User talk:UDScott/2017

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

Vint Cerf

My fault; I should have put a note somewhere I was still working on the article. I'm adding three quotes from the same article which is why I made a subsection. Feel free to check what I'm doing and make sure I'm doing it right. Thanks for your help! Alden Loveshade (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem. Looks fine with the new additions. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie McCrimmon

A page that you have been involved in editing, Jamie McCrimmon, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jamie McCrimmon. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about linking to VFD discussions

As in this situation, if you use a subpage link (/) rather than a section link (#) it will still work after the discussion is archived. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks - as always, I am not the most technologically gifted admin around - thanks for the help. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hi - thanks for fixing my references in Ferdinand Lundberg. I was wondering, should I be adding inline quotes using the references template in the same way one would do at Wikipedia? I notice the referencing format is a little different at Wikiquote. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, citations here are different than at Wikipedia. This question comes up so often that perhaps we ought to write a guideline about it, instead of relying on the new article templates to get the point across by example. The draft at WQ:CITE, copied from an old Wikipedia version, is inappropriate and very misleading for describing accepted practice at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions of Finnish authors

Why the hell have the pages of Samuli Paronen, Väinö Nuorteva and Paavo Haavikko have been deleted! They're very famous authors in Finland and have a lot to say to English readers also. I have no relationship to them. If the translation is poor, I could understand. The references are there... and nobody has translated these before, as far as I know. Many thanks for Mirkka Rekola's edits. She's now the only poet in the category of Finnish poets. --Risto hot sir (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could You please please search English translations of Uuno Kailas? He's a very important Finnish poet, one of the best, has influenced even on rock bands! The most notable poems - I think - are "On the playground", "Barefoot" and "Eye Changers". --Risto hot sir (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC) MDD just created the page! --Risto hot sir (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry I do not have any such translations available to me - and I have many other areas of this project on which I am working. Feel free to provide translated quotes if you are able to find them. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Lindsay

What quotes were on this page prior to its deletion? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following unsourced quotes were listed:
  • 'This year will be more chalk and talk'
  • 'William Churchill...'
  • 'Lets not get ahead of ourselves!'
  • 'Don't jump the gun!'
  • 'There's sillyness, and then there's over-sillyness!'
  • 'Modern History is quite erm.. sexy?'
  • 'I was a bit knackered last night'
  • 'Does anyone know how.. breast?'
  • 'USA today... yesterday'
  • 'Thatcher has very attractive ankles'
  • 'Full stop... Same sentence'
  • 'We were just talking about gangbangs...'
  • 'The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bore versus Gush... sorry, Bore... Bor-... Gore... versus... Bush!'
  • 'Yes lads ii), never say it to a blind man though.'
  • 'If I were gay...'
  • 'No lads, my cupboard is firmly locked.'
  • 'Interesting story about syphilis...'
  • 'Rich businessmen, er, nearly said bitch there.'
  • '...the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw. Quick question - who is the Lord Chancellor?'
  • 'Washington, Delaware County.'
  • 'Sectional, not sexual'
I don't see anything worth keeping. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polish language

I was going to create the article Polish language but Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Polish language (your initiation) gave me a jolt. What do you think of the second last para of the following reference:

Basically it talks about which languages (bluelinks here) influenced polish. I can't see the contents of the deleted article but this quote seems decent (and memorable) to me. What are your thoughts on this? Solomon7968 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article only contained a few Polish sayings that lacked any sense of being memorable. If you have quotes about the language itself (rather than just "quotes" in Polish), I could see that being made into a page worth keeping. I would say feel free to give it a try. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian

Hello! The Wikiquote editing window underlines the word "Belarusian" with a red wavy line. How can this problem be solved? The word is not recognized as an error in Wikipedia. Yaraslau Zubrytski (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is actually a sign from your browser (rather than from Wikiquote) that it does not recognize the word - and thus thinks it is misspelled. As it is obviously not wrong, you can just ignore that red line. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights

