Pat Sajak's High School Nickname
I understand that you felt there was too much commentary about Pat Sajak's "That was my nickname in high school" catchphrase as you indicated here. However, if it's all right, I would like to add the quote to the puzzle solution "HIGH SCHOOL NICKNAME," where he said, "I had so many nicknames in high school I can't even begin to start the list right now." That one quote was something of a summation to a long-running joke so I think that quote at least bears appearing in Pat Sajak. Is it OK if I add that quote? Alden Loveshade (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- As there's been no objection, I added it. By the way, I really appreciate that you didn't simply delete the commentary, you kept it in the notes. Alden Loveshade (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Please range block
We are seeing numbers of paid contributions appearing, and a lot are using thriveglobal.com as a reference. This one smells like one of those sort of entries of people who are only appearing due to concerted efforts to build a reputation and a persona. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- https://www.mediusventures.com/personal-branding of which this person is the founder. There is so much con going on and we are dealing with determined professional marketers. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Howard Kershner quote
On the pages power, government and taxation there has been a disagreement between rupert loop and myself about whether a quote by Howard Kershner should be on these pages. The discussion is at Talk:Power, if you could take a look and add your opinion I would be interested to see what you make of it all. --2001:8003:4085:8100:51C1:35AB:AFE8:3277 03:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Toy Story vandal...
Now it's a Thomas & Friends vandal. I request all Thomas & Friends articles be protected indefinitely so we never deal with this vandal again, and that drastic action be taken against it, as well.
- This edit proves all Thomas & Friends pages need indefinite protection. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know who you mean. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- It makes me angry that you do not know. 18.104.22.168 was blocked for a year. Shouldn't this be a schoolblock?
Thank you for Formatting
Dear Ningauble, Thank you for your valuable time to look after the voting page and formatting my comment reply. I believe that it was a satisfactory reply to your previous thread. Thank you again. Axymakofficial (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Request to check the history of User:Kabirkhan22
The user Kabirkhan22, who flagged the page as Spam and self advertise is a sock puppet account personally targeting the page. I've got a list of proof to prove his vandalism.
1. The vandal is trying to delete all the records present on wiki including wiki data. Check the revision history of the page - Q91833255, The Vandal has used his sock puppet accounts to defame and tried to delete the page by more than SIX times.
2. Here is the list of sock puppet accounts he used, just to delete the page. You won't find a single contribution from these accounts apart removing the content.
3. Apart from this, I tried to find the location of those accounts, and here is the report that clearly reveals the intention of the reporter. (Click on IP to know to find detailed information.)
4. The above reasons clearly indicate that it was an attempt to delete the page and he succeeds in taking the page down, misguiding the admins, and wasting the time.
5. Surprisingly, at the time of writing this message, again, he tried to delete the content of page Q91833255 after admin blocked me, so I can't restore the page. Furthermore, he is trying to reach out to other administrators and asking to delete the page. It clearly indicates how desperate he is.
It is my humble request to restore the page and lock it so he can't edit the same from another IP. Thank you again.
UPDATE (April 27)- Despite the warning by @Nikki: on the Q91833255, The spammer has again started his vandalism on the page. with the (2405:205:140a:a22a:c09a:c15f:44bb:314) same GEO Location he deleted the site links and Reporting to Admin like a kid.
Could you please help me to get rid of this Vandal.
UPDATE - The IP added the advertising spam template is a part of this sockpuppet accounts. Please check the Geolocation and ISP of the reporter IP - (2405:205:140a:a22a:c09a:c15f:44bb:314) - It is the same as all previous IPs.
- @Akshay Makadiya, there has been no sockpuppetry from these addresses at Wikiquote to mislead or deceive anyone. None of these IP addresses have even posted anything at Wikiquote. You might have had a case (a very weak one) to make at Wikidata if you had not already been blocked for blatant self-promotion there. Please take your digital marketing and SEO somewhere else. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Spam Page
It concerns one
- It constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup, დამოკიდებულება, and myself, and refuses to admit defeat.
- Plus, it has a history of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. We cannot take any chances that it may take its frustration out on Wikiquote.
- And in this edit, it claims დამოკიდებულება has a "weird name", and it demanded დამოკიდებულება add an English name in his signature, just because it claimed it would be "easier to communicate". I request action be taken against this user immediately. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am responding here as I was pinged from this page by DawgDeputy. You might want to see this report at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Harassment and Edit warring by User:DawgDeputy.
- DawgDeputy has created same blockshopping threads on 7 different Administrator's talk page,        even though a report is already posted on WQ:AN.
