User talk:Jni

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Leave comments below, new ones at the bottom of the page. I refactor this page if I feel like it and will archive old contents occasionally. Any vandalism and trolling will be deleted immediately.

For continuity of conversation, I will most of the time respond on this page. If you are here to discuss a specific article, put your comments on the article talk page. Leave me a note here if you want to make sure I notice your edit.

Remember to sign your comments. Please add new comment threads in a new section (Post at your own risk!).

Archives: 0 1 2

im sorry i was stupid before... i love you

how did you get so cool - ya mums a man

Hi thank you for your notice. I blocked a vandal. Revertin' is easier with sysop functions, so please feel free to be back to your own work ;-) Cheers, let's keep our project up! --Aphaia 17:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was the other person reverting, BTW. Cheers for blocking him. (Didn't realise this place had separate accounts from Wikipedia, though thinking about it I'm not at all sure why I'd think they'd share an account database...) Andrew Walkingshaw 17:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew, but your misunderstand, If I may call it, is not so rare, I suppose ... it is a bit weird we have to have separate accounts, though we share one DB server. ;-P And thank you again for Jni, specially for your quick reports on English Wikipedia and other places. Please take this flower as token of my appreciation: WikiThanks.png
I am happy to work here with you two ! ;-) Thank you.

--Aphaia 03:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi Jni, would you like to request for adminship here? --Aphaia 21:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eventually yes, but I currently feel I haven't participated enough to the day to day activities of this community. People would likely end up opposing me bacause of that. I have lots of experience warding off vandals from English Wikipedia, but Wikiquote still has areas I'm not familiar with. My intention is to increase my contribution here and in some other Wikiquotes and help with the multilingual coordination. I won't oppose if someone nominates me for adminship after a month or so, until then I guess I'll just bug you or some other admin when need arises. jni 06:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for your consideration. --Aphaia 07:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jni, I really appreciate your recent work on Wikiquote infrastructure. We can really use the help. I'd be happy to support your nomination for adminship when you're ready. I doubt there would be any opposition; most Wikiquotians still seem to be comfortable letting a very small number of folks make sysop-like decisions without input. (I'm hoping we can change this; I hate contributing to the Cabal mythology. ☺) — Jeff Q (talk) 08:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. In en-wp, the drafting of policies, VfD and request for adminship processes have recently been somewhat politicized and one typically sees all kinds of mud slinging, old rivalries and just plain trolling there. To me, Wikiquote seems to have a more relaxed atmosphere to work, lets eschew the cabal myth and hope it stays that way for as long as possible! jni 09:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection before deletion?[edit]

Hello Jeff, just a quick unimportant question: why do you consistently protect a page before deleting it, for example Yasunari Kawabata today? I understand the need to protect the pages that cannot be deleted because of the block-compression bug, but I don't see any need to protect it for few seconds before deletion. Such protection does not even protect against re-creation, as far as I know. Is there some subtlety I'm missing? jni 07:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll give you first a simple and then a thoughtful answer. The simple reason is that I do it because that's what I read in Wikipedia:Deletion process, which offered no explanation of why this is done. (It rather illogically put this instruction under Block revision deletion errors, as if sysops knew beforehand which deletions were going to fail. If we're supposed to, I haven't seen an explanation of how.) But as I started doing deletions, I believe I saw some likely reasons. One could protect the page after a deletion failed, but it's quite easy to forget a step that only occurs occasionally, whereas it's easy to remember a step that always occurs. (I've spent decades of my life observing the use of and contributing to the creation of process automation, and I've found that this is a common issue in any well-defined but manual process.) Second, I don't know all the details of how wiki software operates (as if anybody could, even the developers), but any complex process that involves resource locks is rife with potential for unexpected failures and bugs. Protecting the page may just be an extra measure of problem prevention. Since the protection step only takes a few seconds, I highly recommend training oneself to follow it in all cases. I haven't bothered to bring it up with the other sysops, though, because we all have enough on our plates, and I think that I've been making too many suggestions already, which is especially nervy as I'm the most junior wikian in the crew. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 08:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section "Block revision deletion errors" in that page is intended to be followed only when the delete-button reports the bug exists with the page in question. I guess the wording and placement of that section could be confusing to someone who has not processed deletions before the warning message about the bug was coded. I hope the software gets updated soon so everyone can forget about that extra complexity. About possible race-conditions: since none of en-wp's 400+ admins does the extra protection, it could be that it is you who discovers a new bug related to timing of protection and deletion operations... Hope you bear with me and my odd questions while I adjust to Wikiquote way of doing things. Cheers, jni 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to be amused or worried that I'm doing something unique. ☺ I certainly haven't discovered any bugs yet. Do you know of any reasons I shouldn't be doing this (other than perhaps a slight waste of time)?

