User talk:Mdd/Archive 2007-2019

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hi Mdd/Archive 2007-2019. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! WelcomeBot owner!question? 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Gell-Mann‎[edit]

Thanks for your recent additions, including those to this page. But I just wanted to give you a heads up that we usually do not include so much in the intros to pages. Usually we limit it to one or two sentences and let the user click through to WP if they want to see more. Before I trimmed it, I wanted to at least let you know. Thanks. ~ UDScott 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning. I added the description because of the stub-tag, see here. Am I correct, that you just have to added one more sentence to get that tag removed? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see what you were thinking - actually, the stub tag just refers to the number of quotes that are on a page. It's a bit subjective - see Wikiquote:Stub#Identifying_a_stub for more, but it is applied to a page when it just seems to need a bit more to stand on its own. ~ UDScott 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Three more (short) questions:
  1. Do you think the Murray Gell-Mann‎ is no longer a stub now?
  2. And what about the Kenneth Boulding article? Is this also still a stub?
  3. Is het ok, that I moved down the stub tag to the bottum of the article, for example here
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's borderline, but I'd probably say that no it's no longer a stub - although more quotes would be good if there are any.
  2. Yes, and actually this page has a problem in that none of the quotes are sourced - as such, this page could be nominated for proposed deletion. When trying to determine if a page is a stub, I would not count the unsourced quotes.
  3. Actually, no we like to keep the stub tag just below the intro - we found that when it is placed at the bottom of the page, it got lost and people ignored it. When it is higher, it is more easily seen and usually people try to add quotes.
~ UDScott 01:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer science and telescopes[edit]

I left a reply at Talk:Computer science. Cheers, —Ruud 22:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for sending a warning to User:Pavan duggal. When someone else proposed the deletion, you can notify contributors with {{PRODNote}} instead of {{PRODWarning}} if you prefer. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this tip. I was unfamiliar with this template, but will use this next time. -- Mdd (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mdd. I undid a recent edit of yours ("English text first") because it is longstanding practice at Wikiquote to place the original text first and the English translation beneath, as described at Wikiquote:Guide to layout and illustrated at Wikiquote:Templates. I would not say one way is better than the other (though I personally like giving priority to the original), but it is good to be consistent.

Thanks, by the way, for your work on the Knowledge article. Your chronological reorganization is turning out very well. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no intention of violating the practice at Wikiquote to place the original text first. I do have a problem with that article (after the heading) starting with four line of Ancient Greek, because I like article's to be approachable and as simple as possible. The subject itself is difficult enough.
For this reason I already rearranged the three Aristotle quotes to solve my first objection. I would prefer to move the Ancient Greek text to the Aristotle article, and just leave the English text. Do you mind? -- Mdd (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Today in the Gregor Mendel there was a similar situation, which I wikified and added the "English text first". The main reason I altered the appearance is, because I think it is more accessible for ordinary people. It might be time to reconsider that "longstanding practice". -- Mdd (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Russell ("1970s")[edit]

Hi Mdd, could you check again the "1970s" subdivision that you've made in the Bertrand Russell article? I do not think it makes much sense because Russell didn't say those lines in the 70's. Thanks! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. If you have more information about the origin of those quotes, please add that to the description, and rearrange those quotes. I did make a subdivision in the article, but I didn't double check single quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. Actually, I was at a loss of what to do with those quotes (because no, I do not have more information about their origins), and that is why I asked you. I now have a good idea (I think) about what to do with them, but I will discuss it with UDScott first. Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. It might be an idea to alter the title of that final chapter in "Posthumously". -- Mdd (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to create a more general section, where we could put those quotes AND other (few) key quotes that appear in the subpages of Russell's books (with a link to those pages). I do not know what to call it, though (I am not sure if calling it "Sourced" is right). What do you think? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep it simple and follow established good practices. Now I noticed the contents of the Albert Einstein seems like a good example to follow, particular the sections "Youth" and "Attributed from (memory and) posthumous publications". And in combination with the example of Dostoevsky's page UDScott gave this afternoon. -- Mdd (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. "Attributed from posthumous publications" seems fine, if you like you can add that section yourself. Maybe tomorrow, or in the next few days, I will work on the Russell page again, and then I will follow your and UDScott's advice. Thanks for the help. - Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done and thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Fantastic job in historical/chronological format! It should become a standard for the type.

ELApro (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I fully agree that the article is improving, although I personally sort of got stuck in the process. But I doubt that this is the only right way. For example the arrangement of the German Wikiquote article Wissen is an other option, which has it's charm. The same with the compact Italian article Conoscenza. Every of these arrangements seem to have it's strengths and weaknesses. -- Mdd (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polymath (redirect)[edit]

I have proposed to delete the Polymath redirect that you created, for the reason given in the {{Prod}} notice on that page. Feel free to discuss on the talk page if you disagree. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing, you are right, my mistake. -- Mdd (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice re. edit summaries and large edits[edit]

I would recommend doing this sort of thing in two edits, for a couple reasons: (1) "wikify" refers to formatting and linking, and does not adequately describe the removal of large quantities of unsourced quotes; and (2) when you reorder quotes and remove quotes at the same time, it is difficult to see what was removed if, perchance, someone wants to work on sourcing them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand that for clearity "wikification" and "removal of large quantities of unsourced quotes" should kept separately and mentioned in separate edit-summeries. I will try to keep this in mind. Thanks you. -- Mdd (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good idea to prune external links in the Roger Penrose article as you did here. But again, the edit summary "Some rearrangement(s)" does not describe what was dome. When removing content from an article, especially large quantities of content, it is very helpful to describe what you are doing, and why. This is useful when people review recent changes or research article histories, and it is a courtesy to contributors who added the information in the first place. Regards, Ningauble (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my vocabulary "some rearrangements" means "rearrangement of the article more according to the general standard". And that is often the reason why I trim an introduction and/or an excessive external links section. Those sections are most of the time copy/pasted from Wikipedia articles in the first place, and keeping the mirrored version here is rather questionable... and not according to general standards. So "Some rearrangement(s)" in general does explains, why I removed those sections. -- Mdd (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a native English speaker, it does not strike me as explanatory at all. Imagine a newcomer wondering why their contribution was removed: "some rearrangements" gives no indication of what was wrong. Sometimes this language is used as a euphemism that deliberately avoids saying what is going on, as e.g. when a corporation announces layoffs without actually saying anyone is being laid off, but this usage is not a good way to inform our contributors about what is happening and why.

As Wikiquote's newest administrator, you will probably find many more occasions to remove or delete content. When this happens, even if one is not acting as an administrator, I think it is very important for administrators to be clear about what we are doing and why we are doing it. Please consider being more explicit about the reason when you remove substantial content. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Russell again[edit]

Hi Mdd, how are you? I want to thank you for trying to sort out the copyright issues with the "What Desires Are Politically Important?" and other sections of the Bertrand Russell article. Just so you know, I went ahead and trimmed it a little bit. Of course I am now second guessing myself and wondering if that was too bold of me. But the final result looks pretty OK to me. Finally, and on a different note, I should admit that I sometimes copy your format for pictures&quotes; please take this imitation as a form of flattery ;) Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thank you for your important input. FYI, I don't plan to do any more edits to the "What Desires Are Politically Important?" section. I leave it to others now. Regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howard S. Becker[edit]

Hi Mdd. Thanks for your note, and thanks for the interesting Becker quotes. ~ talk


I was wondering if you would be open to becoming an admin here. I believe you have been a solid contributor for quite some time and that the site would benefit from having another admin. If you are OK with it, I will nominate you for the position. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like to accept your offer. I am prepared to assist in administrative tasks on Wikiquote, where I can. -- Mdd (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Please signify your acceptance at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent disputes[edit]

I believe I tend to agree with you on what I can understand of most issues in at least some of your previous disputes with others, though probably not all of them, but I don't recommend calling for censure or retaliation in any way that is not necessary to prevent further harm to oneself or others, even when you feel you have been wrongly accused or even slandered. I am aware that most people are prone to think they are entirely or largely right and others entirely or largely wrong, when the absurd truth is that many adversaries of each other can often be both right and wrong in ways neither clearly discerns or suspects — and the disputes we must most involve ourselves in are very often not those that are or can be most openly and overtly dealt with. I still support your admin nomination, and though I can perceive you might have been mistaken in the past in regard to some things, I believe others were probably more mistaken in regard to others, and I hope that eventually much more forgiveness can be found among all the disputants. May your good fortunes here and elsewhere increase, with the passages of Time. ~ Kalki·· 02:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous publications[edit]

