|
Status: Active. bd2412 T
I don't have a problem with temporarily granting oneself the bot flag while running a script (==Sourced== → ==Quotes== using AWB), but it does not appear to be working as intended in this instance. The edits are also marked as minor and for some reason, probably erroneous, the system is only recognizing one flag at a time, the "minor" one. When I select "Hide bots" on RC these edits still show up, but when I select "Hide minor edits" they do not. I suggest using one flag or the other, but not both at once. I also notice that you made a few unscripted edits while your account was configured with the bot flag (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). These should not have suppressed from RC as bot edits. Take care. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm currently going through Francis Fawkes's notes on his The Argonautics of Apollonius Rhodius, and just borrowed the citation/note structure you used in The Iliad of Homer (Alexander Pope) (borrowed, in turn, from John Bartlett – learning from the pros :). There is still some work to be done, but I'd appreciate it if you could add a link from the Wikipedia article Apollonius of Rhodes (external links section) to Wikiquote. It's routine and you have independent reasons to do it, so it doesn't violate any policy. Of course there is no particular hurry. Cheers and thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Done, cheers! BD2412 T 00:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
You have some fucking nerve to enclose my arguments against another user arbitrarily editing *my own posts* as an 'off-topic' section, and additionally doing so in a way that makes it seem that it was I who started the whole issue. ~~~~ —This unsigned comment is by 178.43.21.111 (talk • contribs) .
- I enclosed the section that I enclosed because the last comment before that section was relevant to the bolding discussion. I hatted everything not relevant to the bolding discussion. BD2412 T 21:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- You enclosed a comment of mine explaining my being forced to leave the discussion in the middle of it lest the other user continue derailing it, plus a comment of mine regarding implementation of the idea in question. (I reinserted it outside the section already, though.) ~~~~
- Good. BD2412 T 22:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- 'Convenient' is a better term. ~~~~
- Your points on the bolding question are valid. With respect to the signature, why not just conform to the norms of the community you are trying to work with? Better yet, create an account. BD2412 T 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Speaking of accuracy of detection of various properties of quotes, I know this has been discussed, but it betrays the need for semantic markup. Again, such as famous quotes being marked up <span class='famous'/> (if not outright by templates, {{famous|They say that...}}, but I imagine that would be a performace issue). In fact, I see that the visual editor still translates ''' to presentational <b> by default. That's wrong -- any visual editor should, of course, solely offer various *senses* of markup, such as 'famous', 'offensive', 'unsourced' et c., instead of forcing users to signify those using the same simple tag. This way there would never be any ambiguity involved with article restructurization as by a bot. ~~~~
- I try to avoid using visual editor interfaces as much as possible. I don't think we mark 'offensive' quotes at all. Unsourced quotes should not be included on a page. Any that are there should be moved to the talk page for sourcing. If they are not sourced in a reasonable time, they should then be deleted. BD2412 T 00:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────┘
I actually realized that I used 'visual' to just refer to the button interface, not even WYSIWYG.
That said, my point was generally about information loss. In other words, any valid interpretation of a type of formatting that any user ever thinks of should join a list of qualifiers, for other users to conveniently choose from for new quotes. As soon as a user associates (say) italics with (say) uncertainty, threat, silence, breaking the fourth wall, imagination, title, subtitle, comment, transliteration issue, whatever, those descriptors should be formalized and offered via an interface, so that italics itself is disambiguated more and more, ideally into total disuse (= complete identification/formalization of all possible meanings of it). But this is just tagging. At the end of the day, databases like Wikidata should take over completely, over all Wikimedia projects, and compilation of raw data into user-readable English prose should only be done on the user's own computer as via CSS, so that from knowledge like the proverbial 'country#32-city#8472-x#213-y#843' 'United Kingdom is a country in the northern hemisphere whose capital is...' is neatly generated. Raw continuous text, which is Mediawiki's core datatype, is a grossly flawed format for knowledge. We must learn to unadapt out of it.
