baburnama? Can you say a lot of people know about Aligarh Muslim University or Rizvi? Can you quote for me the full statement said at the page without the "..."? What does obscure mean - not discoverable or uncertain.
It is not me claiming you didn't read the source. You yourself said "you found it". The source used is the much more notable translation by Annette Beveridge. After being able to verify it, I added it back.
Isn't it true that the Beveridge translation is different? So how will you call me a liar? Isn't it true that you are only adding it based om what you read from Hindutva-leaning book by SR Goel?You never had any good faith. All you care about is pushing your POV at all costs. Unjust? You've added many false quotes in the past. The examples are right above. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I said that you were unjustly using it as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles. Your reply is again misleading, when you delibarately quote only half of the sentence. You were using this and other equally misleading examples as poor excuses or arguments [114].
The Aligarh Muslim University is a reputed institution, you can google it. There is no requirement that such a translation from Aligarh Muslim University is not valid as a source, it only betrays your bias against Indian languages. In any case, I did not oppose you in changing it to another translation that, in 2018, is more widely available online.
The translation and the page you linked to did clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
When you then link to the very page that, if you fully read it, mentions the very points you make, and disproves your very points, I could have called you a liar this is what you would have done if I had done anything like it --Jedi3 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I said false comparison of "unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content". Try reading before commenting.
As for misleading, I call someone not even verifying a quote as and making a post-facto discovery is misleading. As for the translation clearly saying about the footnote, when I tried to read it, it is really tiny.
I didn't find the other quote earlier, nor did you until later finding it. After being able to verify it, I added it back.
You are still not answering any of my questions. Isn't it true your own source says the original translation is in Hindi? Can you access Rizvi's translation of Baburnama? Can you say a lot of people know about Aligarh Muslim University or Rizvi and his translation (which even I didn't know before)? What does obscure mean - not discoverable or uncertain. Can you quote for me the full original statement said at the page without the "..."? Can you prove that you verified your claims before adding? Go ahead. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And Jedi3 has a new criteria for a work being not obscure. He claims its not obscure because of its publisher, the "Aligarh Muslim University". My comment of obscurity was not even about the publisher, but the work itself. Not withstanding that everyone won't know about the publisher. A work isn't automotically non-obscure because of the publisher. Nor Jedi3 has accessed it to verify his quotes, that is clear from his comments.
The translation doesn't seem accessible. Regardless, User:Jedi3 also doesn't mention that the translated quote I added actually isn't exactly the same as the one he originally added. Jedi3 clearly never bothered to verify what he wrote and is claiming a quote that is not entirely the same translation. His own claims are becoming an excuse now. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
In any case, I did not oppose you in changing it to another translation that, in 2018, is more widely available online. I agreed to these changes about this particular quote, so there shouldn't even be a dispute anymore. It is normal that quotes can be changed by editing, and I agreed to these particular changes on this quote.--Jedi3 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And there you have it, the actual misleading liar - Jedi3. Blames me of misleading reasons, doesn't bother to read that the translated quote I added back is actually a bit different and not exactly the same as the one he added. Doesn’t himself check the original sources. And when his mistakes are pointed out, he never accepts it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please block disruptive Jedi3Edit

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

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

Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them. It is ironic he accuses others of stonewalling when he resorts to unethical behaviour to keep his quotes there at all costs.

At another article in the past, he falsely called the edit of a user as vandalism despite him giving a clear reason for why he deleted it. He didn't bother to discuss or even counter the editor while reverting.

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles: [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122].

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

Here are his reverts, [123], [124], [125], [126], [127].

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

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles: [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133].

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring: [134], [135], [136].

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [137], [138], [139]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [140], [141]

His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [142], [143], [144] and [145]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153]. Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [154], [155] and [156]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [157] and [158]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.

Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [159]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [160], [161]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

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

Please block this disruptive vandal immediately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:MonsterHunter32s massive, unxplained and indiscriminate censorship of sourced quotesEdit

Quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) across dozens of pages need to be moved to the talkpage with full reasoning for the censorship. Virtually his only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes without any explanation on the talkpage (as asked MANY times).

Quotes censored recently were not moved to talk since he repeatedly refuses to do it despite being asked MANY times by many users.
But MonsterHunter32 still needs to highlight the quote on talkpage and give full reasoning (for each removed quote) on the talkpage.
  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

He has almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What is asked as a minimal first step from you is that you move all your deleted quotes to the article talkpages with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

This is a minimal first step that is required to enable the further discussion of the removed quotes, and that you have refused to do despite being asked so many times by multiple users. Until you do that, what you say are just poor excuses. You have failed to provide your reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage despite being told many times by many users. And in most cases you did not even move the censored quotes to the talkpage.

  • All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.
  • As long as he refuses to even move the censored quotes to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, which was asked by many people many times, he is just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved.