I noticed that, in organizing people articles with chronological sections, you have been using the heading "Attributed from posthumous publications" for attributions in works by others. The term posthumous publication generally refers to works written by the author but not published in his lifetime, e.g. unfinished manuscripts, letters, journals, and such. For things that are not "works of the author" per se, I am not sure this is the best heading. I think that when an attribution identifies the date of origin it can be placed in the main chronology, and when it does not then it is probably sufficient to simply label the section "Attributed". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ningauble, earlier discussion started here on my talk page at Bertrand Russell ("1970s"). In short: it is a phrase Daniel and I decided on following the example of the Albert Einstein article, which has section called: "Attributed from memory and posthumous publications". If you want to propose some changes here, it seems like a good idea to move this discussion to a more public place. -- Mdd (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Bertrand Russell page, an "Attributed" section would be fine for quotes such as those from My Father — Bertrand Russell (written by his daughter, "from memory"), but it is not, I think, good enough for books such as The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell (1983-2005), i.e., compilations of the author's work published after his death. I don't know what the best solution to this problem is. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Daniel, is something like this an acceptable solution? -- Mdd (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those really are "attributed" to the author. The problem, however, is that "Attributed" is not the right word to use for anthologies, at least to my understanding. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky‎[edit]

Awesome work on this page, which has needed attention for quite some time. I just have one comment on your work - the way you have presented the sources (in small text) is not something I would advise. It tends to diminish the importance of sources, which is never something we want to encourage. That is why our templates do not use this format (for some similar discussion, see here where one of the items discussed is the use of small text for citations). I would recommend changing these back to full size. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks UDScott, I was planning on doing something about that small text and I will. -- Mdd (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies - I didn't pay close enough attention - I thought you had added the small text. I'll leave you to it. Thanks again. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I just closed your RfA and promoted you to administrator. Congrats, and try not to delete everything in celebration. :) EVula // talk // // 22:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for volunteering to help with the janitorial work. Feel free to ask me or anyone at WQ:AN if you have questions about the mop & bucket. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you both. -- Mdd (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome aboard! ~ UDScott (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hope to put my mob and bucket to good use here. -- Mdd (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. You have clearly already been a worthy worker here — and I am glad you have been officially recognized as such. ~ Kalki·· 14:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me also - cheers! BD2412 T 16:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also thanks you both, glad to be aboard. -- Mdd (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted user-talk page[edit]

Thank you for your contributions around the project. You deleted the page User talk:Ort43v, which was written by someone and I had never visited. But I wonder what was there. It doesn't seem to be just testing but seems something for me. Would you check it out? --Ort43v (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ort43v, I removed a message of myself where I suggested to remove your userpage experiments, such as also happened on wiktionary (based on their WT:CFI: contributions first, then a user page). But after I noticed your Meta experiment I decided to give you a change. -- Mdd (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mdd. It might have been clearer to use speedy deletion case #G4 "Author request" with a comment about retracting your own post, rather than using "Test page", which is normally used under case #G1 "Nonsense" or #A1 "no content". (By the way, I don't see "contributions first..." at WT:CFI, but the idea has some merit.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ningauble, I will keep this in mind. And, it indeed seems SemperBlotto made a judgment call on WT (as well). -- Mdd (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schumacher[edit]

Haha, good job completely and utterly confusing me with the restoration of Michael Schumacher. I'd deleted the interwikis and accidentally clicked it in one of my non-en contrib pages, and was confused as to why it was still there. :) EVula // talk // // 22:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. In the last minute I decided this article should be cleaned and not deleted. I will work on it. -- Mdd (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I had to undo my edits on the dozen different language editions of the article, but that's hardly the end of the world (and not terribly difficult); the guy definitely seems notable, so if that's the price I have to pay for us to have a decent page, so be it. :) EVula // talk // // 22:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mdd. Why delete a harmless page? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It have asked myself the same question, and decided to removed this userpage anyway because that one edit seems like a test edit. If this user has more intentions. we will find out soon enough. -- Mdd (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea to check if the user contributes to other projects before deleting his page here. User:Chongkian, in this case, has a similar User page on Wikipedia, and that's why I wouldn't delete his page here. I think that, when in doubt, it's better to keep harmless user pages, rather than deleting them, so as to not drive away potential contributors. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already noticed and restored the userpage. I fully agree with your last argument, and will check next time. -- Mdd (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

''Persona 4: The Animation''[edit]

''Persona 4: The Animation'' has been listed at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/''Persona 4: The Animation''. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this notification. I apparently missed something, when I removed the db nomination, earlier. -- Mdd (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Nasheed[edit]

Thanks for being a "good" person. :-) DanielTom (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this person seems quite notable, and since there were quotes available on the Wikipedia article, this was a small effort. -- Mdd (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Fischman[edit]

Hola, Mdd! Thank you so much for your additions to David Fischman, I'm new at this, the language used in wikiquote is kinda complicated soon I'll get used to, and will improve my contributions. —This unsigned comment is by Sonqo Munan (talkcontribs) .

Edit summary[edit]

I think it's a bit misleading to call [1] a "correction". You changed one valid link to another valid link. 121a0012 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if a (new) article is available on Wikiquote, the link to the Wikipedia article should be replaced by a direct link to that (new) article. Don't you agree? -- Mdd (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but something like "local links" would be a much more informative edit summary in situations like this. "Correction" is misleading because the previous links were not erroneous. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Darling, a true lady..."[edit]

Hi Mdd. Your decision to delete that page was, of course, correct, but could you tell me which user/IP created it? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was IP: -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On deleting pages[edit]

Good job admining, by the way. You don't give the other admins much to do :-) Just one thing: I think it's better not to show the content of deleted pages created by bots/that only contain spam links; it's important to show the deleted content when deleting a page, but only when the article is potentially meaningful. (Just my opinion.) Okay, take care. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, about 40 to 50% of the pages I have deleted are spambot pages. Most of them start with a normal (fake) text, and are identified as linkspam because of the link it contained. Now the deletion of those pages are listed (temporary) in the recent changes log and (permanent) in the deletion log. Because of transparency, I prefer that (most of) the deleted content is shown on both, so that other users can see what has been deleted. -- Mdd (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and welcome back. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to you! I trust you had a fun wikibreak ;-) DanielTom (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rusbridger proposed for deletion[edit]

I have added a "{{Prod}}" template to the article Alan Rusbridger. If you think it needs to be discussed we can take it to Votes for deletion but, unless material with more quotability is provided, I don't think there is anything to it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


for your help at Meta. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need a coach couch. :) DanielTom (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note.[edit]

Cirt and Daniel Tom are under an interaction ban, for at least the next several months. Please don't ask either of them to comment on requests by the other. I'll take care of the request. BD2412 T 12:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving this. I do like to note, that regardless of the person I have expressed my concerns about this practice earlier here, and the block was not in line with this commitment. -- Mdd (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd characterize that comment as a "commitment", but I consider this matter to be resolved and closed. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prvoslav Vujčić[edit]

I de-PRODded this article. Excuse my inexperience, but I can't see that "No quotes by the subject" is grounds for deletion. It seems quite in order to have articles of quotes about someone. Please shout if you disagree.--Abramsky (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no quotes of the person, the person (seems to) lack(s) quotability. Adding the prod-tag is a way to give the persons involved a week to add at least one quote. Since you removed the PROD tag, I added a VFD tag. -- Mdd (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log[edit]

I undid your page move at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Water Street. Please review the way closed discussions are logged at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log. Feel free to ask me if it is not clear how it works. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I didn't close it properly, but afterwards (today) I moved it twice. You now moved it back once (to Wikiquote:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Water Street), which doesn't seem correct either. -- Mdd (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My initial move was a goof, which I subsequently corrected. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be deleted as well? And this? And this? One way or an other there seems to be multiple links to the page, see here, which shouldn't be there. -- Mdd (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Between the two of us, we made quite a mess. I will go ahead and clean them up. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, it seems you succeeded. -- Mdd (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more advanced solution for spambots[edit]

Regarding the following comment about spammers that you redacted as off-topic:[2]

Ok, you are asking how we would like to generally treat these circumstances? Let me tell you that I would prefer not to block at all, but I would prefer more advanced solution if possible against these spambots. -- Mdd (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not really off-topic: it would be very desirable to avoid wasting so much time manually deleting this junk.

One tool that could prevent this type of spam from being posted in the first place is the Abuse Filter. Unfortunately, the pattern of spam varies enough that it is difficult to design an effective filter unless the definition of prohibited edits is quite broad. E.g., if we adopt a policy that new or unregistered users may not post any external links in their user pages then it would be easy for the Abuse Filter to enforce it, but I am not sure the community would agree to such a strong restriction. (There are perfectly good reasons to post external links, e.g. to cite a quotation.)