But it is this that's getting off-topic. ~~~~
- If it were up to me, we would have a separate page for every quote, and categorize them by author, subject, year work, and keywords, but the community does not prefer that approach. BD2412 T 02:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Absolutely. All databases should be atomized like that. Of course, the present Wikiquote structure can still be considered atomic, in the sense that a parser could (if unreliably and slowly) distinguish one quote from another through just parsing wiki lists and fishing them out, but it's nowhere as robust as a true database if we, for instance, want to run some big statistical comparison of all quotes. Not to mention that ordinary lists of many quotes would be still possible through transclusion. ~~~~
- In fact, the slash format (which I hardly see on Wikimedia for some reason) would work so nicely.
* {{John_Doe/Autobiography/on_this}}
* {{John_Doe/Autobiography/on_that}}
* {{John_Smith/My_Debut/on_something_something}}
- (And then, my syntax is rusty, but perhaps we could have things like {{compact|John_Doe/on_x}} or {{full|John_Doe/on_x}} or {{qotd|John_Doe/on_x}}, any of which could follow or preface the quote itself with any of its medatada, residing at {{John_Doe/on_x/creation_context}} or {{John_Doe/on_x/collaborations}} for instance. ~~~~)
- In short, you're too smart for this shit, fuck Wikiquote and start your own wiki. ~~~~
- With patience, my approach will eventually prevail. BD2412 T 03:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I genuinely wish you that. Good day. ~~~~
I added a couple of images highlighting her vote for the invasion of Iraq and her opposition to gay marriage back when it mattered. Now I'm afraid the page looks a bit unbalanced. I don't really like much of what she says, so it's hard for me to choose what her best quotes are (for example, I like her "Gay rights are human rights" quote, but it sounds [as is] hypocritical). If you could add at least a couple images with more positive quotes, that'd be great. ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Frankly, it seems like more than I have time to address right at the moment. I will try to get to that this weekend. BD2412 T 13:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Insofar as the article already has a similar portrait at the top of the page, it would appear that the sole purpose of adding this image is, as stated, to highlight the quote. This is not neutral.
The caption itself is cherry-picked from a context in which she expressly opposed an amendment stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman. When someone says, in effect, "there is something to what you say, but I am opposed", as thoughtful legislators sometimes do, quoting the "something to what you say" out of context, as if it is a statement of support, is dishonest. Even the cited Breitbart article, despite its spin, had the decency to provide more context than singling out the captioned sentence. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- For the record, the quote in question is Hillary saying "I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman". Why is it dishonest to highlight this? It isn't. It was her position and what she believed in. (Or, more likely, what the polls told her most voters believed in back then.) Her opposition to gay marriage when it was still unpopular is emphatically clear, see this 2002 interview. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- In tonight's debate, she essentially admitted to having made the "you need both a public and a private position" remark. ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Frankly, I didn't watch it. BD2412 T 04:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Greetings BDA,
Decided to peek in after almost 10 years and happened upon this discussion. Looks like I got the email about it a year ago but apparently didn't notice, otherwise I would have made an appearance.
Just wanted to let you know that if admin inactivity becomes a concern here again the community is more than welcome to remove my admin flag with no arguments from me. The chances of me resuming contributions here are astronomically small and any reservations I might have had on the matter would have been brought up when I was unflagged on the 'pedia.
Nice to see another '05 fossil still contributing. Doubt anyone remembers me around these parts but you're one of the few users I still recognize instantly.
Cheers, -- JaxlTalk 01:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Well, I wouldn't put it past you to decide to stop by and fiddle around here a bit. ;-) BD2412 T 01:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- What I wouldn't give to have that kind of time again. Cheers, -- JaxlTalk 01:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Info: "The translation of the Odyssey was shared with Elijah Fenton and William Broome, to whom half the books were allotted, Fenton taking I, IV, XIX and XX, and his colleague II, VI, VIII, XI, XII, XVI, XVIII and XXIII, while Pope translated the rest and assumed, in addition, the task of revision." George Sampson, The Concise Cambridge History of English Literature (1970), Ch. IX, p. 385.