Here you see an overview with the current status (which does not even include all of the deleted quotes).--Jedi3 (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Discussion page Number of censored quotes MonsterHunter32 moved censored quotes to talk? MonsterHunter32 gave full reasoning for deletions on talk? Current status (see also Talk:India#Summary_table)
* Talk:Aurangzeb Almost 40 quotes. The quotes added on 23 March were NOT moved to talk. The previously added quotes were added to talk. Reasoning for ONE quote (Will Durant quote) given, but no consensus achieved. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the rest of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage. Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Somnath temple 2 quotes. Started deleting quote on 7 January, moved ONE quote to talk on 21 January. Second quote not moved to talk by MH32. Reasoning given for ONE quote, but no consensus achieved. Second DELETED quote needs reasoning. Comments from other editors needed. Comments from other editors about the Wilkie Collins quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Swami Vivekananda 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the DELETED quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Historical negationism 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Slavery in India 3 quotes. No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim About 15 quotes. No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Malabar rebellion 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.
*Talk:Francis Bacon
Many quotes (too many to count) No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to move censored quote to talk and give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.

Comments on MonsterHunter32Edit

This is what other editors have said about MonsterHunter32:
  • isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes critical of Islam (as you yourself have pointed out). It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.
  • You have been told by an admin that you need to generate WP:CONSENSUS before your content can be accepted, and in order to generate consensus, you need to start answering questions that are being posed. Claiming that it is all clear, "read it for yourself" etc. constitute stonewalling. They get you no closer to any form of consensus.
  • "I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer."
  • I find it morally repugnant when people .... simply seek to remove quotes if they are not complimentary to the views they favor, to the extent they can — MOST of your edits seem to be CENSORSHIP ....
  • " I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. "
  • "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...."
  • "Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ "
  • "I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote." (in response to MonsterHunter32)
  • "No more of this time-wasting dispute here. I don't want my talk page to be used to call people vandals, liars, etc..... "
  • "Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). "
  • "and IF you revert this again you WILL be BLOCKED."
  • "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes ... and wikihounding him. These are very reasonable concerns. .... If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him."
  • And if you don't stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you will end up getting blocked. Please be warned.
  • If you persist in .... that has been questioned without getting consensus first, you will be either topic banned from Indian subjects, or blocked for disruptive editing.
  • "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "
  • "if you keep this up you will be blocked"
I previously agreed with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard:
  • "If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.) --Jedi3 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's masive disprutive editingEdit

Here you can see Jedi3's history of disruptive edit-warring in the past. While he keeps claiming censorship, he deliberately omits I've left many of his quotes untouched as well. This table I tagged earlier, but can come in handy. Some of its content is ouitdated. Theis differfence bvetween his comments and abruptly stopping discussion at It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result.

Also I've given reason for all removals in the edit summary. Also Jedi3 keeps talking about Template:Remove]. but here is actually what it says: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

Regardless of it not mandating every time, I still tried to discussed with him despite not being mandatory every time. But he even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.


Article Number of non-notable quotes removed Jedi3 stopped edit-warring? Last edit-warring revert? Jedi3's disruption allowed MonsterHunter32 to move quotes to talk? Template:Remove requires moving? Satisfactory reason given? Jedi3 completed discussion on one quote anywhere?
Aurangzeb No. Still edit-warring as of 29 march. Apart from now, he never discussed at Talk: Aurangzeb for 6 days Moved. The new 10 quotes he claims I "censored", were only removed due to his edit-warring. I've already said he could restore them if they are notable. Another quote he claims I removed is still there. NOT ALWAYS. YES. NO
Somnath temple No. Still edit-warring: [162]. 24 days of difference between subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple One moved. The other not, as I was too busy arguing on Talk:Aurangzeb with Jedi3. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Other given too in edit-summary. NO
Talk:Swami Vivekananda No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Historical negationism No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Slavery in India No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [163], [164], [165] NO
Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]. Second one as already said is not about Qasim especially. NO
Malabar rebellion No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit-summary: [179] NO

What "cooperation" and censorship this edit-warring user is talking about? He himself doesn't care to cooperate and "censors" and berates when someone takes action against his disruptive edits. He is the most disruptive person I've ever comer across. The list above isn't complete with many other of his acts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments about Jedi3Edit

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

  • Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement - UDScott
  • Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. - UDScott
  • I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. - Kalki
  • * What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.
  • Even though another user removed his quote saying the article is about Ambedkar, not Elst, though he presumably made a grammar mistake. The reason used Jedi3 to revert? Falsely call the user a vandal.

Wikiquote certainly isn't a place for disruptors like Jedi3 who make false claims. He should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 has been told this thousands of times:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion.

He just keeps ignoring it.

He was warned enough times. He just ignores the warnings.

See here for the massive list of censored quotes.

In every other wiki he would have been banned long ago. Other editors have also said, "isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes".... It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.

An admin needs to decide what is to be done about this, as this situation cannot continue. The mass censorship and removal of sourced quotes without any explanation and full reasoning on the talkpage is vandalism. And if one restores the censored quotes, he just keeps edit-warring as here and here.

Of the many quotes he has been trying to censor, he only gave some reasoning for TWO quotes on the talkpage, see [180].

I also agreed with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard (but I am not sure if he would respect it):

  • "If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.) --Jedi3 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 has been told there is nothing to stop him from a discussion and prove why they should be included.

Instead of edit-warring, Jedi3 should himself attempt to discuss. Even another admin has already judged some of his quotes as non-memorable and merely POV-pushing. It is clear Jedi3 only added his "quotes" just to indulge in POV-pushing without bothering whether they are notable. I have no problem with his quotes being added as long as they are notable and memorable.

Also, if edit-warring reverts like this go on, I don't know how can there be a discussion.

He has recently been briefly blocked for his repetitive posts at multitudes of talk pages, see User talk:Kalki#Brief block of massive posting actions.