Hello, now I must really appreciate en-WQ! I wrote some quotations of Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions to de-WQ, but this is forbidden, 'cause the book is less than 70 years old. I asked: "Isn't it absurd that the Germans have to read in en-Wiki about their own newer literature?". The site is still there, but no answers have I received. Also many sites I've written in fi-WQ have been removed because of the same reason. Still there are quotations of Moomins of Tove Jansson (more than 200 000 bytes). How is this possible and how can You allow new material? I think the publishers are satisfied when good examples of their writers are represented, the folks want to read more. --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Gods

Hello, why do you keep deleting the new quotes I add to the American Gods (TV Series) page? It's a fantastic show with so many wonderful quotes and they deserve to be put on there. Especially since the show just had it's season finale and there isn't another good location to find quotes from it. I take the quotes directly from the episodes so they are accurate. I see now that you've also locked down the page so it can't be edited anymore. What's the problem? -(68.114.34.13 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

It's not that the quotes are not good or that they are not accurate. It's simply the number of quotes. Per WQ:LOQ, a maximum of 5 quotes per episode for a TV show of this length is permitted. In order to add further quotes, you must first delete others in their place. The quotes we have for those episodes seem to be good to me, which is why I left them and deleted the ones you added. And BTW, I am also a fan of the show and the book upon which it is based (which has its own page as well - see American Gods), and I wish we could have more quotes, but the limits were put in place to avoid copyright issues. Thanks for understanding. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Showman

Hello. Why did you delete this article without any discussion? Yes it's an upcoming film and hasn't released yet but those quotes are from the trailer of this movie. CerberaOdollam (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard practice here since there is no way for anyone to verify the quotes - and often quotes from trailers are not in the film when it is finally released. See WQ:CRYSTAL for more on this topic. Once the film is released, feel free to create the page. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandals

We've got a serious case of IP addresses (presumably from the same vandal) continuously making vandalism edits by any or all of the following:

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.
All without explaining their edits in the edit summary.

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 these IP addresses are blocked indefinitely and the articles (not just the ones listed) are protected indefinitely. These vandals will not stop. They keep getting new IP addresses every hour or so. I already reported this fiasco, but I am still awaiting a response. WikiLubber (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are frustrated, but I'm not so sure that vandalism is the proper word for these edits. When I look at The Incredibles for example, the edits made don't seem to be much of an issue to me. Perhaps there are too many quotes now, but I can find several other quotes that might be removed to allow for the new addition. Just because you disagree with the changes does not mean they are examples of vandalism. I would need a much stronger case to accuse (let alone take action against) one of vandalism. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But they clearly copied/pasted from DVD/Blu-Ray subtitles (which are unreliable), and they keep repeating the same edits every day. Plus, nearly every quote they add is far from notable. And they continuously ignore our requests for an explanation as to their edits. WikiLubber (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is but one of these vandals' edits that they make every day or two. But the way it was before was fine as it was.
("What are you doing in my swamp?!!" > "What are you doing in my swamp? [Echoing] Swamp! Swamp! Swamp!" (a clear-cut copy-paste from DVD/Blu-ray subtitles)) Seriously, Shrek only said "swamp" once in that quote. It was just echoed. But these vandals just pay no heed. WikiLubber (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. But on the other side, in this edit, I would have left the dialogue bit they added and instead probably removed "Where is my Super Suit?" under Lucious Best as well as "That was totally wicked!!" by Rusty under Other. My point is that there seems to be room for compromise when it comes to content changes. These pages are not your property and perhaps if you were willing to compromise a bit by allowing some new quotes at the expense of others this could all settle down. In the meantime, yes if it's simple edit warring about capitalization or punctuation, this should stop (and I'll try to keep an eye out for this). ~ UDScott (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removing or even changing any of those lines would be an abomination, considering those were among the best lines of the film. WikiLubber (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UDScott

