User talk:UDScott/2008

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New Year's resolution

Happy New Year! One of my New Year's resolutions is to finish Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index - but I can't do it alone. There are 234 red links for which articles need to be created, and 275 blue links for which articles need to be checked. Although I've been trying to get one done each day, lately I have not had time to do even that! Please consider making a commitment to help me keep my resolution by creating or checking one entry on this page per week. Help public domain quotes find their home in 2008! Cheers! BD2412 T 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

British Columbia

Thank you for your comment on the above new article. There are new articles started by British Columbia persons, and the article about British Columbia now has quotes which mention BC or placenames of BC as per conversation at the AFD. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Brak Show

Just wondering if you have any suggestions about how to make that page any better since you put the cleanup tag back on. Thanks, 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My intent in adding back the cleanup tag is that it needs to fit the TV-show template, meaning that quotes should not be gathered by character, but rather by episode or date. Secondly, quote marks should not be used. ~ UDScott 15:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeesh, I wasted a lot of time then :( 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Susannah Constantine

I noticed you placed a cleanup tag on Susannah Constantine, but I was just wondering what exactly needs to be cleaned up as I'm new at this. 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric Blom

I removed the Wikipedia link. There is no article about Blom on Wikipedia, though he's clearly notable enough (article in the Dictionary of National Biography, several published books).--Cato 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip Morin Freneau categories

I thought we didn't include a category if the entry already contained a subcategory thereof - a few weeks ago, I cleaned all the country categories out of all entries that had poets-by-country. BD2412 T 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true - but I do not believe that [[Category:American poets]] is a subcategory of [[Category:Americans]]. Instead, it is a subcategory of [[Category:Poets]]. ~ UDScott 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry - I did not realize that things had changed and that the nationality had been added to these poet categories. I will remove my addition. ~ UDScott 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks so much for telling to create . Greetings from Greece. DefendEurope 05:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Stanislav_Grof/ Thanks/ guidelines?

hi, UDScott thank you for your additions !
it seems you also deleted the "s ? (the ones around the quotes i had copied from (there was now just ONE of them left (at the end), which i also deleted.)
isthere/could you point me to a 'styleguide' or similar, where there's guidelines for matters like that ?
greetings from Vienna, Wda 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John Adams

Abigail Adams: [to John] You do not need to quote great men to show you are one.

But you do need to quote great men to meet wikiquote notability standards. :-) --Ubiquity 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Very nice! :-) That line stood out to me as a Wikiquotian. ~ UDScott 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing

Ah, sorry about that. I went ahead and replaced the Fitzwallace quote with the "I want to speak now bit" since that's the more memorable part of the episode. ~ Kingdok 18:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Just trying to do my part to keep these TV shows within reason (and it so happened that I was just working on that page, and that season, last week. ~ UDScott 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


{Deep Sigh}What is it not UDScott? Why are you so GODDAMN percistent on makeing my job a liveing hell? Do you hate me? I've Virtually Acheved sooo much in my life so why are you doing this? I improved on the work, ALL THAT WORK, gave you names what else do you want me to do with that article to keep it up? Im avoiding creating Seperate Articles for Anime's w/ not that many quotes availible untill I get more but still!!! Help me Help you, Help me Help you, Help me Help you to get of My Case! Just let me keep my Lolicon article man please! Let make a Deal or arrangement! --Saikano 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you feel this page should be kept, make your argument on its VFD page, not here. There is no deal or arrangement to be made. Either the community votes to keep the page or it does not. ~ UDScott 18:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up! I cant seem to keep my pages up! Can you link me to the guidelines Im not doing right? Like the Rules Im not following right! I have NOT? read ANY rule yet and I dont wanna be Blocked! --Saikano 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)--Saikano 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

John L. Lewis

Your cleanup and formatting on John L. Lewis was a big help. I like the changes you made. Looks great. Thanks. Cadastral 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem - just cleaning up where I can. Thanks. ~ UDScott 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe

Why was my edit on Edgar Allan Poe reverted? Please note my concerns, which I've already addressed on the article's discussion page. -- 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your change to the caption for the main picture of Poe because it is standard practice here to choose a representative quote as a caption rather than just the name of the person. And I don't see a problem with the quote that was selected for this purpose. As for your other arguments (on discussion page), you may have a point about some of the selections that were used as captions. But my reversion did not address this concern. I'll wait for some comment from others (particularly the user that chose those quotes). ~ UDScott 19:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I have replied in depth on Poe's discussion page (to engage other editors). -- 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Leona Lewis

Hello. Can you please tell me, what was wrong with the way I originally formatted the page? Eon 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We discourage the grouping of quotes by subject, instead sorting them in chronological order. Although in many cases some sort of grouping may be obvious, there may also be times when it is not so obvious and such grouping may reflect a user's point of view. It may also make it harder for someone to find a specific quote if unsure of how they are grouped. This topic has been discussed before and the consensus was that we should not divide quotes by theme because it is inherently POV and people may have different ideas about what theme or subject a given quote belongs to. ~ UDScott 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there no flexibility in straightforward cases like this? The quotes were sorted in chronological order beneath each header - and were non-controversial in nature. For example, Leona is a popular musician who occasionally suffers from stage fright. She has, over the space of some months, joked about one memorable incident where she fell short of breath. I grouped these quotes together under a sub heading, where, taken together, immediately they made sense. [1] Unfortunately, repetitious context is required upon separation and taken in isolation one or two lose purpose (as if having to explain a joke to somebody, it no longer amuses). Outside of music, Leona is also passionate about animal rights. She's made many interesting statements on different topics. I was planning to expand the page in this way. Acceptance would be easier if this were, say, George Bush or Hillary Clinton (both POV magnets) but room for conflict is strictly limited in most other cases. Would you kindly point me to the consensus finding and/or guideline on formatting? I still don't fully understand why so many pages have sub headers while others are not allowed. Ta. Eon 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A few examples: Pete Doherty, Ray Cash, Derek R. Audette, Noel Gallagher, Kinky Friedman. Eon 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Those pages should be changed as well. For some background on this subject, refer to the following: Talk:Simon Conway Morris or Wikiquote:Village_pump#Subdivisions_of_sourced_quotes_by_theme. I'm sure there are other discussions even further back on this topic. The bottom line to the discussions is that since separating quotes by topic or theme is something that each user might do differently, it reflects that person's point of view. The consensus is that the best way to structure the pages is to have the quotes listed chronologically since this results in a consistent way of presenting them. I will post this topic on Village Pump again to solicit some more thoughts on the matter. ~ UDScott 12:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

American Gangster

FTR, I spent all night getting the quotes and I'm going to clean it up later, when I have more time. I couldn't beleive this film didn't have a quote page, which was why I created it. It's incomplete, there's still stuff I have to get Katana Geldar 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for adding it. I just wanted to be sure it was tagged so the needed cleanup wouldn't be missed. ~ UDScott 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Appreaciate it if you looked over it, I fixed it up to make it look nice.


{{subst:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|For cleaning up my talk page. TAR-fan 01:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)}}

Sorry it won't work. But you deserve a barntar anyway.


FYI, this user was blocked for a day for harrassment, over at English Wiktionary, and, on his return, supplied more of the same, whereupon he was blocked permanently. Just to let you know, so you can keep an eye on him when his term of being blocked is finished and he (perhaps) returns.—msh210 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And this fellow has been active here (a long time ago) and was never blocked. Again, just FYI; you can decide what to do, if anything, of course.—msh210 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That 70s Show

Hi. I saw you posted some quotes on That '70s Show. Could you help with expanding the rest of the article the way things were done on The Simpsons? I don't know how to break them down into separate articles. Hoping for a good response soon. thanks. --Eaglestorm 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More specific year categories

Heya. There some reason year-specific categories aren't present here? Samuella 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, our convention is to only categorize films released in 2000 or later by year, with older ones by decade. ~ UDScott 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
But, if you feel strongly that we should change, feel free to post the subject on the Village Pump and see if there's consensus on it. ~ UDScott 15:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sopranos Episode Copyright

Hello, I would like to make clear that the Sopranos episodes are not bordering on a copyvio. For example, the amount of quotations that I have maintained do not contain even ten percent of an episode's actual transcipt...more like 5 percent. To prove this...I will copy and paste one episode's transcript and help compare it to what I have added in order to show that there is no copyvio so that the copyvio tags can be removed from the pages. The same goes for the DBZ episodes for which I have also contributed enormously. Here's an example...