All I've asked let's discuss the quotes one-by-one. Have I asked something unacceptable? The amount of disruption he has shown shows he doesn't care about discussion or cooperation, but only what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 has only given reasoning for two deleted quotes on the talkpageEdit

Of the massive amount of censored quotes, MonsterHunter32 has so far only given some reasoning for TWO quotes on the talkpage, despite being asked so many times. (Although there is no consensus for these two quotes, therefore third party opinions would be needed). See the summary table below.

Quotation, editorial principle or principle of editorial conduct Jedi3's position MonsterHunter32's position Comments from other editors to assist dispute resolution
* At that date, the Mohammedan conqueror, Mahmoud of Ghizni, crossed India; seized on the holy city of Somnauth; and stripped of its treasures the famous temple, which had stood for centuries--the shrine of Hindoo pilgrimage, and the wonder of the Eastern world. Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares. The quote is written in eloquent 19th century style English. It describes Somnath as "the wonder of the Eastern world" and implicitly as one of the two most sacred cities of India. (An influential English novel describing an "exotic" place (for English people) like Somnath in vivid detail and making it an important part of the novel's plot is by itself notable.). Apart from all this, it comes from an influential writer/novel. And there are thousands of similar quotes on other wikiquote pages, so the only reason to remove it seems to be because the creator of the page is disliked. Quote meets at least one of the criteria: It is witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, memorable, novel, original, or poignant. Issue 1 Issue 1
*Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers. The quote is written in very eloquent English, which is not surprising since it comes from Will Durant, a very gifted writer. Apart from this, it comes from an influential writer/book, who is also quoted in many other wikiquote articles, and there are thousands of similar quotes on other wikiquote pages, so the only reason to remove it seems to be "because the creator of the page is disliked" (as Kalki said in another discussion involving MonsterHunter32). (It is even quoted in the wikipedia article on Aurangzeb). Quote meets at least one of the criteria: It is witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, memorable, novel, original, or poignant. Issue 2 Issue 2

Jedi3 making false claims again, I have given reasons for removal everywhereEdit

In edit summaries, I have given reasons every time for removal. Not just that, I have also given reasons for removal at many talk pages. It is funny he is claiming I have given reasons only for two.

The only criteria is for quote to be notable. Unless it is it doesn't matter whether Jedi3 decides to call a poignant or witty or eloquent or pithy without him bothering what they mean.

I have showed he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them.

I've attempted discussion to resolve all issues at many places where Jedi3 has raised issues Talk:Somnath temple, Talk:Aurangzeb, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Malabar rebellion, Talk:India and even many times at Jedi3's own talk page User talk:Jedi3 about articles like Hindu and many others.

I have not stopping Jedi3 from discussion. But thing is he doesn't give two hoots in actual about discussion and cooperation. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Edit summaries are not a substitute for moving the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as told to you countless times.
  • He was even told by other editors don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material
  • There are only two quotes that you have been discussing with me. For example, at Aurangzeb article, you censored about 37 quotes, and only for one you have given some reasoning. (Maybe there were other quotes you discussed with Daniel, or quotes that you removed and I did not challenge it, but this is about the quotes where I opposed the removal and where there was a discussion on the talkpage).--Jedi3 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Where is your full reasoning of the censored quote at Talk:Malabar rebellion? Also at the other discussions you list except the two articles Somnath and Aurangzeb the discussion was not about your removal of a quote from that article.--Jedi3 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 I suggest you read Template:Remove which you keep talking about. "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."
Regardless, I tried to discuss with you many times. It says you have to give it in the edit summary. But it doesn't say it is always necessary to move or giving reason in personal everytime is required. Even then I have tried to discussion with you, but you keep stonewalling or abruptly stopping the discussion.
Also at Talk:Malabar rebellion, I did give the reason in full. My reasons for removing your quotes were there in my very first comment after you commented. Not to forget you later irrationally copied your complaint on 29 March and added it chronologically earlier than 24 March deletion discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone should also tell Jedi3 Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. You should not link a Wikipedia policy like Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion. Only add link of a Wikiquote policy here.

I suggest he also read from the same Wikipedia policy of STATUSQUO says that if your edit is reverted you should discuss instead of reverting - "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."

If Jedi3 can disprove what I said about his quotes, then no problem. But he won't stop edit-warring and keeps making bad-faith disruptive edits. I can't do anything anymore about it. His latest edit-warring reverts: [181], [182]. It seems he is hell-bent on getting either of us blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32s mass deletions of sourced quotesEdit

See here for the MonsterHunters massive deletion of sourced quotes in over 100 articles:

He did this out of revenge because he had enough of me, and because (as he claims) I and another editor called him a vandal, and because of the dispute of one quote from Wilkie Collins that he started to mass delete unrelated quotes. see here (I believe I called his mass deletions vandalism at some point, but I'm not sure if I called him a vandal during this time.)

After MonsterHunter32s massive and indiscriminate censorship of sourced quotes in over 100 articles without any explanation on the talkpage it is clear that something needs to be done.

I believe that as a minimum the Template Remove proposal should be enforced, see below.

1. Block

In other wikis he would have been blocked a long time ago for the massive and indiscriminate removal of sourced quotes without discussion that can only be described as censorship or vandalism.