From what you say about the WP deletion process page, it sounds like it's a great example of one of my pet peeves in my professional field — instructions written for those who already know most of what they're doing, rather than clear, concise instructions intended to show a reasonably intelligent person what to do. I offer two examples of what I'm trying to accomplish in bringing pages over from Wikipedia and Meta — Help:Transwiki and Wikiquote:Proposed Votes for deletion. Both give a step-by-step process of how to accomplish tasks, without getting bogged down in details (which can be on separate reference pages). Both try not to use terminology that Wikiquotians who happen to find their way there aren't likely to know, and try to provide links to any term that may be unfamiliar or confusing — whether it be defined on WQ, WP, Meta, or even Wiktionary. (There's still work to be done, and I'm hoping people will either correct my omissions or at least point out things I've forgotten so I or someone else can fix them.)

As far as adjusting to "Wikiquote ways", I think we're inventing many of them as we speak, so your insight and assistance is quite valuable already. I'll try not to bite your head off like I did poor Eustace Tilley, who has been trying to catch WQ up to Wikipedia practices. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, there isn't any really compelling reason, other than redundancy and unnecessary entries to Special:log/protect, to not protect the pages you are deleting. I just happened to spot that curious practice when viewing RC (my main navigational tool nowadays!). I'll try to help you and others with the infrastructure and processes, although I'm not the best person to write waterproof instructions; I have already internalized so much arcane MediaWiki details and WP everyday sociology that I cannot look through the eyes of a newbie any more. There are several gray areas in WP where the policy and instruction pages differ from what is actually done, I'll chime in if I see Wikiquotians adopting things by rote. jni 12:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sorry for late, and thanks thousand times! And now, I truly say to you, would you like now to request for adminship here? If I recall correctly, you are one of most involved and dealing with WoW vandalism on this project. I know you are skillful in many things, I think if you get sysopship here, it would be very helpful not only to fight against him. --Aphaia 08:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick responce and acceptance. Please see WQ:RFA#Jni. I convince you will be a good sysop also here. Cheers! --Aphaia 09:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! You are a now an administrator here at Wikiquote. ~ Kalki 01:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also congrats from me. I replied you on my talk ;-) --Aphaia 16:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations; VfD tag[edit]

Congratulations on becoming an en:Wikiquote sysop! I'm glad you've joined the team, especially as you were already stringing for us anyway. ☺

I noticed in your recent VfD nominations that you've been adding some div-blocked text and explicit category tags to mark the VfDs. Might I recommend the use of the {{vfd}} tag, which produces the same text and categorization, but doesn't obscure the article content as much, is easier to remove later, and permits a more useful deletion log entry after "content:"? — Jeff Q (talk) 04:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I used {{subst:vfd}} instead of {{vfd}}, as is the Wikipedia custom. I can switch to use the latter, no problem. In WP we use the subst form just because it is harder to remove, at least for vandals and newbies who feel they can remove the tag willy-nilly. jni 07:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Again he came ;-X And thank for your recovering very much! --Aphaia 12:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You'r welcome! BTW does the quiet rollback work from diffpages also? Also, I tried to use &bot=1 with this vandal today but got "Rollback failed" message about potential session hijacking (probably because I had left my browser open for the night) even after several page reloads. It worked after I removed the bot flag. Have you seen this before? jni 12:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Meade skelton[edit]

I was curious about your comment in the VfD for Meade skelton:

I wonder who keeps creating this, with bad title and all.

Has this article shown up here before? Or has it popped up in other wikis? I don't recall running into it before. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have seen "Meade skelton" before, not counting the one deleted incarnation in its page history, except I can't remember right now where that was. Maybe in Meta or some other totally inappropriate place for it. At the time I wrote that comment, I searched this from WP and couldn't find it there, not even a deleted revision. However, today they have w:Meade Skelton and w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Meade Skelton. Looks like a tirade of on-going nonsense. jni 06:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw[edit]