Designing a more flexible filter is a technically challenging task. There is a whole community of people at Wikipedia who work on developing and maintaining filters but we do not have any experts here at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. My text was off topic that it didn't respond to the topic that "our blocking policy does not reflect" the practice of direct blocking. Now I agree that it was not really off-topic, and it would indeed "be very desirable to avoid wasting so much time manually deleting this junk".
As to the solutions your proposing. I have no experience with those Abuse Filters, and I understand there are no experts here on Wikiquote, What I do understand is, or better, what I keep wondering, if this is a concern of the Wikimedia Foundation? And if they have plans to deal with this in all Wikimedia projects?
Als it might be interesting to tell, that on the other Wiki I moderate [3], we successfully solved this problem 1.5 years ago. There was a similar pattern of spambots attacks, up to 5 to 20 each day. I postulated, that those usernames were most likely created automatically. So we added another filter to the username creation process, and it worked. No more spambots ever since... However, I don't think we can use the remedy here.
An other solution I have been think about is to reduce the time to "...manually deleting this junk". We could create a tool, that with one comment would block the new user, and remove all it's edits. However, again I don't know how. -- Mdd (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be easy to block via filter posts that include "<br><br>Also visit my"... (or something to that effect). ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ![edit]

Thanks for the welcome message.

What is Template:Defaultsort ? I saw that you just filled it in on Witter Bynner; is this a necessary indexing of new pages ?

Thank you :) Aphorist (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aphorist you're welcome. That template sorts the articles in categories, and is required for all biographical articles. For example: With that template the "Witter Bynner" article is added under "B" in the Category:American poets, otherwise it ends up under "W". -- Mdd (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Aphorist (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how does page deletion work around here ? I found the page Smartbomb and I don't think it really belongs. Aphorist (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is info at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. Now I noticed the article was missing the context, which is now added. I am not convinced you should proceed, because the subject is to be considered quotable, see also Wikiquote:Quotability. -- Mdd (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your formatting help[edit]

Thanks much for your recent formatting help on a slew of pages I'd previously created and sourced from scratch.

I was just curious, I don't think there is any Wikiquote policy that says Further reading sections are outright banned on Wikiquote, and I personally feel they could only be helpful and informative for the reader or researcher who is looking for more information.

What are your thoughts on retaining them?

Thank you for your interest,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt, I gave this some second thoughts myself today. First of all there are no absolute rules on Wikipedia or Wikiquote, so if you want to restore it, just go ahead. Now it is just the status quo, that Wikiquote article are standard without further reading section. These sections were only in about 30 articles (which I all removed today). The main reason to removed these sections was just assistance in upholding the Wikiquote standards and status quo.
Now I am well aware that these sections can be informative, such as long introductions can also be informative. On the other hand, they can also be considered a distraction. Those long introductions and further reading sections are most of the time already present at the Wikipedia article, or can be moved there. This is something I very much prefer: Wikiquote should focus on quotes.
Now there is a similarity with the external link sections on Wikiquote. They should also focus on sources, that offer more quotes. If any particular source is indeed interesting for Wikiquote, you could always extract quotes from that source and add it in the format of the article. -- Mdd (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intro I can understand your objections. But the other 2 sects are at the bottom of the article. The reader presumably has already read the quotes sects. I don't see the harm in having more info. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mdd had it right with the edit summary "this is not Wikipedia". The reader or researcher who is looking for more information can turn to Wikipedia, and linking to our sister project is a Good Thing™. Wikiquote's purpose is to collect notable quotations, some of which are organized by subject; but it is not within Wikiquote's remit to provide other information or resources related to those subjects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but neither does it harm anyone or cause the end of the world to have a few suggestions for further reading. Everything in moderation, no need for extremists, either way. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremists"? I invite you to reconsider your characterization of those with whom you disagree. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You assume too much, and you mischaracterize my words, I am not saying anyone is, I am saying there is no need for anyone to be so, and I hope you would agree with me that moderation is best. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at compromise and gesture of good faith[edit]

I've tried to show you an outreach of a measure of good faith.

I see what you are saying about not being Wikipedia.

We can rely upon Wikipedia for extensive further reading lists, and therefore just provide some key valuable select few recommendations here, as well.

With that in mind, I've tried to come to an attempt at compromise with you.

I've added back some further reading sects, but I've also greatly trimmed down the size of those sects.

Thank you very much for your polite demeanor and kind tone of speech during this communication process, I really appreciate it.

I hope this is satisfactory to you,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I already suggested you can make an exception to the rule. If you think, the general reading section should be allowed in general, the Village pump might be the place to further discuss this. -- Mdd (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well I'm glad we could come to an amicable resolution to all this. I think a better place for future discussion might be some place where there is (or isn't) a policy proposal discussing unified page formatting, where perhaps we could for example also talk about getting rid of things like arbitrary and capricious use of bolding. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mdd that this should be discussed at the Village Pump, and have started a discussion of "Further reading" sections there. I don't quite agree with Cirt that this should be treated as a matter of page formatting. It is really a matter of the type of content rather the format in which it is displayed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I see the community consensus on this issue is with you. Yes check.svgY Done, I have removed all sects in question from those named pages. Hopefully this is now satisfactory to you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced quotes[edit]

hi :)

i have "location numbers" for the quotes i added (from the ebooks i saved them from), but is it worth sourcing them using those? is that enough of a way of confirmation to keep the quotes on the page, or not good enough? i didn't find too much discussion about citing ebooks but there's this.. so maybe?

Buckwheatloaf (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help[edit]

Thanks for your help at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Auto_spambot_detection_with_User:Abuse_filter.

Ningauble has a good idea there, can you please start a new thread to help us out and hopefully move things forward? -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I'll try to remember not to copy/paste stuff to your talk page in the future.

Have a great day! :)

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome! I hope you're doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for deletion[edit]

Hi Mdd, since the deadline for discussion has passed, could you close this discussion? BD2412 pointed me to you because you were not involved in the discussion. I must mention that there is a degree of urgency because the deletion of Brimstone's Commons pictures depends on whether there are articles to support the need for the pictures, and the WikiQuote article is the last to host the pictures. Due to the urgency, I have also reached out to Abramsky. Thank you very much. Starship.paint (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt actions! Starship.paint (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I already left this message before. Can you or another admin please protect my talk page. It is being met with vandalism again and I don't want to consistently revert the gibberish.

Additionally, please protect or semi-protect the following articles as they are being met with vandalism once again:

I would suggest heavy protection. I reverted them to before the vandalism began, but I would highly recommend that they be protected from all new users as most of the vandalism is being done by the same sockpuppets from prior. Reverting the edits only triggers more activity from this sockpuppeteer. I would suggest a checkuser again for all the most recent accounts that have vandalised these articles and my talk page as they are all likely one and the same. Please notify me when the protection has been made. Thanks in advance. - Zarbon (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


To block User:Tell me about it! ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just got back. -- Mdd (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Vandalism[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to thank you for noticing the recent vandalism that my talk page has been met with. Additionally, I would like to inform you that this is more than likely the same user that has been impersonating numerous members of this community including myself. I would highly recommend performing checkuser on all newly created accounts in order to ensure that this form of behavior comes to a halt. I can confirm with my personal experience that this user has created a substantial amount of accounts ranging in the high hundreds if not thousands and many of them are easily just an attempt to infuriate specific users or simply vandalize pre-existing material on this wiki and its sister projects. - Zarbon (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odissi dance[edit]

I am in the process of adding quotes. The prod is still there. What is the exact objection, So that I can make changes.--Nvvchar (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The objection was just that "there were no quotes". After quotes are added, the template can be removed. -- Mdd (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: If a new lemma is created without quotes, this lemma can be speedy-deleted, and the lemma is gone. Adding a prod-template instead gives the author more time to add quotes. You can avoid this template being added, by starting a lemma with at least one or more quote. -- Mdd (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion[edit]

How are some of my articles, are they well written and really benefiting Wikiquote? Are my contributions benefiting Wikiquote? Thanks! --~~Goldenburg111 21:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just fine. Just learn how other editors further improve your work, and it will get even better. -- Mdd (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mdd! I have been recently watching User:DanielTom's contributions. --~~Goldenburg111 00:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for removing the vandalism on my talk page.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too for your recent vandalism reversion. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you both. -- Mdd (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative tip[edit]