It is evident that what I have maintained properly is approximately 5-8% of an episode's actual transcript ratio...the most memorable quotations of the episode. Therefore, I think I have proven substantially that none of the episodes for sopranos or dbz need to be tagged as copyvio. I furthermore made sure to not cross the kb mark by enormously cutting the page into seasonal sections as was done with the simpsons. Now there should no longer be a problem and there can be a solid resource for all the best quotes in their complete entirety. Is there anything else I need to say...? I don't think they need to be tagged any more...I think I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that no copyvio exists. Zarbon 02:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag is because we are now trying to limit the amount of quotes per episode to 5 or less - you will see the same tag on many TV show pages for this reason. I removed the transcript you provided to save some space. I get your point about the percentage of coverage, but the problem still exists because there are more than 5 quotes per episode. ~ UDScott 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please lets discuss this. The pages have been tagged for a while now and I'd prefer to remove the copyvio tags. I believe I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that in absolutely no way do the episodes border on a copyvio. I was originally told that the maximum amount of episode quote inclusions can be at 8-10. Why all of a sudden for some reason is it 5...? When was this consensus reached? I don't make sense out of it. I spent substantial hours to locate all the most memorable quotations in both instances in order to incorporate the maximum amount so that the pages were at their completion rate. I am highly against the limitation of quotations to 5...that number in itself is exceptionally low. Was there a consensus reached that I was unaware of or that I did not participate in within the radius of the last 8 months...because from the last discussion I had about the episode quotations, back in last June, I was told to follow the criteria of contributing from 8-10 quotes per episode. It would not only damage my actual submissions, it would also cut in half the effort that I put into the pages overall. As mentioned prior, there are very few shows that I want kept intact to their full extent possible. Included among these are sopranos, DBZ, and DBGT...because of the amount of work I have done on them, which is pretty much...all of it. There are far too many memorable quotations, and I already chose the 10 most memorable from each episode, in some cases, there were over 10, even up to 30 quotations I had submitted per episode, but I had to drop a few so as not to cross 10. Please discuss this with me because I am still unaware of any changes in criteria...I was told the maximum was 8-10 and I originally adapted that amount from administrative guidelines and kept working at that rate. I hope that for this scenario, an exception can be made because the actual episode transcripts, as I have shown you, are a lengthy amount more than the actual amount of quotations I submitted...around 5-8% of an episode's transcript. There is no possible way that borders on a copyvio, being at such a low percentage of the transcript. Zarbon 14:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Zarbon, we've been through this before, and you wound up temporarily blocked for refusing to follow our loose guidelines. Have you read Wikiquote talk:Copyrights? Whatever you may feel is reasonable, U.S. copyright law does not acknowledge "5-8%" as fair use. In fact, Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group established that as little as 1 excerpt of fictional material per 3 episodes could be grounds for copyright infringement. (That's much less than 1%! The case was based on rephrased use of material for trivia; exact quotes would obviously be even greater violations.) It is our hope that this is a worst-case scenario, and that our guidelines will prove to be acceptable. But we can't guarantee this. The one thing we can guarantee is that people who relentlessly push back on those guidelines are the people who most jeopardize this project, encouraging the Foundation to consider shutting it down or spinning it off. This is unacceptable. Let's not go through this again. If you want to create a Sopranos quote website that violates copyright, believing that something that doesn't have preeminent visibility on the web isn't likely to attract the attention of the copyright holders, that's your business and your responsibility. But neither you nor I nor UDScott own Wikiquote. To paraphrase Jack Rudolph from Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, we must treat the property that we don't own with respect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Road