A note could be added stating,
- Note: Elijah Fenton translated Books I, IV, XIX and XX; William Broome translated Books II, VI, VIII, XI, XII, XVI, XVIII and XXIII.
(And that Pope revised these, and translated the rest.) What do you think? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. Here it reads: "Pope organized, supervised, and corrected every stage of the undertaking, &c." and, indeed, Broome himself speaks of "the care and judgment of Mr. Pope, by whose hand every sheet was corrected" (my emphasis). Your power of synthesis is needed. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Sounds good. BD2412 T 00:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Too powerful... Okay, I tried this. (The last clause doesn't sound good to me; you are welcome to change it.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi BD2412. Could this be considered a copyright infringement? Basically, I have so far selected ~100 quotes by Apollonius of Rhodes, mostly from my own reading of the Argonautica and ancient commentaries on it. The only dictionary of quotations (that I could find) that includes Apollonius is this one published last year, from pages 67 to 69. Question: If I bold the quotes by Apollonius that appear in that book as the most significant/famous, can that be considered a copyright infringement? The presentation is different, and the book uses different translations from the ones I used, but now that I think of it, the selection itself should be protected by copyright. Is it then a question of fair use? What do you think? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- If the initial selection was not copied from another source, I don't see how it could be a problem to later point out which entries from that initial selection were also in the selections of that other source. However, to be even more on the safe side, find a few other compilations containing quotes by the same author (if possible, see if there are any in the public domain), and indicate for each quote all compilations that have also selected it. BD2412 T 14:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks. The problem is, I can't find any others. Even Harbottle's exhaustive dictionary of quotations contains no quotes by Apollonius of Rhodes at all. The quotes selected in A Dictionary of Classical Greek Quotations are of course often quoted in other books, and academic papers, but not in a systematic fashion. I think I'll remove the bold text, if somewhat regretfully. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Also look under "Apollonius Rhodius" - I can't tell if this book is a collection of quotes or whole works. This one contains a single quote, but that's something. This one appears to promise some, although it is not readily searchable. BD2412 T 14:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks again. I wish I could browse that first link, but can't. Your second link is, I believe, the same as this one, which does contain the often quoted and very beautiful passage of Jason and Medea's meeting in secret. Unfortunately, the last book you mention does the opposite of promising quotes by Apollonius Rhodius! I'll come back to this when I have more time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Oops, yes the third one promises to exclude. Results of a hasty search! BD2412 T 15:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not very important, but here for the explanatory note do you prefer:
- "The Floating Cake" (a metaphor for "woman")
or:
- "The Floating Cake" (metaphor for "woman")
or something else altogether? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
- The previous descriptor was "about women's fate", which is different than either of those. I am unfamiliar with this author's work, and her native language, so I don't really know what a proper descriptor is, but between the two choices above I suppose I would include the "a", just because it otherwise makes me feel a bit like the parenthetical is part of the title. BD2412 T 13:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, I see your point. The poem is about women's fate (it starts, "My body is white; my fate..."), as I was told by a Vietnamese friend (and as noted by the translator in the cited book) but readers may not realize that if they aren't informed that the cake is a metaphor for woman (and, by extension, women in general; but to be safe I prefer the note as it is now, with the singular "woman"). Use of parenthesis is not strictly necessary (just a way to convey information without being too verbose). And yes I hope the note can be clearly distinguished from the title... Thanks for your prompt reply. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think 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 image and others on wikipedia?