Aren't you supposed to block users with inappropriate names? I have been going through the block log. --~~Goldenburg111 00:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. -- Mdd (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete Talking help battle bucker hill texts and it's talk page. BTW, keep up with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion --~~Goldenburg111 18:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Magic word, Golden, you forgot the magical word! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please and thank you. I have been battling my Simple Wikipedia ban. --~~Goldenburg111 13:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You may want to block another Dragon Ball sock/vandal impersonating as Zarbon. [4] Thanks, DanielTom (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. -- Mdd (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I've been wondering: are you, or other admins, automatically notified when someone posts at the Admins' noticeboard? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, however under the user Preferences/User profile/Email options, you can choose "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed", and you can put the Admins' noticeboard on your watchlist. -- Mdd (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ping again[edit]

Talk item moved to Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ongoing_vandalism_in_the_past_weeks. -- Mdd (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Mdd. Since your an administrator and usually work on adding quotes to Wikiquote pages. Would you like to join Wikiquote:WikiProject Weekly Cleanup? If you don't need a welcome, just say so. --~~Goldenburg111 19:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely welcome the initiative, and did started some cleanup when I was more active here. Mdd (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I am very annoyed of how we don't have a sufficient amount of sysops here. Yet, I am not saying I should be admin (since I am currently banned on a project for being to much work to the admins their). But I am saying is we need more admins. To be honest, Kalki should have succeeded in his 3rd request for adminship. Now, we are waiting for around 5 hours until an administrator come over here and cleans the mess. Maybe even 10 hours if the night time gets the best of them. --~~Goldenburg111 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am sorry about that. Accepting the global sysops on this project, as suggested in the Wikiquote:Village pump, might be a solution. -- Mdd (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Global Sysops usually don't help out at the right time. --~~Goldenburg111 00:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit here![edit]

meta:User:Goldenburg111/Reports/Wikiquote Vandalism Statics, I would suggest you help out and update this place :) --~~Goldenburg111 22:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block logs are already automatically created, and can be publically accessed (see for example here). -- Mdd (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. But I usually like to show block logs individually for each vandal. --~~Goldenburg111 22:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange to reflect on this matter especially on another Wikiproject, and it might give a wrong signal. There is an ongoing discussion about this on the Wikiquote:Administrators noticeboard, where you are welcome to (further) participate. -- Mdd (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I understand that this is your final reply) Meta's scope is to type out pages or documents about the Wikimedia Project. I, in my opinion, is pretty fair. I asked an expert in the Wiki field if the report is appropriate. --~~Goldenburg111 22:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball vandal[edit]

Hi Mdd, any recent sight of our friend? (who is surely reading me o/~ ) --Vituzzu (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for your work here, much appreciated, and do you have a family member here at Wikiquote? ;) --~~Goldenburg111 21:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hi there, Mdd !

Thank you for your contributions helping out with the Main Page.

Please see Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/February 23, 2014 -- I left a note about trimming superfluous images as it seems most of the community is against superfluous and irrelevant images both on the Main Page and on quote pages themselves.

I hope you are well,

-- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your participation at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Images_make_mobile_site_UNREADABLE, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


While I was gone at the end of February, how was the vandalism? Was it increasing? --~~Goldenburg111 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mdd, you can block EmilMeiners as well if you'd like. It belongs to a group of spambots including OLYMaggierffli. I've blocked their IP address globally to prevent more spambots from being created. Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svgY Done Mdd (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism (ping)[edit]

Mdd for the rescue? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. Okay, vandal blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi Mdd, can you please update the mediatext recent changes board? I have X mark.svgN Not Done all the bot requests that were left out for more than a year, and have declined mine and another request for bot. Thanks! :-) --~~Goldenburg111 23:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the text on top of the Special:RecentChanges page, administrators cannot change that text as far a I know. - Mdd (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
actually, UDScott changes it... --~~Goldenburg111 00:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 26 March 2014[edit]

I posted this at the notice board and immediately had to take care of other things — but am briefly back and I saw you recently active — so I am posting it here also:

I did fall behind in this one — I was juggling various ideas for several quotes for days, and I actually spent a few hours seeking at the commons, good images I might use with the "early leaf a flower" of golden hues, of which Frost speaks in the QOTD selected (among other ideas), and didn'tt find quite what I was looking for, but the best I could come up with seems okay, and is presented at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/March 26, 2014, but it needs to be moved to Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 26, 2014. ~ Kalki·· 00:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mdd! I've locked this account because that's a crosswiki spam(made on 555 wikis as you noticed). There were a few sockpuppets made in order to promote this photographer via Wikipedia (555 mainspace articles made via automatic translators, thousands of useless wikilink), unfortunately some of his pictures were the "picklock" of all this spam. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, but I think I don't fully understand, considering there is an Augusto De Luca article, and even a Wikipedia entry. Is there some kind of discussion about this? User:Wim b's argument "crosswiki spam (see user's CA)" [5] doesn't ring a bell either. -- Mdd (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can see also this discussion for more infos--Wim b 00:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, which indicates that this is no ordinary spam. Now it seems to me, that:
  • If in this situation there would be a CheckUser report, proving that the userpage is created by a sockpuppeteer, then this is sufficient reason to speedy delete the page.
  • A global lock alone, doesn't seem like sufficient reason to remove the userpage info
Personally, I think we should not tolerate this kind of practice, but I think it is up to the local community here to decide (in a RfD). -- Mdd (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't open any report because there are too many realnames involved, but, speaking frankly that would a good example for any article about duck test ;)
Dealing with Wikipedia we must admin we are defenceless towards this kind of highly structured promotion: every wikiproject says "...but it's on hundreds of wikis!" then... it's like a dog chasing its own tail.
--Vituzzu (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I started a proposed deletion so that community can participate here. -- Mdd (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it? --~~Goldenburg111 20:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At User:Augusto De Luca. -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WQ:PROD is not a process for community participation, it is for routine deletions that neeed no discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, that the community is given the (first) possibility to participate here (by removing the prod nom, or let it be). -- Mdd (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the prod nomination is removed, a VfD is started, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope en.wikiquote won't be reached by more SEOers, otherwise you'll waste some 30 hours a day in discussing about how to deal with spam ;)
--Vituzzu (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the editorial changes to this and the Parable article. I hope the imgs I fitted are in order. I intend starting an article on Egalitarian; can quotes of Egalitarianism be added to this.--Nvvchar (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not name the article "Egalitarianism" similar to the Wikipedia article? -- Mdd (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wafa Sultan[edit]

Greetings Mdd. Is this page correctly formatted and cleaned up? I also saw this. So I cleaned up the page by removing the references and adding the interview section under the quotes section. Cheers! --~ Goldenburg111 13:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goldenburg111, before I restored the article I checked online possible (reliable) source of the existing quotes, and these are now added to the article. Cleaning up articles often requires going back to the (online) source or finding more reliable alternative sources. -- Mdd (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! --~ Goldenburg111 21:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Mdd, following a request by a SWMT member, I performed a 6 hour rangeblock on as no administrator appeared to be active at the time. I notice that shortly after you performed a 1 month on a single ip in the range I blocked. The IPs belong to the Mesa School District, and appear to have multiple IPs assigned to a single lab, so I don't think it's very useful to extend the block on a single IP. If you think it worthwhile to extend the block for a month, I'd do it on the rangeblock itself, even if only for ease of tracking. Kind regards, Snowolf How can I help? 16:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that while I was writing this post, you blocked two additional IPs in that range. Again, I don't think it makes much sense to go around wacking ips when it's just a /27... Snowolf How can I help? 16:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am afraid I am not familiar with a range block, and its effect. I just blocked the three ip addresses, that actually have been used. -- Mdd (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RANGE and technical details at Meta linked from there. This mechanism is particularly useful in cases, like this one, when the range is known to be associated with a particular site or organization. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page[edit]

Hello Mdd, since I see you are currently editing Wikiquote, I am wondering if you wouldn't mind removing the interwiki links from the Main Page. The links are currently being served from this page on Wikidata and having those still on the Main Page are overwriting Wikidata and making it ineffective. Just asking :) - Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svgY Done Mdd (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The System of the World in Four Dialogues[edit]

Please stop reverting and moving without discussion. The System of the World in Four Dialogue is one specific translation of Galileo's work. I started this article to provide an alternative to having various translations of his work on one page. Other various translations can still be found under the Galileo article. Stilman Drake's (among others) translations are not included in the "System of the World in Four Dialogues" page. Please let me continue to develop this article independently of other translations.