While I was patrolling this afternoon and working on newly created pages, I had transferred The Road to the Cormac McCarthy page before noticing that you had removed it from that page and had created a separate article. If you wish, I can make a new article for it again. Sorry about the oversight. - InvisibleSun 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just got back on and had not yet noticed it. Yes, I created a separate page for the book because I was adding a lot of quotes from it. I'm in the midst of reading it and anticipate adding much more material soon, so I decided to move it to a separate page since it will likely be large enough for such a move. I know it's current state is borderline for having its own page, but it was a proactive move. It's OK, I can separate it again later on once I finish adding to it. ~ UDScott 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for realizing what was going on and restoring my comment on the discussion page. As you can no doubt tell, I've had a hell of a time making ANY edits this evening due to that user's behavior. Can anything further be done? 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have created a user page User:SpartanSWAT10, which mirrors my newest wikipedia name. I've been on that project for approximately 3 years now, so this "Arbok" user's behavior is nothing new to me. I stayed on my IP throughout the discussion as I did not want to give the impression of sock puppetry. 00:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nav templates

What's the word about navigational templates here on Wikiquote, a la Template:John Waters? Are they encouraged here? Samuel Grant 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

George Washington

These quote are clearly sourced. Please do not revert them. Thank you. 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While you may consider your quote additions to be sourced, the source you are citing is not a reliable source to be referencing - and that is why I have reverted the addition of these so-called quotes. ~ UDScott 15:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Once the dust settles over the Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi fracas, we will need at least one more Bureaucrat, probably two or three to be sure we're covered in the event of future such situations. You should consider seeking such a position. I'd be pleased to nominate you if you're interested. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, let me phrase that more aggressively. I intend to nominate you. Will you accept the nom? BD2412 T 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • As a current member of b'crat team, I would like to modify BD2412's words. We now need at least one more bureaucrat in my humble opinion.
    • And I concur with BD2412: I believe you are a good b'crat candidate. --Aphaia 08:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I would be happy to accept this nomination, but please be advised real life events may sap a bit of my time over the next few months, as I am awaiting the birth of my second child. But that being said, I am always happy to help where I can and I definitely will work to contribute as much as possible. As you have suggested, it might be a good idea to seek at least one additional person as a bureaucrat as well. ~ UDScott 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WQ:VP split?

Could you please give a look and your opinion to Wikiquote talk:Village pump#Split??--Aphaia 05:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations and welcome aboard, UDScott. You are now a bureaucrat.

Relevant links are found at WQ:AN#INSTRUCTIONS - please watch Wikiquote:Bots, WQ:RENAME, WQ:USURP and WQ:RFA. If you think it is appropriate to have a page for bureaucrat instruction, please do :)

I'm excited to work with you in this sphere too, Cheers, --Aphaia 06:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Belated congratulations from me as well. I missed your candidacy, but I'm sure you and InvisibleSun will be of great help to the project in this role as you both have as admins. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rock (entertainer)

Hey, could you send me a copy of the page "The Rock (entertainer)" as it was at deletion on 9/12/08? Thanks.

Delivery: leave a link on my talk page.

CJMiller 01:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


So now that I know what the guidelines are for comedians, what about for movies? I want to clean up the V for Vendetta movie article, but want to know how much of it can be kept. EVula // talk // 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus is that we allow 5 quotes per hour of a given work (e.g. film or TV show), so it depends on the running time of the film. In the case of V for Vendetta, that has a running time of 132 minutes, I would say you should trim it to 11 quotes. See Wikiquote:Village_pump#Copyright_guidelines_for_trimming_articles for more discussion on the trimming efforts. ~ UDScott 00:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RE Howard

I worked very hard making all of those merge requests. the least you can do is have a discussion in the talk page why you feel it should be merged. --Pinkkeith 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to have the discussion with you, but I already explained my reasoning: separate pages for individual works are not encouraged, unless the amount of quotes from them causes the author's page to be too large. The works you have added are all short novels or novellas with a minimal amount of quotes. As such, the quotes really should be placed on the author's page. ~ UDScott 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know your reasoning until you place it in my talk page after you changed it. Thanks for letting me know how to correctly formate the pages. --Pinkkeith 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your kind words in nominating me for adminship. I will try not to make a mess as I learn to use the tools. ~ Ningauble 02:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem - in my opinion you deserved it. Let me know if you have questions as you get used to things. Welcome aboard! ~ UDScott 02:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