Hi UDScott, I'm new to Wikiquote, and made https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sawao_Yamanaka. I'm a fairly experienced Wikipedian (over 100 articles created). I could not find any notability guidelines for this Wiki, and in general, things seem unclear for this Wiki (maybe this is what Wikipedia was like in 2001!). I would appreciate it if you could point me to useful resources for Wikiquote. Ethanbas (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by things are unclear. The help page has all the info needed to edit. In fact, I found it better than Wikipedia.Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purge Main page

Hi. Could you or some other admin make nulledit for Main page in order to purge it? Logo has recently been updated (phab:T170722) but old one can still be seen here (I assume it might be because of this but probably it's not because other pages have logo too; however, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Wikiquote-logo-en.svg/150px-Wikiquote-logo-en.svg.png and https://sr.wikiquote.org/static/images/project-logos/enwikiquote.png are same, and we still see different logo than it is https://sr.wikiquote.org/static/images/project-logos/srwikiquote.png [which is same as https://sr.wikiquote.org/static/images/project-logos/enwikiquote.png but when swapping Main pages of sr.wikiquote and en.wikiquote difference can be seen]). Thanks. --Obsuser (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexandervonweimann

Even though this user deleted your past edits to his talk page, I left him a message telling him that he really shouldn't be doing that. Shaneymike (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. You seem pretty active on Wikiquote and so I was wondering if you could check up on my recent edits and tell me if I did anything 'wrong' and make suggestions that I can apply. Basically I want to add Haitian proverbs and need to know if I am sourcing them correctly. Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Haitian proverbs page looks pretty good to me. The only exception is the quote listed under 'D' because it does not have a source. That is really the important thing, especially with proverbs. We had issues with some similar pages in the past because they contained many proverbs that were just orally handed down and there was not other source for them. This should be avoided. It looks like most of yours do have a source, which is good. Keep up the good work - and try to find a source that quotes that one that is missing a source. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Here is Boss Kean

This here: 

File:Boss Kean.jpg

is Boss Kean.

This here:

File:Boss Kean and Luke Jackson.jpg

is Boss Kean delivering the line in the quote.

This here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDt1WDzhmU

is a youtube link to the scene with Boss Kean delivering that very quote.

And this here:

File:Boss Kean's Ditch.jpg

is Boss Kean's Ditch!

I told him that dirt in it is YOUR dirt!

What's your dirt doing in his ditch?

P

--TheDoctorX (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the illustrations - I realized my error almost immediately and reverted my change. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! The Captain will be glad you got your mind right! --TheDoctorX (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the explanation of the correction on the Discussion Page seemed "harsh." I did not intend it as such. I did not know when you would be back, and sometimes "Edit/Revert/NO! I REVERT YOU!!!" can escalate because of, well, "failure to communicate!" ^^, I hope this had some humor given the subject of the movie and rules and all of that!

Now excuse me, Boss Paul says he found my dirt in Boss Kean's ditch again.

TheDoctorX (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - all is good. We don't have a failure to communicate. :-) ~ UDScott (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My talk

Thanks for getting rid of that. The account is an abusive sock whose edits you may want to hide. I left a note for stewards, so hopefully the account will be locked soon. Cheers DoRD (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Giovanardi

Hi UDScott, would please nuke the article above? Basically it's an untraslated copypaste from a text removed from it.wiki because of multiple violations of BLP policy. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many-worlds interpretation

Dear UDScott, on 30 March 2017 / 15:39 you wrote:

"In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes."

In German WP: Viele Welten Interpretation a user just deleted such statement as "unsourced".

For this reason I ask you: Please can you give me here some hint to some source for this evident matter? Thank you so much, Gerhard --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we usually do with pages on Wikiquote, this intro was taken directly from the intro to the Wikipedia page (Many-worlds interpretation). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rapid reply. --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware

User:UDScott,

I see you trimmed away list of people from Delaware from the Delaware page.  That's fine.  Maybe the list of people from Delaware should be its own separate article, and we can simply add a link to it in a to-be-created See also section at the bottom of the Delaware page.