2. Template:Remove proposal

Many editors and admins have told MonsterHunter32 this

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

but he kept ignoring it and refusing to observe it. And he was told so much also by admins, but MonsterHunter continues to refuse to observe it.

But this is a bare minimum that should be observed by him, which should then be the basis for further discussion. Otherwise he will just continue his mass censorship and edit warring, with poor excuses like that his edit summaries for the mass censorship of a massive amount of different quotes are already "enough" discussion, or that he can only do this for one quote at one time and must wait until the discussion is finished before he can do it for any of the other deleted quotes in the other 100 articles.

(The only exceptions should be the removal of vandalism or other uncontroversial matter that is not challenged.)

This is really the bare minimum, that should be observed by MonsterHunter and enforced. It may not be enough, it is really a minimum, but it is a start.

Enforcing it would be necessary (as until now he has persistently refused to do it), a violation would mean a short term block.

In fact, other editors and admins have told MonsterHunter to observe this, but he has refused to do so.

3. Talk page discussion proposal

I also agree with what another editor has proposed on the Admin noticeboard:

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

4. Interaction ban

  • MonsterHunter32 and Jedi3 are hereby banned from interacting with each other. If MonsterHunter32) attempts to interact with Jedi3, talks to him, talks about him, or reverts or deletes any of his actions, he will be blocked, and vice versa.

CommentsEdit

Please block edit-warring and misleading Jedi3Edit

Here are the exposure of Jedi3's deliberate omissions and desperate attempts to have his views inserted at all costs. There are many proposals what to do with him:

1. Stop accusing others and discuss

All I have ever said to him even here lately, that let's discuss it one-by-one.

Even discussion at Talk:Somnath temple hasn't been resolved. This is the article where we had the earliest issue. Instead he has started using their talk pages merely to complain and bash me. He never listens.

He himself abruptly stops discussion. Look at the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last one wasn't even related to our discussion, still I didn't stop discussion.

2.Jedi3 should be blocked if he misleads or edit-wars again

What Jedi3 forgot to mention in his first "proposal" is its the same DanielTom who edit-warred with me without any justification. He doesn't reveal DanieTom needlessly kept on edit-warring with me at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day despite me already inviting him to talk and offering him a compromise. What's more he revealed his reason to be a baseless belief of me attempting to censor even though I already offered to talk right after his first revert.

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

Someone should also tell Jedi3 Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. You should not link a Wikipedia policy like Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion. Only add link of a Wikiquote policy here.

I suggest he also read from the same Wikipedia policy of STATUSQUO says that if your edit is reverted you should discuss instead of reverting - "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."

3. Topic ban:

It is clear Jedi3 is only interested in POV-pushing even if his quotes are notable. Even another admin has already judged some of his quotes as non-memorable and merely POV-pushing. So he should be topic-banned from all topics he has edit-warred on.

4. Block him immediately

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [183], [184], [185], [186], [187] and [188].

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring after his week-long block expired. These are only a few examples: here, a here, here.

Jedi3 was recently blocked for his disruptive behaviour of repetitive comments and mass-copying and pasting at talk pages. See User talk:Kalki#Brief block of massive posting actions.

Jedi3 again resumed edit-warring today. Already two reverts made the last time I checked: [189], [190].

It is clear this "interaction ban" is a malignant attempt by Jedi3 so I cannot even comment on his edits, let alone touch them. I have never sought any interaction ban on Jedi3. But I do think he is disruptive and should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

If you want to discuss one at a time, you also need to delete one at a time. Simple as that.
Monsterhunter is using this one-by-one. as an excuse, so that he can refuse to move all the other censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning.
Somnath temple, I have also explained to him already, I said that in some of the discussions outside opinions from other editors are needed to progress, and I have asked for them. That is not the same as ending a discussion, in which MH as a rule refuse to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion. He will never admit that others might have a different opinion, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. That is why I asked others for opinions from other editors. This is normal procedure also in wikipedia.
The examples given have nothing to do with the massive censorship. He is always using this as an excuse to avoid discussing the censorship. Some of the examples were mistakes, which happen to the best of us, some others are just misleading and misrepresentations. But they are all unrelated to the massive censorship.
MonsterHunter should never again accuse others of edit-warring, after he as been mass deleting massive amounts of quotes from over 100 articles in one hour.--Jedi3 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone prevented you from discussion? Besides are your quotes going to run away that you can't discuss them one at a time? Instead you will be able to easily access which quotes were removed

And it was because your stonewalling and edit-warring on many articles including even one quote like at Talk:Somnath temple that caused this. Initially I started out with only select artickes, but even there you did the same thjmg, I expanded you didn't relent repeating the same disruptive behavior.

If you're not going to discuss, then don't waste my time.

I will say you it is undeniable you are edit-warring because you started doing it and are still doing it.

Also as for censorship. Is censorship also not supression? So yes, Jedi3 has been censoring anyone who takes action and raises issues on his quotes by edit-warring and making false accusations. Yes, Jedi3 has been censorsing the truth with misleading comments about his false, made-up edits where he doesn't check the original source and denies wrongoing.