—This unsigned comment is by ELApro (talkcontribs) . - 19:44, 11 April 2014‎

The move has been explained one hour ago at Talk:Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. -- Mdd (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This was a mistake. --Glaisher (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know and already undone the block. -- Mdd (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Glaisher (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You have raised a technical issue in my creating the articles starting with a redlink in the main space, and after completing it listing it on my user page. I have been following this procedure for the last nearly four months but nobody pointed this as a wrong procedure earlier. Is your objection to my creating articles and expanding stub articles or is it on the procedural aspect? Pl clarify. In case the procedure is to corrected let me know the correct procedure. I am not comfortable with the sandbox procedure.--Nvvchar (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mdd, thanks for the clarification. Can I start the article first with a redlink in my user page, and after it is substantially expanded transfer it to the main page? In the case of creating articles in sandbox I had problems with transferring it to main space in wikipedia and had to seek help of an Admn to do the transfer. Also, my other collaborators in Wikipedia wanted their contributions retained in the main article. Hence we discontinued creating articles in sandbox page. Hence my preference is to create with a redlink from my user page. Incidentally, do you have any objection to my adding quotes to the stub or other articles created by you? --Nvvchar (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mdd for posting on the main page. Too tired now, late night. I may add more tomarrow and also improve links.--Nvvchar (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do with pages like these?[edit]

In two pages a few weeks ago, I tagged speedy deletion for pages with only unsourced quotes, you just decline them. And so I don't mean to be a hazard here, can you show me the appropriate action to do to pages like this? This would really help me and you. Thanks. --~ Goldenburg111 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the first thing you could do is, to check if the quote is listed in secondary sources. If so, you could clean-up/improve the article. I not you could Prod the article. -- Mdd (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! --~ Goldenburg111 20:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced quotes[edit]

Hello. I have a question regarding this edit. The quotes you removed are 'disputed' (i.e., possible fakes); but, strictly speaking, they are not 'unsourced'. Omnipaedista (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing at the Mark Twain article, and it is on my "To-Do list" to review cited attributions for restoration back into article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be complicated. I agree this section needs to be reviewed, and some action needs to be taken, before adding back (partly). I also noticed this seems to be the last part of the article, which needed cleanup. If I am not mistaken about that, the cleanup template on top of the article could be removed (after 7.5 years). -- Mdd (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one more thing: As far as the quotes are properly sourced, I think, they could be added back. But it seems more than half of it lack any source, so adding the whole section back is not an option. -- Mdd (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the last two comments. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cited in..."[edit]

Regarding this edit, and several other articles you worked on at the same time:  Thank you for researching sources to rescue articles that were {{Prod}}, but please use more precision when saying something is "cited in" a source.

If your source just gives an attribution without citation then it is misleading to say the quote is cited therein. I know that in some languages "cite" means "quote", and some imprecise English usages treat them as synonymous; but in proper English usage, and especially here at Wikiquote, "to cite" means to identify a source. When you are citing an unsourced attribution it is better to say "Attributed in".

On the other hand, if your source does cite a prior source, it would be better to state the source cited rather than just say there is a citation. That way it is easier for readers to judge the quality of the citation, and for contributors to verify and update the underlying citation.

Your efforts to de-prod several articles in recent days are appreciated, but the way you cited secondary sources and attributions has created a lot of work for people to clean up. I worked on the Gene Fowler article today, but I do not know when I may have time to work on the rest of them. I would be grateful if you could revisit the others to clarify the "Cited in..." descriptions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take this into consideration. I must add that I will be taken a (planned) Wikibreak the next two weeks, and this might take some time. -- Mdd (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some adjustments have been made (see [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). -- Mdd (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your precious help and guidance. Yours faithfully --محمد بوعلام عصامي (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You could reconsider adding Category:User ar to your userpage, if you like. -- Mdd (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Mdd - I just created a new page for Charles Krauthammer, then realized I was not logged in. Any way to correct this? Thanks, CononOfSamos (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed, because of your previous question to Kalki about this subject. If you have a backup of your first version I could delete the article (on author's request), and then you can recreate the article and again I can add the edits I made? There is however no problem with any anom creating an article, but if you like the article creation to appear in your contribution history, I can understand. -- Mdd (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mdd - if you can delete the page, I will recreate it. I have just made a copy of the text, including the quotes you added. Thanks, CononOfSamos (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you recreate the article, please only add your first draft, which you can find here. Please confirm. -- Mdd (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. As soon as I save this reply, I will do so. Thanks again, CononOfSamos (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is, I'll re-create it as soon as it is deleted. CononOfSamos (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. CononOfSamos (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and done as well. -- Mdd (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Questions[edit]

Mdd - I just added another quote to the Charles Krauthammer page. This one is sourced to a segment on Fox News: Special Report from February 12, 2014. I have documented this quote with a link to, using the same sort of reference text that I've been using for quotes from syndicated columns at Could you look at this entry when/if you have a moment to spare (I know you are quite busy) and tell me if you think this is a reasonable approach? Is there any established policy for documenting this type of video clip? If so, can you tell me where this policy is? While I'm at it, I was thinking of removing "Charles Krauthammer" from the descriptions of these links - it seems like a waste of storage to keep repeating what ought to be obvious. Finally, I'm trying to keep all quotes from a book (or books) grouped together, rather than try to strictly adhere to a chronological order: at some point I think it might also be worthwhile to group together all quotes from syndicated columns, as opposed to quotes from interviews etc.: this sort of issue also comes up with other political commentators, such as George Will. Again, I would appreciate your input/opinion on this if you care to give it. BTW, thank you for the assistance you have already given me - much appreciated. CononOfSamos (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is a reasonable approach. Personally, I would add some more data, and would cited as follows:
  • Remember how Democrats were complaining that Republicans were trying to overturn Obamacare, it was somehow unpatriotic, because it was an attack on the law of the land. This law of the land doesn’t even exist. It exists in Obama’s head. It’s whatever he thinks. He wakes up in the morning and decides what the law is gonna be.
As to removing "Charles Krauthammer" from the descriptions, that is acceptable most of the time, but not necessary.
As to grouping quotes, personally I think quotes can be grouped together if there are three or more quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing about the idea of grouping "all quotes from syndicated columns, as opposed to quotes from interviews etc." The prevailing idea about grouping quotes is to use simple (uncomplicated), clear and objective criteria. This particular idea seems too specific. Personally, I would add a subdivision in the current Charles Krauthammer article, adding the subchapters: 1990s, 2000s, 2010s. But to some extend this is a matter of personal preferences. -- Mdd (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muma Gee[edit]

Hello Mdd, I see you do edit in Dutch, and I'm still not excellent in dutch. please can you help with translation? Stanleytux (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what would you like to have translated? Mdd (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a dutch version for Muma Gee for wikiquote nl readers. Stanleytux (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, those translations regularly don't last, especially if the person has no impact on the specific country. -- Mdd (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's Ok Mdd. Thanks for your help so far. Stanleytux (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hitchens[edit]

Hi Mdd: you're good at clean-up, maybe you could look at this page? (I almost feel bad for asking – it's just an absolute nightmare.) It will probably take months just to sort out the quotes chronologically. Maybe a sub-page should be created in which we could order the quotes, and once we're finished, we could copy/paste the results into the main article. What do you think? DanielTom (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made you a start, but there is lot of work to be done, especially where there is just partial source info is available. -- Mdd (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the section God Is Not Great‎ (about 20k) is moved to a separate article... which is now rearranged and further cleanup. -- Mdd (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)/ 13:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is left to clean-up is about 20 to 40 wiki-links, which need reconstructing (and some additional rearrangement). It's not as disastrous as the Noam Chomsky, which has 230 links, but still hours of work. -- Mdd (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work. I'm unfortunately too busy to join in your efforts for now, but will work on it when I have the time. (You're right, the Noam Chomsky page is an even bigger nighmare.) Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Pond[edit]

Amy Pond has been listed at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Amy Pond. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Yes check.svgY Done. -- Mdd (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links removed[edit]

Hello Mdd. I noticed that you recently added some external links to You may not be aware that this website is a personal project of User:FotoDutch, formerly known as User:Benfo-Dutch. There has been a history of sockpuppetry and self promotion involving links to this site[18], which has been blacklisted on multiple wikis[19]. Therefore, I have removed those links to a contributor's personal project from articles to which you added or re-added them. If you think this may be a debatable action, please discuss it before adding them again. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are added, because I think they offer an interesting added value to the Wikiquote lemma's. -- Mdd (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Great work creating so many new pages for leading economists! ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DanielTom. -- Mdd (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I particularly like the quote by John Hicks: "It was from Hayek that I began." ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's indeed fascinating to experience which economist build on the works of what other economists. On the other hand, the quote itself made me realize the context was missing, and added some context. I hope you don't mind, this is no longer a one liner. -- Mdd (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please check Delacroix[edit]


I attributed to Delacroix I wanted to make a division between the young and the older Delacroix. So I made a division in 1815 - 1830 (year if his Liberty painting) and: 1831 - 1863.

So I divided also the quotes of The Journal of Eugene Delacroix : A Selection (1980) edited by Hubert Wellington, translated by Lucy Norton Did I do it right?? Can you cheque, please?