But, I see you also trimmed away the state motto, and I do think that we should consider placing that back on the page.  Firstly, when a state issues an official motto, the words it chooses come directly from the state.  Every other quote on the page is from some historian or fictional character, but the motto is a straight-from-the-state-itself quote.  It probably has more reason to be there than anything else on the page.  Secondly, I used the precedent of film taglines as my means of structuring how I placed the motto on the page.  Thus the structure, at least, was not without precedent.  And, thirdly, the motto is both notable and quotable.

All in all, I think we should re-add the motto to the page.  Your thoughts?

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts: first, I still would not create a separate page for the notable people associated with Delaware - to me this kind of thing (while interesting) more properly belongs on Wikipedia than here. Second, I am all for keeping the motto, provided it is sourced somehow. Maybe you could find a work that quotes it or something similar. I just removed it because to me it was an unsourced quote. By the way, I consider Delaware my home state, so I was happy to see it have a page. Thanks ~ UDScott (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do feel that lists of links are equally as useful here as they are at Wikipedia, I feel no motivation to create said list, leaving the point moot.  I went ahead and readded the motto, this time with a source.  I also added a snippet from the state song.  All-in-all, I think you'll approve.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've added two more quotes from music.  allixpeeke (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starr War

The song is certainly best associated with Starr. Where would you recommend that the line be placed here? DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for this one, there could be two options: put it on a page for the song's writers (as was done with Motown's Holland-Dozier-Holland writing team) with a redirect from Starr's page to it (but I don't know how many other songs the duo wrote that are quotable). A second option (which I would favor) would be to put it on the War page, with reference to both the songwriters and to Starr as the most well known singer of it. But we generally do not quote a song's lyrics on its singer's page unless that singer also wrote it (for example we do not have the lyrics to Blue Suede Shoes on the Elvis Presley page since it was written by Carl Perkins, even though to many the Elvis version is the most well known). ~ UDScott (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question about editing

Hi, I noticed you edited a page I made. You removed the sentences "Christina Stead was a committed Marxist, although she was never a member of the Communist Party. She spent much of her life outside Australia.". I have no objections to this edit, I'm simply curious what your reasoning is for removing it. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Just A Regular New Yorker[reply]

I have no real objection to the information, but it seemed like superfluous information. While there may be more information about a person on their Wikipedia page, we generally tend to keep it short and to the point here, just describing important aspects of what they have done in life. I did include the Category of Communists for her page to preserve that info in that way. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question so fast. I think I am very slowly starting to get the hang of this.

I've thought this over and I think the sentences should have been left in. When quoting someone it is important for the reader to know a bit about the person who said the quote. Just saying what the person was isn't enough. I'll add the sentences back. If you really don't want them there you can take them off again and I won't add them back. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in adding years of birth?

You make good categories so I thought I would let you know that I've created a container category for births, which if you would like to add to the applicable pages could easily give you a couple thousand potential edits. I personally don't like making small edits consisting of typo corrections, citation fixes or adding a category, as I dislike making the history tab longer than it has to be, I regard it as a needless waste of computing power and electricity.
Also thank you for said minor corrections to the pages I've created instead of just deleting the pages for having an unacceptable level of typos which you easily would have been allowed to do. Goodbye, and um...before I go, would you be willing to state just a single edit you thought I made which was a good addition, I don't care if you add a list of bad ones 10 times as long, it just feels sometimes like I can do nothing right, when that's what people tell me, and that sort of makes me feel sad and like a bad person as well as a bad editor. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Dinkins deletion

I am not protesting the proposed deletion of the article since the reasons you gave are true. I'm curious though why they matter. In the current state, a reader who comes to Wikiquote to read about David Dinkins will find this page and it's quotes. Does it matter that they all come from the same online source?Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the "source" provided does not qualify as a legitimate source as we define it here. That is merely another quote aggregation site that pulls together quotes that are not sourced. If we kept this, we would simply be propagating unsourced quotes. I am sure that with a person like Dinkins (who is well known and has been a public figure), there will be quotes that can be found that are properly sourced - from newspapers, magazines, TV appearances, etc. This is what we are looking for. For more information, please see WQ:CITE. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explainingJust A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem SolvedJust A Regular New Yorker (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Edit Warring on Mulan (1998 film) page