Jedi3 should never accuse anyone again. He is the most disruptive editor and it is clear he won't improve his behaviour. His only objective is doing what he wants at all costs. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to discuss one at a time, you also need to delete one at a time. Simple as that.
Monsterhunter is using this one-by-one. as an excuse, so that he can refuse to move all the other censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning.
You started the mass deletion of the sourced quotes without talkpage discussion, didn't you? I was only after much discussion applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion, and after having discussed the matter. Not like you at all. --Jedi3 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Does censorhip also not mean supression? Yes. Did I try to talk with you in the past, move and discuss? Yes. Did or not you often abruptly stop discussions? Yes.
Did or not you remove or add quotes or revert others under false pretenses yourselves in the past? Yes.
One-by-one is an excuse? I never said I won't move or discuss. If offering to save time, not make it confusing by discussing evetything at once and resolve arguments at least on even one article is an excuse for you, then I couldn't care. The true excuse was you complaining here and asking for an interaction ban. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Admin opinionsEdit

I think that both MonsterHunter32 and Jedi3 have been behaving in a positively embarrassing manner, and would be inclined to block both of them for a week just to cool them off. Any objections (other than from either of the two of them)? BD2412 T 01:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • (not an admin) @BD2412: I think MonsterHunter32 is the troll here, and an extremely disruptive troll at that. He is clearly wikihounding/harassing Jedi3, and has stated that he is going to go (and has gone by now) after all Jedi3's edits in every article that the latter has ever edited. When Jedi3 points this out, MonsterHunter32 returns the accusation in his usual trollish fashion, and claims that Jedi3 is harassing him. This has happened several times. When Jedi3 accused him of sockpuppetry (very reasonably in my opinion), MonsterHunter32 turned the tables (in his mind) and accused Jedi3 (and me) of sockpuppetry. When Jedi3 said MonsterHunter32 refuses to discuss, MonsterHunter32 began to say Jedi3 refuses to discuss. When Jedi3 said MonsterHunter32 is just trying to get the two of them blocked, MonsterHunter32 began to say Jedi3 is just trying to get the two of them blocked. When I said MonsterHunter32 should be blocked, he said I should be blocked. Do you see a pattern here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    In my opinion, neither party's conduct has been acceptable in this matter. Both have been laying out accusatory and counter-accusatory screeds all over the project, rather than centrally tackling their issues. I grant that MonsterHunter32 appears to be the initiator of the dispute, and has contributed more to that pattern of conduct. BD2412 T 12:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (not an admin) MonsterHunter must be suspended or banned IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    I believe that most comments indicate that MonsterHunter32's actions definitely seem the most objectionable, overall, in the current edit wars, and I agree with this range of assessments, but certainly do not seek to ban him as yet, though a block of a week or more might be appropriate. Though I have seen some relatively minor and usually somewhat common problems with some of the additions of Jedi3, and most are not of such character as I myself would have added, they have generally seemed notable enough that I certainly do not approve a campaign of simply removing them, and despite various rationalizations for his actions, the most prominent instigating factor in MonsterHunter32's removals seems to primarily be that he does not like what they say. I have not examined more than a relative few, at this point, and there are some whose apparent points are such as I certainly do not agree with, but such reasons as those, in themselves, should not be a cause for removal. Though I have examined only a few, I believe I have seen at least a couple which were edited in such ways as gave an distorted impression of the author's intentions, which rather irritated me, but I also found at least one prior source where the statements were so edited, so these apparently were not deliberately crafted in such a way by Jedi3. I might extend such quotes and examine others in coming days, but I have remained so busy that I have not been able to give much attention to the matter. I got home just in time to do the QOTD for today, and to make these observations, and must be leaving again soon, but will probably check in here at least a few times later. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Cross-talk (discussion by principals)Edit

First thing first, I don't have any problem with the content of Jedi3's quotes. I only have a problem in him adding everything even non-notable quotes. Second, I have never opposed any discussion nor anyone stopped it from happening. I don't mind compromising on quotes like I did with DanielTom at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and Kalki at Taqiyya even though I felt my reasons were genuine. I only say let's discuss one quote at a time. I don’t think it's a big ask. If Jedi3 wanted discussion, he would be discussing instead of complaining. You can check all my edits if you want, no problem. I haven't removed any quote of Jedi3 under non-genuine reasons.

It is easy to see why DanielTom is making comments against me. He has displayed the same behavior of edit-warring and bad-faith accusations in the past. He has been complained in the past by User:Prinsgezinde, at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom and by me too. I will like to invite him to address his behavior.

DanieTom needlessly kept on edit-warring with me at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day despite me already inviting him to talk and offering him a compromise. What's more he revealed his reason to be a baseless belief of me attempting to censor even though I already offered to talk right after his first revert.

Nobody will consider the quote "Yeah, I want to water down the targets..." as worth censoring. Not to mention his baseless accusations of me censoring quotes critical of Islam when most of my edits are not about Islam and even about other religions like Christianity and Hinduism. These actions are quite similar to that of Jedi3. Most articles are about Muslims or Christians, rather than their religions.

As to the other charges levelled by him of me "turning the tables", I'll like to ask whether any of this is made-up:-

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [191], [192], [193], [194], [195] and [196]. Jedi3 resumed edit-warring after his week-long block expired. These are only a few examples: here, a here, here. Jedi3 again resumed edit-warring today. Already three reverts made recently by him: [197], [198], [199]

I already warned Jedi3 against his constant edit-warring stating it will result in a block for us. He still doesn't listen. Have I made it up?