—This unsigned comment is by FotoDutch (talkcontribs) . 19:05, June 16, 2014‎

Hi FotoDutch, again thanks for your work on these articles. I noticed the dates of the quotes are (almost) all known. In this situation all quotes can be arranged by decennia with specific images from that time. When you will do so, I guess sort of automatically a division will occur in the young and old Delacroix... and it might be easier for all to comprehend. -- Mdd (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, I confused GNP with GDP. Thanks for creating a new article on GDP.--Nvvchar (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess I would have to thank you for collecting those quotes about the GNP in the first place. When I started the article yesterday I didn't (yet) think about searching Wikiquote for GNP. Form me this is another example of constructive cooperation. -- Mdd (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Sources[edit]

Hello. Regarding the Jane Roberts article. How is the material you moved do the talk page not sourced? The names of the books were listed as heading titles. The "Early Sessions" were published in 1996 and after, I think. I left more details in the talk page if you need them. OlduvaiGeorge (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal[edit]

IP probably needs to be blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and done. -- Mdd (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Wikicommons and Wikipedia[edit]

An issue which needs to be addressed is of using images from Wikipedia articles in Wikiquote. Since it is a sister site all images used in Wikipedia, irrespective of their license status, should be ipso facto made adaptable to wikiquote. Particularly, we face problems in using images such as this [20] in Wikiquote. Because of this problem many biographical articles are without images. Similarly double or triple images format should be adopted in Wikiquote also.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The clue here is that the English Wikipedia to a certain extend has accepted the use of non-free images (see also here), and Wikiquote has not. The idea behind it is, that Wikipedia primarily offers encyclopedic information and offering images that illustrates those matters is part of the core business. Wikiquote is primarily about offering (textual) quotes, and they are already collected under fair use conditions. Offering images is not the core business.
You are right that as a consequence, many biographical articles are without images. Now I am not sure what you mean with your latest remark... "double or triple images format should be adopted"...? Can you give me an example? -- Mdd (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your explanation. I suppose nothing else can be done in such matters. As regards the multiple img format please see the example here [21] in a vertical format. I tried this format in wikiquote but was not successful.--Nvvchar (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just a question of importing a template from WP, but I doubt that it is worth the effort.--Abramsky (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Watkins[edit]

Susan Watkins is an author, and has a number of books to her credit, but if you think she fails to meet the notability requirements, then I will not contest it. Thank you again for your attention and assistance. OlduvaiGeorge (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I found these works, and a rather famous quote, so I removed the prod nomination and added some more data. -- Mdd (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks again for your help. I have trimmed down a number of the Jane robert quotes to meet requirements as well. You may want to check it to make sure length requirements are being met. OlduvaiGeorge (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


It is stub class anymore? OccultZone (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is the question? -- Mdd (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant, is it still a "stub"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, indeed in an article with 7 or 8 quotes you can think about removing the stub tag. There is no exact line. -- Mdd (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Honestly whenever any article exceeds 300 words on, I classify it as start. Here it was actually bigger. But yes, 7 quotes seems to be good idea. You've been around for longer period so there was any discussion about classifying articles? Or featured/stub are only 2 categories for now. OccultZone (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is some information at Wikiquote:Stub. --

Lena Hades[edit]

Dear MDD! I put the article about Lena Hades(sorry, it was not perfect!) because the article in the Wikiquote about Nietzsche has FOUR her paintings. And under these paintings there is no inscription with her name. It isn't fair, I think. I suppose we need or deleate her paintings from the article or create some new article about this painter. It would be logical, isn't it? Because she is a living author and her copy rights were violated...This is copy right violation. The images are of the author Lena Hades.I think we should or deleate these images from the article or put her name. Thank you for your great job and for your understanding!

Vika007 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


When Americans hear the word "science", they either immediately visualize people in white coats, or think of physics (equations on a chalkboard). Although in Dutch the word for "science" might not connote so narrow a definition, the fact that most people everywhere instinctively equate "science" with the "hard sciences" is an important mistake which one should keep in mind, independent of one's own language. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Although not relevant to the question of categorization itself, you might be interested in reading Sam Harris' take on this issue (he argues that there is no fundamental difference between science and philosophy): see [22], and [23] (under The meaning of "science"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One could also wonder if this is an English/American project or a global project in the English/American language? One way or another, the greater issue is if we want to leave (most) thematic articles uncategorized, or make some effort towards more specialized categorization. -- Mdd (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


May like to see for any addition or changes.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You might want to look at my comment.

New Year 2015 Greetings[edit]

Bali Omkara Red.png Wishing you a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello , New Year begins, let us pray that it will be a year with New Peace, New Happiness and abundance of new friends, God bless you through out the New Year.--Nvvchar (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back[edit]

Welcome back – it's good to have more admins around, to stop vandal attacks... Did you know, I visited Amsterdam a few months ago. Beautiful ancient city. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielTom:, I returned the favor and spend the Holidays in the Algarve last week. We stayed in Albufeira, and visited Faro, Lagos and Silves, Beautiful ancient cities. - Mdd (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global auto-block[edit]

Hello. My account was compromised during my absence. Can you indefinitely block my account globally to prevent damage to all sister wiki projects? Thanks for collaborating! --BScMScMD (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block 70Jack90[edit]

Would you do us all a favor and please block 70Jack90 for its false allegation against me?

Furthermore, it has been undoing all my highly-justified edits and constantly failed to comply with Wikiquote's limitations on quotes.
And now it has become the real sockpuppet, as its other account: 90Jack70, has proven.
And I request that all its false threats on its edit summaries (including that of its sockpuppet account) be removed immediately. WikiLubber (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela (and others)[edit]

Mdd, I wanted to use the occasion of your trimming some speeches to raise two points regarding WQ:LOQ: First, this has long remained in a state of being a proposed policy that has never officially been enacted. As such, I don't know that I would cite it as a reason for trimming (or settling content disputes). [I would rather see this topic reopened for discussion and perhaps agreement might finally be reached such that it could become official policy, even if changed from its current state.] Second, even if you were to accept the use of this proposed policy as a guide for the number of quotes allowed, it does state that speeches are allowed 5 quotes to be used (and you've trimmed some pages already beyond this number). In the end, while I am a supporter of the notion that too much is definitely a problem, the fact that this proposed policy has never yet been put into effect seems to me as reason enough to not begin a program of additional trimming based on it - at least until it is sorted out and made official - something I have requested on the Village pump on multiple occasions without garnering much interest. What do you think? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. In trimming down I have already admitted (see here) that I have trimmed down the text to about the right size. Three longer quotes can be replaced by three or four short quotes and one or two longer quotes. I think it would be nice if such selection would take into consideration the representation in secondary sources. -- Mdd (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you didn't really address my main points - you are citing a policy that does not officially exist (it is only proposed) and the proposed policy even allows for more quotes from a speech than you are allowing. I was hoping to re-start discussion regarding the proposed policy. In any case, unless there are obvious examples of overquoting (especially from TV shows, which tend to become quite bloated), I rarely cite that policy at all these days, since it is not official - and I would hate to get into a dispute with someone without official policy to support my arguments. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I first wanted to address the issue at hand. As to the issue of the proposed policy or not, I think, we first of all have to live up to the expectations and regulations of society. We have to uphold some kind of regulation, and the proposed policy is the best we could come up with ourselves.
When there was a discussion about this in the Village pump some time ago, I have thought about participating but I didn't, but now that you are asking: I then thought and still do, that if we are unable to come up with a suitable policy ourself, we should ask for external help and assistant in bringing this up to a higher standard. But this is just my 2 cents. -- Mdd (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malala Yousafzai wikiquotes[edit]

When you blocked Malala Yousafzai wikiquote page, you really upset me. I have an open mind, appreaciate constructive criticism and and prefer to solve problems by dialogue. But I don't like it being locked out without a chance to explain myself or to find a common solution . That's why your unilateral move to allow edits only by administrators really upset me.