On November 10, 2017, I began some work cleaning up and organizing the Wikiquote page for the 1998 movie Mulan. WikiLubber, another user, came along and reverted it. No explanation at all. Just reverted it. I reverted it right back and continued my work. Then WikiLubber returned and reverted it again, snidely informing me that the page, which was a mess before I got there, was "already clean to begin with" and that in using British English I had "spelled dishonour wrong". I have tried to clean up the page and bring it both to a higher level of quality and to compliance with Wikiquote's LOQ policy. Given that WikiLubber has gone after my work twice on there, I imagine he will be back and I would like someone to be aware and ready to intervene before an edit war starts. --AC9016 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look and made some minor adjustments (including reverting the spelling of "dishonor" only because it is an American film and thus I used the American spelling). Your trims look fine to me and I will keep an eye out for any edit warring. Thanks ~ UDScott (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Thank you. --AC9016 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
December 4, 2017: The edit-warring is still a problem. As soon as the temporary block on editing you placed expired, it resumed. What I object to is that most anytime I make an edit, WikiLubber does not offer suggestions on the talk page or anything like that. He just shows up, clicks to undo the revisions I made, and sets it how he wants it, and leaves. The last fight was over an exclamation point. You only need one, but WikiLubber was beyond adamant that there must be two. Now, he insists that the sections noting actions or events like "The Hun leader..." that are displayed in italics do not need the first letter of the sentence capitalized. No justification is offered beyond "It is better this way". It does not look like this WikiLubber is basing his actions of anything besides "This is how I want the page to be". Me, you could argue I'm no different. But I'm just following the format I've seen on just about every other Wikiquote page. I would say another editing block is probably going to be necessary, maybe a longer one this time. I'd like WikiLubber to stop picking a fight over nothing and move on to some other page. --AC9016 (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I've protected the page again and left a note on his page. I'm not sure why there is such focus on these minor details when there are much larger issues on which to work. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was clearly keeping the article clean, not as how I want it.
Example: Mushu: "Heed my word! 'Cause of the army finds out you're a girl, the penalty is DEATH!!". I added the second exclamation point based solely on Mushu's tone of voice when he said "DEATH!!". It was grounds for a second exclamation point.
Action lines should be listed like [this], not [this], and there is no need to capitalize common words at the start of such lines as [the Hun leader... etc.]. That is the format I see on every other Wikiquote page. Minor as this issue may be, it is not "nothing". And why should I move on to other pages when there is clearly nothing else to clear up here? WikiLubber (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're only making my point - I view all of the issues you are highlighting as very minor in nature. And there are plenty of issues across this project that are much more in need of fixing than such minor items as these. In any case, the edit warring that has occurred on this page (and others) does nothing but hurt this project in my opinion. That is why I have asked you to move on to something else. And as I have mentioned to you in the past, your tone in dealing with what you consider to be problem pages leaves something to be desired. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I am telling you, there was absolutely nothing else to move on to. I only follow a very small percentage of articles, and a small percentage of that need fixing nowadays (especially since most of the pages had been protected from IPs for long periods of time, leaving no reason to go back to them until the protection expires). And I had no intention of harming the project. I only improve them. The Mulan article was already well enough to begin with, until the other user came along and made unnecessary changes. WikiLubber (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But then again, the way I see it, the only way to resolve this is to remove the Mulan article from my watchlist. WikiLubber (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand better now what you are saying. My point is that perhaps you might extend your scope beyond watching a small list of pages and help on other parts of the project. There are plenty of problem areas throughout the project and many pages that are in need of help and cleanup. The number of pages with such problems is much larger than one individual page where some punctuation or minor formatting is debated. If you have "nothing" else to do, your help on these other pages would be appreciated. But if you would rather just stay on those pages, that's your right too. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that both of us at least claim to be meaning to help and to improve the site and have gotten to such bitterness over a page. The examples you so fiercely point to, WikiLubber- capitalizing words, the placement of italics marks in action lines, number of exclamation points- do not appear to be backed by any kind of official regulations. You say your way is the one and only way you have ever seen it? I've seen pages where that's not so. There's an enormous number of films listed on this website, and it would be untrue to say they all are set up the way you consider proper and correct. You're also dead wrong that there's "nothing else to move on to". There is literally the rest of WikiQuote. Looks like neither of us intended to harm the project, but we know what paves the road to heck. Lastly, WikiLubber, you are blatantly lying about two things. First, that the page was "well enough to begin with". It was a bloody mess and was in gross violation of Wikiquote's Limit-on-Quotes regulation pertaining to films. That is a fact. It is also pertinent that your assertion there is purely subjective. It was "well enough". Who says so? You. I say different. We both got opinions. And the "other user" has got a username, too, and once again it is pure opinion to say that I made "unnecessary changes". Who says they were unnecessary? You. I say you're wrong. We both got opinions. I was never looking for a fight but I guess I got one anyway. I will say that you seem to do good work protecting this site against vandalism, however- and that's something we can always use more of. I'd suggest making less use of the "undo action" option you kept using on my edits. You never tried to compromise and I found your efforts combative and unfriendly. But against actual vandalism both of us are in agreement. There's lots of pages for you to defend against that, far more than whatever is on your watch list. --AC9016 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Blatantly lying"? That is a serious accusation to make without any irrefutable evidence.
Furthermore, by "well enough to begin with", I was referring to the quotes as they were written, not by the quantity of quotes.
And the changes really were unnecessary. There was no need for you to make any changes.
And another thing: I agree that there are a lot of pages that are in need of those like me, but a vast majority of them-- I am not even close to up to date on them. Most of the films, television episodes, stories, songs, etc.-- Never seen, read, or even heard of (some, I do not even wish to). WikiLubber (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted your opinions on two counts as if they were facts. At best, you overstated yourself. The quotes as they were written was also a mess, not just the quantity. And at any rate, that's NOT what you said. You said, flat-out, that the page was fine how it was before, and that is just not true, given how disorganized it was. There was no need for me to make any changes? You say so. I say you're absolutely wrong, and furthermore, you have no authority to decide that. We both got our opinions. As for the other pages- I'll say, yes, it's gonna limit your ability to really help a page if you haven't seen that film, show, or whatever it is. I happen to be enough of a movie person that there's a decent range of them that I can have a look at and try to help with. I can't help there, beyond suggesting movies to see. I'm not sure what the solution would be there. Are you possibly more of a book reader? There's plenty of book quotes pages too, or rather, pages for the authors. At any rate, Mulan is certainly not a page that seems in much danger of actual vandalism, and you do a good job on other pages, protecting them as I said before. You could always just patrol one less page and look for even one or two more to add on instead. --AC9016 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Okay, I may have overstated myself a tad (but I did not lie), but how else could I make my point?
2. It clearly was what I said. True, some quotes had to be removed, but other than that, it was perfect. Nothing other than removal of some quotes needed to be changed.
3. You have no authority, either. And only you say I am wrong.
4. I am not into books.
5. This discussion is over. WikiLubber (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did overstate yourself. You absolutely did. How else could you make your point? Literally any other way than that. "Perfect"? That mess of a page was "perfect"? That is 100% subjective. And if it needed even one change at all, which you do concede it did, it was not "perfect". You're "not into books". What a shame. Well, you don't seem to me much of a film-goer either... so I cannot help you there. I gave all the constructive suggestions I could think of. Here's the thing, WikiLubber- I never said I had some authority you did not. But the tone you have consistently taken with me is argumentative and you honestly sound like you are giving me orders. So there's that. "This discussion is over". HA! Yes, sir, General, sir. Please stop picking a fight with users and asserting your opinions like they're facts. And PLEASE stop reverting edits completely and refusing to compromise or talk to the other user. It kind of rubs people the wrong way. If you want the discussion to end, quit picking fights. --AC9016 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Missile Crisis