Since you seem to be on top of the double-redirect/article/talk-page problems that the AP vandal caused, could you look at George Bernard Shaw and its talk page? My attempts to restore these two pages got so scrambled that I managed to restore the pages while losing the page histories. I freely admit that I'm sufficiently intimidated by this new aspect of his attacks that I'm not going to try to fix them in the future unless I can see a simple mechanism to do so. He's won his battle against this sysop at least. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the GBS and its talk page, the history of both is there and only things in deleted revisions table are the redirects you (unnecessarily) deleted. I have heard rumors of bugs that can cause the history be lost, but that doesn't seem to be case here. It should be impossible to "rip" revisions apart from history and re-merge them into a history of a different page, losing part of the history in process. And reviewing your actions from RC, I don't think you broke anything in the process. (As you should know, doing a history merge is the second sysop operation that cannot be undone, except by developers, but you didn't screw up that badly ;-) ) I don't think this was very serious attack, I have seen much worse in WP. A procedure for next time: 1) block infinitely 2) click the undo links in RC for every vandal move 3) delete the redirect your undo action caused, that is the target of the original vandal-move. For multiple vandal-moves in a row, you need to follow the chain of moves to the original article. You only need to delete a redirect vandal created in that case he (or someone else) saved a new revision atop of the redirect. Hope this helps, time for me to go to bed now. jni 21:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
My problem with the page histories was that they are apparently cached like ordinary pages, which I hadn't realized. When you told me they were fine, I went back and forced several reloads before I got a good one. After getting tangled up in redirects of redirects, I was inclined to believe I'd screwed up. I really hate this guy. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Belated move protection[edit]

I've protected your user and user talk pages against moves. Aphaia initiated this practice as a result of the persistent (and still active, as you know) efforts of one or more vandals to disrupt Wikiquote administration. Sorry for the delay in doing this for you. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I think that my pages have been moved only about five times so far, I would have protected them myself had the moving vandalism we have reached a more severe level. jni 07:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome.

Can you please delete Talk:Freddie Mercury. It's the only remaining "bad edit" from the imposter still in my contribs, and it's not relevant as a Talk page by itself. -- Netoholic 17:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I deleted it. It seems to me a proper speedy candidate; enthusiasm from a fan and not relevant to the article. --Aphaia 18:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


He is an Ass pus vandal, perhaps you've known it already ... --Aphaia 11:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or could have been a poor imitation of the Ass pus vandal, just like the original Ass Pusser is just a poor copy-cat of Willy on the Wheels. Willy was considerable faster in his vandalism spree. jni 06:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My contribution[edit]

'It doesn't matter who we are, but it does what we do. And that includes human beings'

So it doesn't matter who wrote this, what does matter if it could influence some one to do better.

Thank you for providing this pool of information. I also beleive that your website provides a smart way of presenting the info, allowing users to suggest for possible changes. Making it more appealing for every one of us.

My sincere appreciation for you and for all the people for their time in providing such valuable suggestions.

Regards, Chandra

Thank you for your kind words. Please note that this is not just my website, anyone can join to contribute and eventually be elected into a position of trust, like our present administrators. Although not mandatory, I suggest you create an account if you want to join us. Oh, and quotes by anonymous can be entered to Anonymous (as long as they are not vanity or invented by yourself). jni June 27, 2005 06:25 (UTC)

Juergen Heine[edit]

I note that you have replaced the VfD tag on Juergen Heine. It was up for VfD and the unanimous vote was for deletion. Alan Liefting 10:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. I removed the speedy deletion tag, not the VfD tag. Speedy deletions are entirely different route to deletion than VfD, only to be used in small number of well specified cases. The article in question is obviously not a candidate for speedy deletion. Please note that voting for this ends in August 6th, after nearly one and half weeks from now. Deleting the article today would not be appropriate under current policies. BTW, you haven't even cast a vote of your own yet! jni 12:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

0waldo says =[edit]

Hello mr. peer! we still need a few more yet make some more calls! 0waldo 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Come on down, don't be shy, listen to mr. self promoter cuz he's quite a guy :) 0waldo 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Just wanted to say thanks for voting on my RfA! Essjay TalkContact 12:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll look forward working with you! BTW, if I am not entirely mistaken, you are currently the only WQ sysop that is also admin in Meta (at least until Aphaia returns from her wikibreak). Would you mind handling the occasional Meta liaison duties, mostly the need to edit the system wide spam blacklist if Wikiquote encounters a particularly bad spammer? I haven't seen any serious vandalism for a while, but last time we had one it took a while to retrieve a competent Meta-admin from w:WP:AN/I. Cordially, jni 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, that's what I'm here for! :-) Essjay TalkContact 16:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Walter Muncaster[edit]

Ah! Thank you for adding the Category:Protected deleted pages I wasn't quite sure how to prevent that page from being recreated over and over, apart from repeatedly deleting it. Thanks for the help. ~ UDScott 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a miracle we have survived this far without any serious incident of re-creation vandalism. The Wikipedia solution I implemented should be sufficient for this twerp, other admins can device other schemes if this doesn't work. jni 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey JNI: I thought that wikipedia did not allow name calling: you just called me a twerp - can I call you a name now too? 0waldo 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Hi Jni, thank you for supporting my RfA! I look forward to working with you and the rest of the sysops here. -- Robert 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A copyright concern[edit]