You were the one who welcomed me here to begin with but after about a year or two supported longer blocks, I won't ask for your endorsement as an editor or anything, but I'd like to think despite a lot of admitted garbage that I've added, that at least something I contributed was of interest to you. I also think given you're a lawyer from the discussions I've read, if I'm not mistaken, that although this is not the area of your expertise, that your opinion in particular would carry extra weight in a discussion with others on wikipedia. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- No. I see nothing wrong with any image on Zoophilia, to which "bestiality" redirects; the other page has no images at all. BD2412 T 13:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I was wondering if anyone has gone through the list you created for Illegitimate Barrister in 2016? If not I would like to assist in removing any non notable quotes from blogs and Youtube comments sections, I know that when I was doing that I was new at this and was trying to escape unpleasant aspects of my home life through near constant editing of wikiquote as an escape from that, though those aren't very good excuses for failing to understand notability. Non notable witnesses quoted in a major news source for a historic event like September 11, or interviews with members of a large production team for an about section is one thing, but Daniel Tom is correct in calling these kinds of additions from internet celebrities lacking Wikipedia pages as garbage. I don't think that even when my edits were at their lowest point in relevance to this project that I ever accumulated a list of over 400 of them, but even if the number was a fifth of that than I feel I should make it up to the community somehow, and this would an excellent way to make use of my acquired ability in identifying garbage having made so much of it myself.
I'm sorry I ever made mistakes like this before, I hope you and others don't view the about sections that remain as being of this low a quality, I've since tried making them the equivalent to artist statements and not just trivia about design influences for specific elements, like Geordi from Star Trek The Next Generation's visor being a hairpin or Midgard from Final Fantasy VII being inspired by a pizza. If my additions are still a problem I'd be more than happy to go through a list of my own mistakes and correct them to save others the time, however I don't think that is an issue. CensoredScribe (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
There are 102 articles listed in Category:Japanese poets. Many, if not all are based on a single book by Yoel Hoffman. However, recently you found a source for one of the articles (Doyu). Do you have any sources for the others? If not, they may constitute a copyright violation as DanielTom has expressed, among many other problems. I’m not sure how to proceed from here (should we delete the articles or tag them for cleanup until other sources can be found) so I’m hoping you can help. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
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? You can read more about it at the link above, and at the other discussions linked in that discussion.
What would be most helpful would be if other editors could add comments to the summary table here Talk:India#Summary_table.
Since you are an admin, I would also welcome your view on the following.
Other editors and me have previously told MonsterHunter32 many times that the following rule based on Template:Remove should be strictly observed by him:
- 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 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 you have a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks.
- Observing the rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:
- MonsterHunter32 has done blanked and censored dozens of quotes, 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 censorship 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 religious beliefs or opinions or alleged bias, using religious or political smears against me and others.
- MonsterHunter32 as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that he was wrong, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. Discussion with someone who as a rule and always refuses to make the slightest concession that he might be wrong, or that others may have different opinions than him, is becoming a waste of time. Maybe even worse are the misrepresentations, dishonesty and personal attacks.
- This is what other editors have said about MonsterHunter32:
- "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 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."
- "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "
- "I am sick of you trying to drag me into it. Never bother me again, about this or anything else. If you persist, I will take this to administrators and you can explain it to them. Leave me alone. "
- "if you keep this up 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."
- I have attempted to solve it with discussion with him, but by his refusal of even the most elementary things, like giving full reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage, he is making it extremely difficult. What really is needed, and I asked many times for this, are comments from other users on the quotes. Please see Talk:India#Summary_table for my latest attempt to ask others for comments.
- Ultimately, I agree 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.)
- Please let me know if you too agree with this.
- Wikiquote is not prepared to handle persistent, disruptive editors like MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who by his own admission is "constantly monitoring" me, attacking me for alleged religious bias or my alleged religious beliefs, and reverting all my additions with poor excuses that in most cases he refuses even to discuss. It cannot be in Wikiquotes interest when such editors can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with censoring and blanking quotes. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
What does User:Jedi3 hopes to achieve by repeatedly complaining instead of any actual cooperation? When I discuss he either abruptly leaves or keeps on repeating the same things. He keeps on edit-warring over and over and even started edit-warring right after User:UDScott block on him expired.