I strongly object to your deletion of my creation Cuban Missile Crisis. The quote is only tangentially related to the topic Communication you redirected plus I hope others would add more quotes from the huge literature on this important Cold War event. Please revert your deletion and start a new deletion debate if you have strong opinion on this matter. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually in the process of recreating the page, with quotes from and about the incident, which I of course agree is historically relevant. My issue with the quote was that although it mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis by name, the quote was not really about the crisis so much as the lack of communication that manifested during the crisis. But if you feel so strongly about its inclusion, feel free to add it back to the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic related person

Hello, I'm sysop on arwiki and wikidata and I note that this article unsuitable. I saw that you want to delete it but IP number changed your edits! Thanks علاء (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks علاء (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please mind telling me what's wrong with my user page so I and anyone else reading this knows what not to do in the future?

If it was something I added today than why didn't you revert it to what it was before I started editing today? If it was soap boxing I would like to know what and how so, and if we can't quote deleted wikipedia contributions I would like to know that as well. I know you don't like me, but you owe me that as a good administrator. Keep up the otherwise good work and sorry that you don't like the images and quotes I've added in the last few months compared to the earlier ones, I would like to know why that is. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I may not like everything on your page, the reversion was done in error and I apologize for it. I didn't even realize I had done it until I returned to the site now and saw your message. I am certainly not one who would censor anyone, regardless of how I personally feel about any of the content. I must have inadvertently made that edit to your page - I absolutely did not mean to do so. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin proverbs

Hello UDScott! Why did Ningauble revert my edit? The folks should know where to find the best collection of Latin proverbs. People can notice, that about half of the English words are of Latin origin, also! --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkheader

I noticed that often times, talk pages that are in use do not have a talkheader. Is there any reason for this, and is a talk header necessary in the first place? What is Wikiquote's policy on this, if there even is one? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a standard policy on it, but they are always nice to have. Your addition of it to them is very welcome. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have only been doing this for two months, but there are still stuff to learn. (That probably sounds arrogant to users who have been doing this for years. I only mean that in the two months, I have learned the basics of editing, but I am by no means an expert.) Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, {{talkheader}} is only useful in article talk pages as a notice when the page has been misused. The creation of otherwise blank pages with this template is just a nuisance: a misleading blue-links that lead to no useful content. This is just my opinion, there is no policy on when the template is or is not appropriate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are of no use when there are no comments on the Talk page - creating an otherwise blank page just to put the talkheader is not value-added. But I don't mind seeing them when there are comments raised already. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I guess. Well, as they say, live and learn. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the {{talkheader}} article. What is meant by, "This template should be used only when needed. Acculturation can't be forced, and it can be overdone. If the message is on every talk page, its impact will be reduced"? What impact? Isn't the talkheader meant to inform users of the talk page rules and policies? Are we meant to use it only after a mistake has been made? Why not just put it at the top of every talk page to inform users of the rules? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moustache Man deletion

I just nominated the article Moustache Man for deletion because it is just nonsense with no actual quotes. I am not sure if I did it correctly, so I would appreciate it if you looked it over. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did it correctly, but in this case, I believe that a speedy delete was more appropriate since this was pretty obviously a test page. In most cases, the VFD process is used for a page that certainly has issues, but not one that is bordering on vandalism as this one did. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsujin

If the quotes on a page are all from the same source, shouldn't they be placed into a sub-category, even if there is only one quote? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do not use a subsection unless there are several quotes from the same source (rule of thumb being 3 or more), but I do not believe there is a hard and fast rule. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to petition on wikipedia for the removal of the X rated image of an underage child on the bestiality page?