I pointed out the reasons of the change on the discussion page. If you have good points against the changes, you should utter them there.
It was me who talked with Kalki on the discussion page against the use of the terrifying pictures. They have been gone for a long time now. So I'm very surprised about the use of romanticizing pictures in the present article. Again – of course one could find a positive, maybe fascinating image which sheds a sympathetic light on every quotation – that's not the purpose of wikiquote.
Then I removed an unsourced quotation that was even emphasized with a picture. The "fabulously dying" quotation. I read a lot about Goebbels – and haven't seen that quotation. As long as there is no resource it's certainly an improvement of the wikiquote-page if it is removed.
Then there's another alleged quote which I removed. It is even presented with many alternatives. But logic tells us that the numerous paraphrases (which I did actually hear and read when people talked or wrote about the Big Lie idea which they erroneously contributed to Goebbels) do not speak in favor but against that quotation. What about an original resource? None is provided. That's why I removed it. Wikiquote really should impose higher standards. By the way – it's me who added the quotations from the book "Michael" and if required I can also add the page number of every single quote.
So why were the changes I made reverted and do you still think that it was justified?
Sincerely, 19:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu quotation

There's a logical fallacy in the Desmond Tutu quote. This quotation is a paradox similar to Russell's paradox.
Sincerely, 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that may be true, but the point of the quote is that if someone discriminates or treats others as less than a person, they are themselves less than a person because of their behavior. Somehow I don't think that Desmond Tutu was too concerned about logic when he spoke the words. ~ UDScott 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
True. It sure sounds good, too, but the practical application leads to some problems. I read statements that said that many Muslims consider people who do not believe in God to be equal to or even less than animals. So if thousands discriminate or treat thousands of others like that – should someone following Tutu's idea behave as if they were persons or not – or simply not look at them as if they were but don't act accordingly? But again, the general feeling expressed in the quotation seems good. It's only sad that often those who feel they surely represent goodness feel justified to treat those they consider evil in an inhumane manner. And the wheel keeps turning. 11:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)



I just saw your message on my edit to Murphy's Law page. Sorry dude, I am new to this and did not know that I can't add quotes...

But hey, I saw this in User Talk page:

Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

So you can be polite to newcomers like me?

That will encourage us to use Wiki sites more and not scare us away!

Thanks Nags

The reason I reverted your changes was because they appeared to be you adding your own "self-quotes" to the page. This is not what Wikiquote is for. It is a collection of quotes from notable sources. If you would like to place such quotes here, put them on your user page instead. See Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not for more information. If you would like to add notable quotes, feel free. ~ UDScott 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for adding Category:Living people to Bud Selig. I've been too busy with the quotes I forgot to think of the categories more. Thank you again, – RyanCross (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated

Thank you for the recent formatting help on the Oregon politicians pages I created. Quick question - generally what is a good number of quotes to have to remove the {{stub}} notice? Three or more? Cirt (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Well, unfortunately, there is no hard and fast rule for when a page transforms from the stub to a proper page. As a rule of thumb, typically the stub tag is removed after a page gets 5 or more quotes, but, if you review the discussion contained here: Wikiquote talk:Stub, particularly in the bottom section, you will see that it is nearly impossible to set a definite rule. Just use your best judgment in determining if the number of quotes present represents a fair sampling of the person's potential quotes. But definitely a page with only one quote should be a stub in most cases. ~ UDScott 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanksomuch for the reply. I shall endeavor over time to add 4 more quotes to those pages, but it will be a bit of research. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Thank you again for the formatting help. Over at they have been getting away from linking individual dates and years in articles, so it is interesting to see that it is done here. (Which I think is a good idea and a nice way to encourage users to contribute across other pages and explore.) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for catching those, apologies for missing that on those few latest ones. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


Just now we are getting peculiar nonsense edits from multiple IPs. Do you suppose this is due to a broken script, or is it a distributed vandal attack? ~ Ningauble 15:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure - it does seem to be more than just a script problem. I've gotten rid of a couple more of them, but I guess we'll have to just keep watch. ~ UDScott 18:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