Also here's what I didn't do like Jedi3: Use a false reason to remove quotes, add made-up quotes copied from Wikipedia as admitted by Jedi3, add quotes not about topic at articles like Muhammad bin Qasim or Alauddin Khalji. And Jedi3 deliberately refuses to accept this wrongdoing by calling it a "content dispute": [200], [201] despite being shown the original sources in last part of my comment here.

Nor I insult others by calling them annoying. It was Jedi3 who baselessly started calling my edit vandalism. He had made similar accusations of vandalism against another editor too.

After all this evidence of Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, can it not be said with confidence that Jedi3 has no interest in discussion or honesty or good faith assumption? Why is Jedi3 still here? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatever deficiencies or flaws might apparently exist in some of Jedi3’s edits or motives regarding some of them, I believe that most people who have examined the situation at all, do not find most of his additions extremely deplorable, and simply find the extreme rational deficiencies in your evident lack of logic and sense, and willingness to ignore, deny, or remain oblivious to, or simply distort many of the most significant statements made by others, in your determination to remove most of them, far more appalling than you seem to have as yet developed your capacities to recognize.
Your attitude, very often, seems to be, for the most part, that anything you see fit to remove should stay removed, and anything other than acceptance of your own decisions on such matters amounts to "edit-warring" or "violations".
I believe that most who have observed many of the mass of interactions which have occurred, agree that, on the whole, you have been the most grievously zealous in ignoring or disregarding the rational or considerate counsel of others, and it is you, far more than he, who is likely to receive at least a week-long or even longer term block, such as I believe might be appropriate, and though even a permanent ban has been suggested, I personally, do not, as yet, support such a measure. I have just very briefly checked in here now, must be leaving again, and have many other things to take care of, for at least several hours. I expect to be back before the end of the day. ~ Kalki·· 14:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC) + tweaks
If you want proof that I am not removing quotes I don’t like, here it is: Recently, I added quotes that criticised Aurangzeb: [202], [203].
This is not the first time I added any critical quotes on such topics and it's not to show off to anyone. All of the above quotes are notable.
Haven't you realised the real motive of Jedi3? It is clear that it is simply to push his agenda of hatred against non-Hindu religions even if his quotes not memorable or notable. But I am not here for his motives, simply his motives affecting his judgment. I wouldn't have minded if his critical quotes were notable.
Yes I edit-warred as well and unlike Jedi3 I accept my mistakes. I never said I had no fault. I listen to opinions of others, but Jedi3 never cared about anything. Had he been cooperative even somewhat, I never would have taken action. Would I do it again? Of course not. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem and the issue that you should have been addressing is this
By constantly talking about other things instead, you are making it appear that you are trying to obfuscate the issue and trying to avoid discussing about the real issue wich is your massive mass deletion of sourced quotes in over 100 articles without any explanation on the 100+ talkpages or even moving the deleted quotes to the talkpage. Aurangzeb is one of the few articles in which you have added some quotes, and not only removed quotes, and I have in general not opposed your additions (although I didn't find them always appropriate, but as far as I can remember I have not deleted them (except perhaps once accidentally, after you added a quote just after mass deleting other quotes)). --Jedi3 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop you personal attacks. You have made personal attacks about the alleged personal, or religious beliefs of me and other editors in the past, and you have been told to stop doing this. That is another major problem, instead of discussing the real issue, you are making personal attacks, or are making comments that consists of deliberately misleading misrepresentations, or are (as others have said) "returning all the accusation in your usual trollish fashion", which makes it look like you are trying to obfuscate the issue and trying to avoid discussing about the real issue.
I was going to add more comments, but since it seems like it is going to be resolved soon, I am not going to post it now. --Jedi3 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 As already said it's not the content I have problem with. It's you adding non-notable quotes for one reason. And what I'm stating is not about any religious beliefs. I am not talking aboit your religion but simply why you are disrupting here.
When you started claiming I'm censoring or being a vandal is okay. But what I said is a personal attack? Troll is a personal attack. The "others" you talk about, who called me a troll and recently said I was replying in a "trollish fashion", is the same User:DanielTom who like you edit-warred with me even though I offered a compromise. I would have never removed your quotes had they been notable. I am not saying it lightly about what the true reason is: spreading hatred against non-Hindus whether Christians or Muslims no-matter what you have to do. It is clear from your edits.
You had no problem in complaining when your new quotes were removed, but you were okay when your reverts removed mine. This quote is not mine, but you did delete a quote on Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent under baseless reason. You also reverted a user baselessly calling him a vanadal, a personal attack.
The reason why I couldn't add more quotes because your repetitive arguments and disruptions didn't leave any time. Had it not been for your disruption, I would have been able to add much more notable quotes Your disruption cannot be allowed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Also User:Jedi3 since you claim all of my quotes aren't appropriate, please explain so here why you think they are not. If you're just saying it to undermine me, then that is just another bad-faith comment. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki canvassingEdit

I am from English Wikipedia and I have not edited Wikiquote much. Only edited it when I thought it was very necessary. It seems that MonsterHunter32 has been engaging in off-wikiquote canvassing per this diff by attempting to recruit members from English Wikipedia against Jedi3 and some "editor with right-wing views". Capitals00 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I only gave my opinion about Jedi3 and DanielTom who I thought were ganging up on me User:Capitals00. Jedi3 may not have did it off-wiki, but he himself has been involved in canvassing. See [204] and [205]. I didn't ask Kautilya3 to support me however, only asked him to comment. If it's wrong then I apologize. Anyway as we have been given an interaction ban, I wouldn't comment about him or argue any longer. I was only here to defend myself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban imposedEdit