I recently added some quotations by Ludwig von Mises on socialism [1]. However, my source seems to be rather demanding on copyright issues, stating All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Brief quotations may be included in a review, and all inquiries should be addressed to Liberty Fund. [2]. Does it mean that it would be better not to have these quotes on wikiquote page? Anyway, if not done by someone else, you might take the neecssary action (I'm myself not a frequent contributor). --Constanz 09:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Hi, Jni, welcome back to Wikiquote ;-) It's nice to see you around there. --Aphaia 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a pleasant surprise to see you drop in again yesterday. Every little bit of help is welcome, whenever you feel like it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks! I don't have much ideas how to improve the quote content here but I'll likely pop up to clean some miscellaneous stuff once in a while. Not sure if returning completely from my wiki-retirement or just visiting :) jni (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for all the recent help, and the recent block. Hopefully, I will soon once again have the tools to more effectively fight against the vandals myself. ~ Kalki·· 15:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to help. I hope too that you get the tools back, so you don't have to wait for someone else to deal with easily answerable vandal problems. jni (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


No matter how many times we delete its userpage, this IP vandal blatantly attempts to recreate it without any valid explanation or iota of remorse. I request that this user be blocked indefinitely, as well as any potential sockpuppets (such as, who vandalized earlier today). WikiLubber (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't block IPs indefinitely, but indeed some penalty time should be awarded for this persistent "No"-campaign that has been going on for several weeks at least by now. Will monitor the situation. I did delete your userpage per request, and it can also be salted if persistently re-created by vandals. jni (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Much appreciated. WikiLubber (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This vandal is just not going to stop as long as it is unblocked. It will never learn from its mistakes. I request it be blocked for no less than a month. WikiLubber (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Month is somewhat long for an IP, as it is not known if it is a static one or shared by multiple people. But you are right, this kind of nuisance editing must stop. jni (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I know for a fact that this is not a shared IP, judging from its same nuisance edits over and over. WikiLubber (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
And the vandalism continues. WikiLubber (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
And now it vandalizes with a sockpuppet IP: A blatant attempt to evade any possible blocking. I request that it be blocked for the same period you give User:, and that the pages it vandalized be protected from IPs for a long period of time. WikiLubber (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This vandal just will not stop, no matter what we do. I recommend it be blocked for no less than a month, and all pages it vandalized be protected for no less than a year. WikiLubber (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Japanese poets[edit]

Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on User:MonsterHunter32's massive censorship of sourced quotes without discussion[edit]

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. Thank you. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am discussing even right now all quotes one by one who Jedi3 says must not be removed, has is not cooperating. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The first of your points is a content dispute, the place to discuss these is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes). These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles.
When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you. --Jedi3 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Aurangzeb. But like other articles you stop discussing. I haven't opposed discussion. It is you who is refusing to cooperate. Let's discuss it one after another. I don't want to discuss everything at once as that will cause huge amount of time wastage and confusion. And you don't even move beyond a single quote for long.
You keep repeatedly making false claims. Oh and I have not said I will never discuss. It is you who is refusing cooperation by making false claims again and again. It is you who has added or removed quotes under false reasons. Removal of quotes is censorship. Didn't you first realise those quotes will be removed? Anyone can. Add that to your already made false claims regarding quotes, it is clear you are only interested in disruptive edits with malafide intent.
While you claim I censored you, I have already said i am not removing anything because of your views but simply because your quotes are not memorable and in some cases added under false claims. I added the quotes at Talk:Aurangzeb and you picked one from Will Durant. We are discussing it. If you refuse to continue discussion, then that is your fault.
Also please note that User:Jedi3 has tried to wriggle out of any attempts at discussion by demanding an interaction ban. I can understand a block. But it is clear this person is making all attempts to stifle discussion so he gets what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 should be blocked[edit]

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

He has been warned enough already.

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

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

Other editors have noticed the same, see and and other places.

Also see Daniels' latest comment here

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough? --Jedi3 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please block disruptive Jedi3[edit]

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

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

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

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

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

Here are his reverts, [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].

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

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring: [22], [23], [24].

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [25], [26], [27]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [28], [29]

His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [30], [31], [32] and [33]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [42], [43] and [44]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [45] and [46]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.

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

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [47]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [48], [49]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

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

Please block this disruptive vandal immediately. And it is ironic that Jedi3 is himself lecturing the admins when he berated me for arguing with them. His disruption must stop. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)