Contrary to what you quoted at my talk page with respect to Wikiquote:Limits on quotations the quote limit for books doesn't apply. A nobel lecture is not book, but rather a speech. And there's a limit of five quotes for spoken-words like speeches. Accordingly I propose the following quotes (pictures not counted) for

Can please add the proposed material to the Malala Yousafzai wikiquote page? --P3Y229 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure on Wikipedia is, that if there is a suspicion of copyright-violation, a large template is added to the article, which only an expert can removed (which can take days or weeks). Protecting the article, first for one hour and now for 24 hours, is just an alternative approach to buy us some time to think this through.
Looking at it once more I counted that the original text of the Nobel Lecture is about 2228 words, and the three text proposals contained 1168, 622 and now 266 words. Afterwards, I think it is fair to suspect a possible copy-violation in the first two proposals. Also in the second proposal the text was gathered into 10 quotes, which exceeds the limit of 5 by 5.
All together, the third proposal (you added here) might be appropriate. Personally I have a problem with the complete text being bold and the white lines being removed from the original. On other occasions the limit of five quotes (in my perception) has been interpreted as 3 or 4 short lines, and 1 or 2 longer quotes. So in my perception the third proposal seems about the maximum allowed. The page protected exceeds this afternoon and than you can add the quotes yourself. -- Mdd (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) / 07:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Lists[edit]

Hi, following some links I stumbled upon your User:Mdd/Nobel Memorial Laureates in Economics. I wonder why such a thing is not in the mainspace. Is lists frowned upon here in Wikiquote? There is Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences but the scope seems to be Quotes about the award in general.

You seem to the person most involved in adding pages about academics here. I wonder if you will like to copy paste your user space list to the article and start the few remaining redlinks. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solomon7968, Wikiquote keeps up just a small number of lists, see Category:Lists. I thank you for your suggestions, but I am no fan of more lists beside the automated categories, such as Category:Nobel laureates in Economics. You are welcome to work on the remaining redlinks yourself. -- Mdd (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no worries. I will try to start some. But FWIW, I disagree with the current consensus about lists here. The Nobel Prizes should get an exception as the very top award. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added stuff from your user space to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. My main intention is to use w:WP:POPUPS but I am unsure how to activate it here. The Preferences settings described in enWP does not seem to apply here. Can you guide? Solomon7968 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thats is not my area of expertise. -- Mdd (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Henson[edit]

Hi there, Mdd, thank you for your rearrangements at the Jim Henson page.

Could you please reformat your changes with the field url=, instead of bracketing the hyperlinks the way you did, in the title field ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint, programming templates is not my thing. I did search for that command in the template info yesterday, but found all info was missing here on Wikiquote (and I couldn't find the original on Wikipedia either). If you would like other users to join here in programming those templates, it might be a good idea to start adding the required instruction here. -- Mdd (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The templates work the exact same way, could you please read more at w:WP:CITE and w:WP:CIT ? -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to the current state of the Template:Cite news lemma here. -- Mdd (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bram van Velde‎[edit]

Actually, I would agree with FotoDutch that the policy you applied in trimming the page is still only a proposed policy. Based on past discussions, I believe it is clear I support some limits, but the exact limits have always been in question. Rather than engage in an edit war, perhaps you could open a discussion with this user (and with a larger audience) on the appropriate limits on the number of quotes from a work. I would hate to see this devolve into a messy dispute. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already opened a discussion (see here), and I am all for further discussion. Yet in this situation where a (significant) copyright violation is suspected, the copyright violation should not be simply restored, based on that argument. In the past hundreds lemma's have been trimmed down as the Wikiquote:Copyright Cleanup Project shows. If Wikiquote is no longer prepared to act on suspected copyright violation, we can just as well close the whole thing down.
As to opening a community discussion, I have stipulated before, see #Nelson_Mandela_.28and_others.29 that I think Wikiquote should ask for external assistance in bringing this up to a higher standard. At the moment it is expected of a small group of users to set the standards, detect, uphold and correct them. This is no enduring situation. After the last community discussion which continued the ongoing impasse, I see little use in trying to restart that discussion. -- Mdd (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also requested feedback from other administrators, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - my only point was that rather than perpetuate an edit war, it would be better to discuss (and I did not revert your changes, as I agree that there seemed to be an overabundance of quotes from a single source). Too often I've seen editors just cite the policy (which is somehow still a draft policy) and not discuss further. My apologies if I stepped too hard on you - that was not my intent. I am not trying to advocate that we ignore blatant copyright violations - but the definition of such in some cases is not so clear (and using a draft policy as the only means to combat problems is in itself problematic). And by the way, I am also one of the small group of users trying to keep this site in a good way. :-) ~ UDScott (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetic TOC templates[edit]

Hi Mdd. I wanted to offer some arguments for using alphabetic table of contents templates that include separate TOC entries for each letter of the alphabet, as opposed to headings that combine letters into groups ("A-F", etc.). The reasons I offer are:

  1. I find far more alphabetization errors in pages (none on your pages, but they will grow and be modified) that use combined alphabetic TOC entries than in pages that use separate TOC headings for individual letters.
  2. When the page grows, the combined TOC headings will have to be replaced with separate headings for each letter to maintain reasonable sizes.
  3. On pages that have alphabetic TOC headings, far more pages have separate entries for each letter than have combined entries. For the sake of uniformity and consistency, it may be better to adopt the more common practice.

Admittedly these are not very persuasive arguments, and really just a statement of preference, but I wanted to express them nonetheless. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdd. I also presented this case at the Village pump in case you want to discuss on that venue. ~ Peter1c (talk)


Most "quotes" found in Wikipedia articles are informative (or "academic", as you called them – not necessarily brief and memorable) because their purpose is different from WQ's. I'll go over CensoredScribe's most recent "contributions" (stuff he copies from Wikipedia, and doesn't even bother to format properly) in the coming days, but, honestly, my feeling is that the sooner this guy is blocked again, the better for Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am taking this into consideration, but you can also bring this under attention at the Admins' noticeboard. -- Mdd (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What vague statements without specific citations tJohn Brown and Black people. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"tJohn Brown and Black people."?? See? If CensoredScribe is too incompetent to edit talk pages, why should he be allowed to edit articles? ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. He's probably referring to some edits of his which you've rightly reverted. Notice he's made over a hundred edits just this week... who has time to review all that? I'm afraid this is going to get out of hand very quickly, again. If he keeps it up, I'll file a report as you suggest. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Magazine (1904-1917)[edit]

Thanks for the great editing of The Word Magazine. I do have the original dump you saved for me. We will slowly add in the original text. The page is now much better. ~ DaleSteinhauser (talk)


Have you checked out the latest ANI thread? There is a serious issue with most of the pages regarding the show, so you need to take action to investigate the problem. XfDWatcher (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mana Mana[edit]

But if I try to understand Mömmö's singing from the record and write as such, is it OK! Not a printed version but a document that can be checked by listening. - And could You please find out if there's Uuno Kailas's poetry in English. He's one of the best - especially "Eye changers", "Barefoot" and "Playground"? --Risto hot sir (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Condell[edit]

I agree this page was probably too long. Trimming was okay, but I feel you may have gone a bit too far, too quickly. So, if you don't mind, I will review your removals in the next couple of months (when I have time), and maybe restore a few quotes. By the way, I don't think Pat Condell had a problem with his Wikiquote page as it was before your massive trimming; he probably liked it – see this tweet. Not that the tweet contradicts what you did ("Can't believe I said all this stuff. What a blabbermouth." may actually be seen as an argument for trimming) – and again, I agree that, if done right, making the article more concise is a good thing. That said, Pat does like and want his stuff to be freely distributed as widely as possible (to get his message across, I suppose), so in that sense a too stringent imposition of LOQ is probably unnecessarily restrictive. These are just my immediate thoughts upon seeing such a massive removal of quotes... Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to review those removals. Just for the record: The lemma wasn't trimmed down, because the page is too long. The first part of the quotes were removed because they exceeded 250 words, and the second part because of the WQ:LOQ limit for television (The maximum allowable amounts will be: one quote for a show less than half an hour long...) which I think applies here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. It was this edit that brought this to my attention.[reply]
I see, thanks. Well, I think the number of words limit (which is a proposal, not policy) is usually a good idea, but I wouldn't follow it blindly. To your last point: Pat Condell is not so prominent that his quotes must needs be included in theme articles, so I certainly have no problem with those removals. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of quotes for LOQ concerns[edit]

Regarding your recent removals of quotes - I am not arguing that the lengthy passages that you are targeting are not excessive, but perhaps rather than simply removing them, you might take a look and see if it is possible instead to trim them to an acceptable level. Just a thought, since some of these quotes do have portions of them that are probably worth keeping. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did give this some thought, but for me this is not as easy as it seems. To grasp the essence of quotes often requires insides, why a quotation from a particular writer and a particular work should be their in the first place. I do welcome any action to set this straight. -- Mdd (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know - it is not always easy to determine what should remain. I've tried to do so with a few of them, but it is difficult. I just try to leave what I feel is an important part of the quote, as best as I can. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Question: why did you feel that this quote was non-notable and needed to be removed?