An interaction ban is hereby imposed on MonsterHunter32 and Jedi3 for the next thirty days. You are not to direct comments to each other or respond to comments by one another. You are not to make comments about one another to third parties. You are not to try to bait the other with comments suggesting that practices of the other are improper. You are not to use the e-mail feature to send emails to third parties about each other. You are not to remove quotes added by the other to any page, nor are you to restore quotes previously removed from any page by the other. Other editors will, in time, examine quotes that have been added or removed for propriety; let them do so. There are plenty of things that need doing around this project that do not require any kind of interaction. I recommend that you find those and do them. Violation of this interaction ban will result in an immediate 30 day block for the violator. That is all. BD2412 T 17:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

BD2412, if I see a violation of the ban, who should I notify without myself violating the ban? --Jedi3 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I expect that the community will address it appropriately without any action being undertaken by its subject editors. BD2412 T 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If there is any violation in the ban I will report it here. Thank you for your time BD2412 and to other admins. I don’t mind in any admin examining it. As I said I only removed the quotes for being non-notable and non-memorable. I also have no problem at all with anyone in discussing the quotes with me and others. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Can I ask for a few clarifications?

  • "You are not to remove quotes added by the other to any page, nor are you to restore quotes previously removed from any page by the other. Other editors will, in time, examine quotes that have been added or removed for propriety; let them do so."

Who will be doing this (examine and restore the deleted quotes in over 100 articles) and by when? Because it could as well mean never, that it will simply be forgotten, or that maybe one percent only will be examined, and the rest forgotten. Will there at least be some kind of checklist for the quotes in 100+ articles, so that no article is forgotten?

Also, an interaction ban should be fair to both parties. As a matter of fact, almost all my contributions over the past months were deleted in one hour.

Therefore this proposal does put me in a much worse situation than the other party.

A proposal like this should be fair to both sides, as much as possible.

Why not use the status quo version as of April 18th, before the mass deletions? The quotes can then still be challenged by other editors in the usual processes. And if there are concerns by other editors, in any of the articles, just tell me the article name, or put a cleanup tag on the article, and I will look into it, if you don't have time for doing it yourself. (Unfortunately, I cannot comment more without violating this ban, but in the past I have also agreed to the removal of quite a few of the quotes I added. I am very open to remove quotes I added on good faith grounds. For example when UDScott challenged one article, I agree to delete and redirect the article to another one.)

That would be more fair.

Can the proposal be amended? What do other editors and admins think? --Jedi3 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been all over Wikiquote for days now. I have no doubt that all the actions of the past few weeks will be appropriately addressed, in due time. If they don't, you can take them up again after the interaction ban has ended. BD2412 T 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note. I have blocked MonsterHunter32 for one day for referencing the other party when commenting on the IBan on his talk page. Any administrator who disagrees with this is free to unblock, but I think that it is needed. I intend to impose the above-stated full thirty-day block for any further issues. BD2412 T 18:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply. I don't want to criticize too much, I know admin work is also not easy, but another admin told me over one month ago, admins are looking into it, they are sorting it out, and after over a month, there was not much sign of it. Therefore I am a bit worried that it would simply be forgotten, and with 100+ articles, I can easily see that most will be forgotten. I think you slightly overestimate it when you say they will all be surely addressed. Even in the most glaring cases, where even ALL the article categories were deleted, it has not been restored as of yet. But if I have the option to take it up after 30 days it should be fine.

In that case I only ask for one amendment.

After the interaction ban is over, you said I can take them up again. But if I do this then, I don't want being again reverted by the other party of the ban. Other editors uninvolved in this ban can of course challenge them or remove them again, just not the other party of this ban. That should be added out of fairness and to avoid potential conflict. I don't want that the same thing happens right after the ban again.

Maybe amend it like this: If the quotes removed by the other party were not appropriately addressed after 30 days, I can take them up again after the interaction ban has ended. The other party of this ban should then not challenge this for another 60 (?) days. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that it makes sense to address the post-IBan environment at this point. BD2412 T 19:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Ok, the fact that after 30 days, I can take them up again and restore them, is fine. But there will be no post-IBan rule in place right after the ban, that would have to be sorted out if again necessary (hopefully not).

But consider this:

Imagine if I had mass reverted everything back before this ban.

Then I would now be in a better situation.

So I am effectively being punished for showing much patience (by not mass reverting, but waiting and discussing instead), since as explained above it puts me in worse position than the other party.

I do not think that showing much patience should in the end put me in a worse position than if I had done the opposite.

Also the others in the discussion above have said they are considering a stricter ban on the other party than on me, but this ban puts me in a worse position than the other party (as explained above). (Since almost all of my contributions over the past months were deleted, while those of the other party were kept.)

What happens if I accidentally add a quote that the other party once deleted? It puts on me only the obligation and effort to manually check in all related articles if this could be the case or not.

As i didn't delete anything (that falls under the clause), it only punishes me, only my contributions fall under it. Just strike these words "you are not to restore quotes previously removed from any page by the other", which only punishes one side, and it would be much more fair.