The two pages for bestiality and pedophilia should follow the same rules and be devoid of X rated images of children, seeing as it makes those pages illegal to look at in several countries, diminishing the ability of Wikipedia to educate people from them on those topics. Would you be willing to petition for the removal of said images on wikipedia? You seemed concern over the X rated hentai image on Kalki's user talk page so I thought you might be willing to take a stance for what you believe in, and unlike Kalki have the time to do so.
Also, as I've said before, I think you make rather good categories, I'm not sure how much electricity making minor revisions to pages actually ends up taking by creating another page revision that could have included further additions or deletions, I've certainly made several terrible additions that needed to be removed and ended up clogging up the page history, so I'm in no position to cast judgement, nor is that an issue anyone else here seems to care about. I'm sorry if I offended you either with that ecoconscious/ecoelitest statement or with my user page. I'd like your help with this troubling image, as I myself can't petition to have it removed, not being allowed there anymore because of categories. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese poetry

Hi UDScott! My article of this Fukuda... in Wikipedia, too, but I did something wrong with naming. Could You please help? --Risto hot sir (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page to the proper name. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of thanks! --Risto hot sir (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your formattings of haikus are excellent, simple and clear (like Finnish design), so why the announcements? --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By announcements, do you mean the cleanup tags? I placed those because I was hoping you (or someone else) would start cleaning up the formatting of the pages so I could move on to other things (my list of To-Do's here is quite long). I just got tired of cleaning up the pages - perhaps you could learn from my examples and properly format the pages as you create them? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean the cleanup tags. At fi-Wq I've written the poems the same way as here and haven't had any complaints. And I'm helping You by defaultsorting (still much to do!). --Risto hot sir (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a quote of the day

UDScott- there was once a quote listed for the quote of the day that was stated to be in inscription on one of the Swords of Muhammad. I loved the quote but didn't write it down, and I could not find where it even came from on this site. It was listed one day sometime between now and 2014 or 2015, which leaves quite a gap. Would you have any idea where I could find it? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --AC9016 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to jump in.) Could it be this one? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is it! How'd you find it that fast? I really should have at least checked through 2017's quotes first. Thank you so much for your help. --AC9016 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I searched for "Sword of Muhammad" using quotation marks and then chose the "Everything" (search all content) option. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Showman

Hello. I request the undeletion of The Greatest Showman. You previously deleted this page because It wasn't released then. The film had a limited release on November 24 & December 8. CerberaOdollam (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risto hot sir's Japanese poet pages

Risto hot sir keeps on making pages about Japanese poets. They are all based on the same book and they are all poorly written. Should someone tell him to stop, or is it okay to make articles while relying on someone else to fix it up? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted hundreds of names, isn't that fixing up? So is it too much to ask native English speakers to fix up some sites? Are haikus poorly written? Is it forbidden to write essential poems? --Risto hot sir (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made that comment before our little argument. It is resolved now. All I meant is that they are all not well researched and were all formatted badly even after I showed you how to do it right. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not resolved. I just saw your article on Enryo. It's like you're not even trying. I fixed it up by the way. You're welcome. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should work together! I'm not good at formatting, but find effectively the names which are on wrong places. There ain't very many Japanese poets left, then I will concentrate in Nueva poesía de los Estados Unidos. --Risto hot sir (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

A couple of important articles I cant' find: Phil Anselmo and Urho Kekkonen (who was the president of Finland 25 years). --Risto hot sir (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - but perhaps you could create pages for them if you have memorable, sourced quotes from them. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to, but I have quotes only in Finnish. Jack Nicholson is important, too! --Risto hot sir (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Washington

That Chappelle is from Washington D.C. (as J. Edgar Hoover), not from the state of Washington. How do we categorize them? And the people of South Dakota and West Virginia need new categories. --Risto hot sir (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC) - Still some missing categories for people from South Dakota, Hawaii and West Virginia (Alaska & Delaware have no authors yet). --Risto hot sir (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are welcome to create such categories if you wish. I am a bit busy on other concerns and can't just jump to your requests immediately. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my deletion notice. This is my first time so I'm not really knowledgeable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please create VfD

Hello, I created my account to list an article Varanasi for deletion over Unmemorable quotes. However, I cannot edit Wikiquote:Votes for deletion to add the vfd-new3 tag as required per the process. As you are an administrator I found in it's history page, I request you to add the required tag. Hope you will help. RaidyTraps (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UDScott/2017&oldid=2984112"