  • Populism is a path that, at its outset, can look and feel democratic. But, followed to its logical conclusion, it can lead to democratic backsliding or even outright authoritarianism.
    • Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, “How can Populism Erode Democracy? Ask Venezuela,” The New York Times, (April 2, 2017)

To me, the quote is on-topic and certainly comes from a reputable source. I fail to see why it should be removed. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed on-topic and from a respectable source, yet the columnists are not considered notable (on Wikipedia), and the quote itself don't seem to be cited in other reliable sources. In similar cases I removed similar contemporary quotes (for example here), because I have the feeling that (a lot of) more notable quotes from notable sources should be are available. I will look into that. -- Mdd (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand your rationale a bit more, but given the following from WQ:NOTE "However, for theme articles in particular, quotations from notable people or notable publications that discuss the theme can be especially appropriate regardless of the frequency of the material having been quoted elsewhere," I still feel that this quote should remain, despite the fact that the columnists who wrote it are not considered individually notable or that it is not quoted elsewhere (and really, how often are quotes from columns or opinion pieces quoted in other publications? Such pieces are not likely to ever be quoted elsewhere). I fear that this is an example of us trying to be too rigid in applying standards where it is unwarranted (something I believe is starting to happen with more frequency). To me, this is a highly relevant quote from a highly notable source that should be kept on a theme page when the topic of the page is the direct subject of the quote. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reconsidering and restoring the quote. Not to belabor the point, but I wanted to understand what criteria you are using in general for whether to include a quote. In your recent additions, you included the following:
  • Trump and many other populist leaders regularly make a connection between a “corrupt elite” interested only in enriching themselves and their (rich) supporters and the marginalisation of “working people”.
    Is there evidence to back this up? Yes. Corruption and social inequality are indeed closely related and provide a source for popular discontent. Yet, the track record of populist leaders in tackling this problem is dismal; they use the corruption-inequality message to drum up support but have no intention of tackling the problem seriously. But, first, let’s look at what corruption has to do with inequality and vice versa.
    • Finn Heinrich, Transparency International (25 January 2017)
What made this quote (from an equally non-notable person and a less notable source) be originally included, but the NY Times quote be originally excluded? Thanks. [And please understand that I am not trying to pick a fight; but rather to understand] ~ UDScott (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was the initial quote, that @Watti Renew: listed to start the article. In the light of this discussion I didn't wanted to removed it (yet)... But I just did... because I think contemporary quotes on general topics should at least originate from notable authors and/or notable sources. -- Mdd (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)/ 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As to restoring of the quote, it seems to be, that Max Fisher is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. At least he is already listed multiple times on Wikiquote and on Wikipedia. -- Mdd (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solicited comment regarding this quote (as seen in an online edition under a different title the day before it ran in the paper) —

    The interplay between notability and quotability can be complex, subtle, and very highly subjective. Notability can dominate when an otherwise mundane remark is actually quite remarkable considering the source, and quotability can dominate when something truly extraordinary is said by an ordinary person.

    In this case, I think notability is weak. Notwithstanding the venerable venue in which it appears, in any venue that publishes large quantities of material on a daily basis we should consider the notability of the individual piece or its author. I think that quotability is also weak in this case. The point expressed in the quoted passage is hardly an original insight, having been widely observed and discussed for generations. Nor is the way it is expressed strikingly memorable, notwithstanding that it does display a modicum of succinctness.

    Newspaper essays like this perform a valuable service by reminding or informing people of this sort of background, and the Wikipedia article does well to quote it. (It may be that appearing in Wikipedia will lead to it becoming widely quoted or cited in the future!) As a relevant quote from a reliable source with high editorial standards, it is certainly informative and useful for covering the topic. However, Wikiquote's purpose is not to cover topics in an informative manner. I think this quote falls short of that purpose.

    More broadly — I can certainly sympathize with concerns about applying standards too rigidly. There is so much subjectivity involved that the idea of rigid standards may be a mirage. Careful consideration is needed to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the same time, I have long been dissatisfied with materials of an informational nature being treated as quotable quotes. We have whole articles and even categories of articles that are dominated by news and information with little regard for what is normally considered suitable for a compendium of quotations. I am deeply frustrated by the difficulty of steering Wikiquote toward higher standards when the manifest subjectivity makes rigid standards impracticable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


did you delete me??!?

I wondered today why I could not sign a comment. Finally I clicked on my user page to find:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
   10:47, 19 January 2014 Mdd (talk | contribs) deleted page User:LookingGlass (Speedy deletion: Nonsense: content was: "Хорошая у вас информация на сайте." (and the only contributor was ""))

I don't recall having been notified of this process but maybe the "speedy" bit bypasses that? Anyway, the rational for the deletion, that there was some greek on it added by an unsigned user, doesn't seem a very good reason to me. After all, I didn't put it there!

So, how can I appeal? It's a point of principle not functionality. If I'd found today I'd been unable to contribute I probably wouldn't have worried overmuch. I've no idea how you can answer this, you may just delete it, and I don't intend to invest any time in setting up a new page if it runs the risk of being trashed again.

LookingGlass (talk) 08:32, 22 July 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?[edit]

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?
Also, thanks for your help with the Pythagoras section, I tried adding the story of Abraham and the Idol Shop but was told it was too long to include. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear most (if not all) of these poets and their poems come straight from Japanese Death Poems. Compiled by Yoel Hoffmann. ISBN 978-0-8048-3179-6, which makes it a flagrant violation of collection copyright AND of the copyright on the translations. I would strongly recommend that all of the pages listing this as their source be removed before legal trouble ensues. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 19:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) 15:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Aurangzeb. But like other articles you stop discussing. You have been repeatedly edit-warring. 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 content.
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) 16:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook article[edit]

I noticed that you created the Facebook article. Seems that the links to the article are broken, they disappeared. Though the page still can be accessed by its url. Rupert loup (talk)

A request for help[edit]

Hello, as I understand, you are an adminstrator of Wikiquote, so I have no other options left but to ask for your help. I am an Israeli editor on the Hebrew Wikiquote, I have created the articles about the Samaritans, Eastern European Jews, Sepharadic Jews and Shasu; and heavily improved the aritcles: Oriental Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, and other Israeli politicians (past and present).

I have mentioned all of those acts of mine since there is a weird turning point: Last week the Israeli editor קליאו who seems to be in charged of the Hebrew Wikiquote had faced someone who had decided to create fake accounts and harm/violate articles over there; since I was the most active member in that Wikiquote in the last month or so, קליאו decided that I am the one responsible for those violations and blocked me out of nowhere (discovered it while at work a day later) and claimed that I was the one in charge for those idiotic violations (the person responsible used anti-LBGT and other bullshit usernames) and openly slured me with justifying her injust actions within the blocking and editing summaries with calling me "troll".

I have talked to the person who's in-charged of the Hebrew Wikipedia and who's friends with her trying to make her listen, but she insists that I was the one to blame (I offered them to check my IP and geographic locations since I'm only editing at daytime from Jerusalem and in nights from my house on the Mediterenean shore and to compare that to those of the person who violated the site; she refused to do that as well), so I have no other option but to call for your intervention and release me from that unjust ban. I have brought the names of articles I have helped create and improve so you will see my edits are only benefitial for the project, I would never harm the public knowledge or waste my time over such infentile acts.

Thanks in advance for your help.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wolfman12405, I am sorry to hear, but there is practically nothing I can do for you since every Wikimedia project is governed independently. Mdd (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Metawiki could help?--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user is already blocked indefinitely at four wikis. Raising the matter at Meta could result an a global lock on the account, unless the user demonstrates clear and complete understanding of the multiple issues for which blocks were imposed, and convincingly demonstrates willingness and capacity to abide by community standards. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be realistic, besides the listed above: I was blocked from Wikicommons because some Latvian guy began acting jerkish towards my request to remove some zodiac killer file that I created and that was appearing upon the top search results of googling my name. I was blocked for no serious reason from English Wikipedia because I have stated (and had to revert some editors' version who as a whole rejected) that the Golan Heights has an Israeli side on the very same day that the United States had declared it is officially part of Israel. I was blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia because I have stated in the article "Ashkenazi Jews" that most Eastern European Jews were not descendants of the historic communities that were called originally Ashkenazim but in fact descend of Jews who lived in Eastern Europe since at least the 2nd Century CE, and who have some waves of Ashkenazi refugees coming to settle among them in the 14th and 16th Centuries AD. So? What's the big whoop?--Wolfman12405 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandals...[edit]

A bunch of IP addresses constantly bully admins such as Kalki, UDScott, and Tegel, and vandalize the Administrators' noticeboard‎ without explanation or remorse. No matter how many we block, another IP with the same MO continues where it left off. I request permanent protection of all pages they vandalized, including all talk pages. But something has to be done to stop that vandal permanently. WikiLubber (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]