An interaction ban should not, through the backdoor, punish only one of the parties, it should be fair and its one and only function should be to avoid conflict. That is not just an interaction ban, it is an interaction ban coupled with a weaker form of a topic ban on only one of the parties.

Therefore I have proposed above to use the Maintain WP:STATUSQUO version as of April 18th:

"Why not use the status quo version as of April 18th, before the mass deletions? The quotes can then still be challenged by other editors in the usual processes. And if there are concerns by other editors, in any of the articles, just tell me the article name, or put a cleanup tag on the article, and I will look into it, if you don't have time for doing it yourself......."

Therefore, I would like to know also the opinion of one or two other admins or experienced editors about this. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Pinging editors who have discussed previously: @Kalki: @DanielTom: @Just A Regular New Yorker:@IOHANNVSVERVS:@Peter1c: @UDScott:

I would prefer if the interaction ban would be longer (and at the same time, the Maintain WP:STATUSQUO version before the incident would be applicable). --Jedi3 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that you leave things as they are for now. We will see what happens in a month. BD2412 T 20:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe I made some reasonable points that are worth discussing and would like to know also the opinion of one or two others about it. I will accept it, but there is no harm in having it discussed. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:RemoveEdit

I propose to change the wording in the user warning template from

Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning. If it is a misattribution, the quote should not be removed, instead moving to a "Misattributed" section, where explanation of the misattribution can be made in a subbullet. Thanks.

to

Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should always be moved to the Talk page (except in the case of clear vandalism) with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning for each removed quote. If it is a misattribution, the quote should not be removed, instead moving to a "Misattributed" section, where explanation of the misattribution can be made in a subbullet. If you continue to violate this, you will be blocked. Thanks.

I also propose that it is upgraded to guidelines status, or made part of an existing guideline. --Jedi3 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this wording. First, there are cases other than clear vandalism, such as an editor mistakenly putting a quote on the wrong page (e.g., a typically good editor adding a quote about fish to Birds, and quote about birds to Fish). Well-meaning editors do sometimes add bad quotes. Second, we are not going to put "If you continue to violate this, you will be blocked" in a template that might be used for first contact with a new editor. BD2412 T 17:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "instead moving" doesn't sound right to me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is just incorrect grammar. Quotes have no volition, and can not move themselves. I changed it to "instead being moved". BD2412 T 18:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

DanielTom's comments and editsEdit

I may get in trouble but truth needs to be spoken of what I've been facing. I hope admins can help solve this issue. User:DanielTom has been attacking me for past quite some time. Whether it be his claims of censorship, being a sockpuppet or personal attacks like me being anmoying or troll. His behaviour in past has been complained by other users as well including User:Prinsgezinde on Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom who complains of his bias and by User:CensoredScribe too. CensoredScribe also complained of his bullying behaviour on his talk page. I will like to invite both of them here to comment. Notably, he also attacked CensoredScribe as a troll.

He has also made personal attacks, calling me annoying, a troll, delusional. Not to mention his threat despite himself edit-warring, calling me a Muslim apologist.

Recently, on Wikiquote:Wikiquote he reverted my revert because the original editor User:Beefybufoon was called as my "sockpuppet". That claim of sockpuppetry was rejected. Despite this DanielTon claims I "changed the policy" both in his edit-summary and here. Of course he doesn't directly admit sockpuppetry, but it's clear. He has also supported the bad-faith accusations of sockpuppetry against me in the past including here and here. I'll also like to invite Beefybufoon to give his opinion here. I have already alerted him about the edit-warring over his edit.

While I am not interested on reverting him on WQ:WQ, I don't want him to be allowed on any articles concerning Jedi3 and me because it is clear that the bias and bullying behaviour is still there and he is only harassing me. And at the same time he has tried to influence others against me.

His disruptive behaviour was especially shown at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Nobody will consider the quote "Yeah, I want to water down the targets..." as anything worth censoring, yet he claims he thought I was censoring.

Just after his first revert of my removing a non-notable quote, I invited him to discussion. Notably, I had started the discussion even before DanieTom first reverted me.

He still reverted me three times more: [206], [207] and [208]. I still kept inviting him for discussion in my edits. I had already offered him a compromise meanwhile. Despite my good-faith gesture for hours even befiore he came, he still accuses that he though of it as "censorship" even though it isn't worth "censoring".

At this noticeboard he baselessly accused me of censoring quotes about Islam. As I already said: The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones.

He keeps on quoting about the same Wikipedia policy same WP:STATUSQUO. If I point things like that out, then according to him I'm "turning the tables". When confronted with his bad-faith behaviour he simply refuses to accept or apologize like here.

It is clear he harasses others including me. I request that either DanielTom be temporarily blocked as punishment or an interaction ban be placed on him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I also request User:Kalki, User:BD2412, User:UDScott and User:Jusjih to give their opinions. I hope I'm allowed a full redressal. If they don't agree then I'll withdraw the complaint. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I reverted you, as I explained over and over again on your talk page (though you still get it wrong/deliberately lie about it here), was because you need to get consensus on the talk page of the policy first before changing it. Here is what my edit summary said: "restore status quo; if you want to change policy, discuss at the talk page first". It has to be that way, otherwise anyone could change any policy and even remove whole paragraphs (e.g. of the blocking policy) and no one could revert it. Obviously the onus is on the person changing the policy, if that policy change is opposed, to gain consensus for the change. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)