- Weird name has already been explained in detail--Pratap Pandit (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for commenting here. You stated some content does "not impress me with its 'timeless quotability' ", If you have reviewed the quotes and found them unworthy, please take a moment to call them out on the talk page. Garbage is being added and (restored with edit warring) claiming there is no consensus to remove. It has already been explained in detail why those unworthy quotes should not be added and no valid reason was provided to support them. I have discussed it with the user on the talk page (e.g. , , ) and pointed the major behavioral issues on WQ:AN. What else am I supposed to do to resolve this ? --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikiquote in doctoral dissertations
This quote is an excellent example of the importance of common knowledge to preserve history and promote understanding. Although this quote is most often attributed to Virgil (Aeneid 6.823) it is actually a mistranslation of the words “Vincet amor patriae”, properly translated as “Love of country shall prevail”. Thus, it is both a misattribution, and a mistranslation, discovered thanks to an anonymous author in Wikiquote which pointed me to the facts unearthed by Willis Goth Regier, Quotology (2010), pp. 40–41. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Virgil
I was wondering why you reverted by Good-Faith edits
Hey there, thanks for notifying me about the excessive quotations on Timelapse of the Future, I almost forgot it is a 30 minute film. I have done a massive cleanup on the page, mind reassessing them? Thanks, from Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Interview for WMF patroller study
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently conducting a study on how patrollers interact with IP address edits, and what kinds of IP information are most useful to patrollers. I noticed that you're active in anti-vandalism work on English Wikiquote, and would like to invite you to do an interview with us. It should take no longer than 30 minutes. If you're interested, please contact me via email, firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you for your time! CLo (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello sir you had Deleted Muntadher Saleh Page by mistake because it is not notable while if you google Muntadher Saleh you will find it is notable enough please undo the deletion NOW —This unsigned comment is by Jupiter990 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 August 2020.
- There was no mistake, Google shows nothing that indicates notability. Please review the general notability guideline. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
* No sir Google shows you the knowledge panel or the Graph that indicate people with notability you can see the knowledge panel and if you want to be sure you can google your friend name or even your name and it won't show any knowledge panel also you can see Muntadher Saleh on good reads as an Author so it is Mistake sir and I hope you make it right soon thank you
- I wish you Reply sir :) —This unsigned comment is by Jupiter990 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 August 2020.
- To quote from the general notability guideline (already linked above, please read it): "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A mention at Google search is not significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Goodreads is not a reliable source and as user-generated content it is not independent of the subject. If you do not understand the criteria of the general notability guideline then it is definitely too soon to create an article here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Pedro II of Brazil
I added the source
Classics (or quotability)
Hey Ningauble. I thought you might enjoy watching this YouTube video by Steve Donoghue on "What Makes a Book a Classic?". I will not spoil it for you, but one of the listed defining characteristics is the "stood the test of time" principle, which you often quote in regard to quotability. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
We sent you an e-mail
Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email email@example.com.
You can see my explanation here.
Bringing discussion to your attention
Just bringing Talk:This Hour Has 22 Minutes#unsourced section removed? to your attention. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ottawahitech, I replied there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, if you can take a look at the article by the subject Rodrigo Barbosy, I added 2 references I found on a wiki, I see the errors in the article but this can be easily resolved, I already have an experience with the wikiquote and I see that the article must be considered eligible. TheDay Bot (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Bugs Bunny cartoons
Thanks for your help in cleaning up that mess. I was thinking (although as you know I am not the most tech-savvy of us), it would be nice if there was a way to protect all pages within a category at once, rather than having to go through and do each one individually. Do you know if this is something that is possible? Thanks again. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- No way that I know of. Sorry. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @UDScott: Sorry to butt in here, I am only trying to help: protecting all pages within a category at once may be something to suggest at Community Wishlist Survey 2021? Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Removing my talk page comment
Hi Ningauble I realize all admins here are very busy, this is the reason I waited almost a week before posting. Just wondering if you intend to restore my comment which you have removed from Talk:Thanksgiving? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure it's super productive to block a Comcast dynamic IP for a year, or full protect their talk page indefinitely. Looking at the article, the user switched IPs at least three times in 48 hours. Unfortunately, I can't do a range block, since it seems likely to block like half of New Jersey and New York. But them's the breaks. Dynamic IPs are a pain, and dynamic IPV6s are more so.
- I may have overreacted. This particular "disgruntled user" has been effective in finding ways to create mayhem, and tools to managing the situation are limited. I previously proposed something that could have averted the whole situation, but it was declined. I have recently considered proposing to restrict the Template: namespace from unregistered users, which would address part of the problem, with its own collateral damage.
- Objection. Someone of that IP's attitude (especially its profane edit summaries) will never stop unless it gets its way. Maintaining indefinite blocking and protection is the right thing to do. Besides, deleting the page would only result in the same vandals recreating it. It would never stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)