As you noted (and fixed), user keeps removing criticism by administrators on his Talk page. It seems like every time he gets hit with criticism, he removes it as “pedantry” or somesuch. I have never heard of a user removing criticism from his own Talk page, especially from an administrator. Should this user (and his various sockpuppets) be banned? The Vidiot 09:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it. I know that there has been an ongoing edit war regarding the Rush Limbaugh page and this user (along with has been doing this for a while. If it gets to be too much, they will likely be banned, but for now, I will continue the warnings and monitor it as I can. Thanks. ~ UDScott 13:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The "Vidiot" has been a key player in that edit war. See proof of that here[2]. What he's doing (above) is trying to "work the ref." You might want to inform him that I can remove any criticism -- justified or ersatz -- from my Talk Page, as per WQ policy. "Vidiot's" hoary "get-the-person-with-an-opposing-view-banned-by-appealing-to-a-sympathetic-admin" ploy is as transparent as it is pathetic. -- 23:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't intend to get caught up in your fight about Rush, but as to your point about Talk pages, I believe you are wrong. Talk pages are not owned by the user - feel free to place what you want on your User page, but the Talk pages are owned by the community and are a means of communication. It is not up to the user to only keep the conversations that he or she finds pleasing. So in that respect TheVidiot is correct - please do not remove items from your, or any, Talk page. Thanks. ~ UDScott 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No, you're absolutely wrong about Talk pages. You are not free to invent policy. I'll be removing whatever is on my Talk page that I find objectionable. If you'd rather I didn't do that, have the policy changed. - 01:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
And just what policy are you citing? Please direct me to where this is stated. ~ UDScott 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm following the lead of the Wikipedia Talk page policy. If there's an ironclad WQ policy stating otherwise, point me toward it. Otherwise, once again, you are not free to invent policy. -- 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to invent any policies. Again, point me to the policy you are citing. ~ UDScott 01:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: ""More latitude is extended for user talk pages. Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. For more information, see Wikipedia:User page." You'll find more on Wikipedia. Many WQ policies have their origins in WP policies. And as there does not appear to be a WQ page on the subject, I'm following the lead of WP.
Once again, "TheVidiot" is attempting to work you. Pay special attention to his last sentence, above. He did not succeed in removing sourced content from the Limbaugh page, and is now trying to get me banned, by pretending I've "violated a policy" that does not actually exist. This is why he's contacted you. A word to the wise. -- 01:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but if you read a bit further(like in the Talk page for the policy), you will see much discussion about whether or not this policy should apply to anonymous IP addresses such as your own. That's where I take exception - and the discussion is leaning in the direction of not allowing such users to blank things on their talk pages, particularly warnings posted by admins. Believe me, I will be sure to look at all sides of any issue and I will not be "worked" as you state - I really don't need your warning. I have simply made my own judgment in this case. I simply do not think it is a good idea for an anonymous IP address to blank admin's warnings. If there are other issues that come into dispute that I feel another way about, I will voice my opinion in that direction. I am not biased one way or another. ~ UDScott 02:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's a helpful link to the policy in question, which you may want to take a look at: [3]. If there's discussion on that page about IP addresses, I haven't seen it. To that end, I'm not really interested, right now, in which way the discussion is "leaning." Should it become policy, I'll revisit the matter. But right now, the policy is that I can remove the comments, as I have done, and will do. I respect your opinion, but your comments above to "TheVidiot," who has been engaged in an edit war with me, about "banning" me, are not helpful.
I'd rather not fill up your page with any more of this, so I'll sign off by pointing out this part of the current policy, which seems apt: "Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter, and it is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops." -- 02:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Fine, let's just end this for now, but two last points: the page we are discussing is not an official policy but a guideline - so there is room for interpretation. Second, the lines you quoted say " is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops." Assuming the disruption stops is the key phrase - if the edit wars stop, warnings would not be placed on the talk page, and this would all be moot. So as long as there is no need for further warnings, this is all over anyway. I'm not trying to single you out or insert myself into an argument. So good luck with your future edits and I hope that there will be no further need for such conversations. ~ UDScott 02:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. -- 02:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
We had discussed this. Why are you reverting it? Please stop. See my above comments for additional info. -- 07:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Perry (actor)

I did some work and research on the page Matthew Perry (actor), so I removed the prod tag you had placed on the page. Hope that's okay. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for the work you've been doing to rescue troubled pages. ~ UDScott 21:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, it's been fun. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)