All of the "complains" of his based on poor fact- reading and hiding the truth again. Oh he doesn't mention some of the comments made by other users about him:
- User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claiming 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.
- 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.
- While User:Jedi3 talks about "Bare-minimum", he doesn't stop to the do the most disruptive thing: Edit-warring. What's more he resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9].
- He has also made some utterly false claims of "blanking", even though my removal of his quotes didn't involve more than 1 or 2 quotes and removed only a small part of the article. Some of his utterly false claims of "blanking" are here, here and here.
- There is nothing wrong in checking another editor when they are being disruptive like User:Jedi3. And what I actually said was me categorically proving I never censored him. I was checking whether his edits are non-notable and non-memorable. "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."
- I already suggested at talk:India, let's discuss all quotes one by one at the relevant article talk pages. He refuses to do so.
- Jedi3 keeps on smearing and making false allegations of "censorship" just because I disagree with many of his quotes being relevant. That too me telling it plainly I have only removed non-memorable/non-notable quotes: "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."
- After Daniel Tom reverted me at Talk:India for removing Jedi3's vandal comments of baseless accusations and taking the issue to an entirely unrelated article while the actual discussion should have been at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles where I actually removed his quotes. His actions were very similar to Jedi3 by baselessly accusing me of censorship despite me discussing and compromising despite the quote being not notable, I asked him not to take sides with jedi3 over any ideolgical affinity. I told DanielTom about this [10] and also tried to prevent another edit-war at Talk:India like it happened on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I also told him the same at his own talk page.
- After Kalki reverted me twice at talk:India and warned me, that was my last revert. I didn't start edit-warring and reverting like Jedi3. At User talk:Kalki#What censorship at Talk:India I asked him to effectively moderate and enforce the rules by blocking Jedi3 for his consistent disruptive editing. He kept saying he didn't have time but I pointed out I already made Jedi3's disruptive edits clear and if he moderated then this place would have been a much better place as i believe Jedi3 is not fit for here. I asked him to act against Jedi3 as the latter kept edit-warring right after after being warned and blocked by UDScott.
- 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.
- Jedi3 tried to justify his edit-warring claiming he had no choice as "I wasn't discussing". This despite me telling him that I already tried to discuss. I never said there will be no discussion ever. All i said was I couldn't discuss all of them at once. I have already asked him to discuss the quotes one a time.
- Just a Regular New Yorker laimed in his comment that quotes canot be removed if they are sourced. He doesn't seem to have read tyhe policies.
- Except Wikiquote:Wikiquote, WQ:Q and Template:Fame saying this is for notable quotes. And the Template:Remove Jedi3 keeps talking about itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. "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." 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?
- Jedi3 points to the comment "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...." Except I never said such a thing. But I do dislike is Jedi3's disruptive edits and him not giving two hoots about notability.
- "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion " Will Jedi3 say it is Kalki claiming so about me removing his unrelated vandal comments at Talk:India which had nothing to do with India. I had even explained this to him in my only revert of his unlike jedi3 who still edit-wars after being warned or blocked. And I have repatedly said I don't remove any quote I found notable: "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."
- 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 aren't even near to what he claims. This is aside from the fact that especially a user merely calling something as notable or poignant or witty doesn't make it notable. But then again he doesn't even care about the dictionary meaning of the words he's talking about. From Oxford dictionary Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Anyone who reads a dictionary can understand he's making it up about any of his edits being eloquent, poignant or witty etc. yet he makes the same claim at Talk:India yet again despite already being made aware his quotes are not near what he's falsely claiming them to be.
- All policies say this website is about notable quotes. 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." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Not to mention the quote itself being notable criteria mentioned by it as well.
Jedi3 needs to be blocked for his constant disruption, caring for nothing except POV-pushing at all costs even if becomes disruptive, bad faith edits and accusations as well as false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
|
