User talk:Rupert loup

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Rupert loup, and welcome to the English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


for your great work on so many pages. I notice you sometimes add more than one quote from the same source, and use separate bullet points for each one, which is fine, but then you only state their source under the very last one. The problem with this is that it makes the first quotes appear unsourced, which is discouraged. All quotes should be clearly sourced; repeating citations is actually not a problem. Of course in cases where the quotes are many, and you don't want to repeat the same citation over and over again, you can create a new section for them (as you've already done in a few pages), to make it clear(er) that they are all from the same source. Ok, thanks again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks for the advice. Rupert loup (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Six weeks after this comment you made seem to have repeated yourself in this edit, but not only that: From this very short online source (about 300 words) you took three quotes (in total 83 words) which is over 25% of the text, which I think is not inline with fair use policy. -- Mdd (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Information.svg Thanks for experimenting with Wikiquote. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Wikiquote:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our compendium of quotations. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support. WikiLubber (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiLubber You need to explain why you are deleting the link, if not is vandalism. Rupert loup (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Whilst linking can be useful, it is absolutely unnecessary, especially when it comes to highly common words that have slim to nothing to do with the story in question that absolutely do not need linking. WikiLubber (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
WikiLubber I disagre, its not overlinked and Linking is part of the Wikiproject. You are damaging Wikiquote therefore is vandalism. Rupert loup (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing links, regardless of whether or not they are necessary, is not vandalism. Many articles here have no links (let alone the need for such). WikiLubber (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This is just plain trolling right now, you are deleting links without reason and specific those you don't like. Rupert loup (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No. Linking is clearly unnecessary here (a highly valid reason). WikiLubber (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I must be leaving soon, but will note that providing links to other pages on this wiki is common and approved practice. It is conducive to expanding interest and participation in the wiki and the ideas presentable on it. Removing links needlessly is simply investing in the promotion of ignorance and stupidity and an exercise in controlling and constraining the options of others. There can perhaps be excessive linking of duplicate links in a single section, but generally, the more links between pages of the wiki the better. Linking to Wikipedia for very common words or concepts is usually not necessary, but links to other pages of this wiki should be encouraged. ~ Kalki·· 00:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It must be noted that there were no links before my edits and in no way it is overlinked now. Also with his/her obsession with removing the link "Burqa" (which is not a common term) it makes me wonder if this is some kind of censorship or just trolling. Rupert loup (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Neither. It must also be noted that the term "burqa" is not only uncommon, but also not relevant to the story. WikiLubber (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

François-Noël Babeuf[edit]

Why do you feel the quotes you removed here are not notable? I fail to see a reason for their removal. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

UDScott, that quotes are not from notable people or works Wikipedia:Notability (people). See WQ:Q. Rupert loup (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I still do not understand your rationale - and I don't agree. These quotes appear to me to be from notable sources and they seem to appropriately relate to the subject of this page. I am quite familiar with WQ:Q and I still fail to see the reason for removing them. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
How are notable? These sources don't have significant coverage to be considered notable. They are reliable to be used as a reference in Wikipedia for it's academic background, but not notable to be quoted in Wikiquote. If so please explain me why because I fail to see it. Rupert loup (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Category removals[edit]

I don’t object strongly to the creation of categories for some of the single individuals such as you have recently created, though I actually do not see a great need for them here, but the removal of most of the categories from an individual's page to that new creation is something I tend to find more problematic than helpful. I don’t have time to discuss it right now, as I will be leaving in about a half hour, and have many other things to attend to right now, but thought I would note this before leaving. ~ Kalki·· 11:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kalki: The removals are because there is already categories in the articles that are subcategories of the removed categories in question. Rupert loup (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kalki: I realized that I didn't left edit summaries, it's a bad habit. Sorry about that, I will try to improve in that. Rupert loup (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I recognized that you are moving the categories you are removing from the article to the "special category" pages you are creating — but I actually do NOT perceive the need or helpfulness of such movings or removals. I believe it tends to diminish the likelihood of them prompting further consideration or exploration by most people, or being seen at all, in regard to the subject or person of the page from which you are removing them. Personally, I tend to find such obscuration of the categories rather unhelpful rather than helpful, and believe such practices should be discussed more with others, rather than simply plowed ahead with. This is just a brief note made as I prepared to leave, having seen further incidents of such actions. ~ Kalki·· 14:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the creation of the Sia (musician) page. It is one of many on musical artists which I had intended to create in recent years, and actually done some work on in recent months, but had not had time to polish off sufficiently, amidst many other tasks. I might add some of the material I had collected to that one soon, and attempt to do a few others in coming months, but I remain so busy that I have had very limited time to spend on sessions here. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 08:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Hi :) thanks for your contributions! When you create a page, it would be great if you could connect it on Wikidata. For example, when creating Andrew Lih you could go on the corresponding Wikidata item (see Andrew Lih on Wikipedia, on the left column, section "Tools", clic on "Wikidata item"), which is d:Q1113332. Scroll down and edit the "Wikiquote" section, adding the new page ;) Of course it is not mandatory, but it would connect the page with all the other pages on the Wikimedia projects, otherwise it will extend the page Special:UnconnectedPages. Thank you, bye ;-) --Superchilum (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not an active editor in Wikidata. Rupert loup (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi there, I've reverted your edit to purpose. Could you explain on the talk page why you think each quote is not about purpose? Thankyou --2001:8003:4163:AD00:385B:DAD8:ABD4:6763 11:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

should we let the admins weigh in on this? --2001:8003:4163:AD00:21C9:3750:D096:9FD4 11:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You are not explaining your rationaly and keep warring, can you give an explanation on how are about "purpuse"? Rupert Loup 11:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The Eisenhower quote is about the purpose of strength and willpower in defending US liberty, the Abelard quote is about the purpose of God, the Morris quote is about the purpose which Roosevelt pushed fprward with and worked as president. Something like this. --2001:8003:4163:AD00:21C9:3750:D096:9FD4 12:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
will we wait for an admin or will you just keep reverting me?
So you will keep warring despite don't having consensus for your changes, ok. Those quotes are not about purpose itself, having the word doesn't mean that are about the issue. And you know it, you just want to warring. Please stop. Rupert Loup 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
who would be fool enough to choose war instead of peace? Let's leave it and let some third party admins decide.

You should go to the talk pages and respond in them instead of edit warring. -- 09:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You should gain consensus instead of warring, until you don't gain consensus your edits will be reverted. Rupert Loup 09:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Socialism and its different variants[edit]

As quotes by Adolf Hitler on National Socialism were removed from Socialism and put on Right-wing socialism because they were a variant of socialism and not socialism proper, should quotes on Leninist Socialism and Marxian Socialism be removed from Socialism for the same reason? --2001:8003:412B:6300:9C1:5968:1D8:CC27 22:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

    • There were not put in that article. Rupert Loup 13:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
      • There are Leninist and Marxist and Maoist quotes in socialism. How is it that "right wing socialism" quotes by Hitler are removed, but not Marxist socialist quotes, Leninist socialism quotes and Maoist socialism quotes? Is my question. --2001:8003:412B:6300:3C4B:1C9:E7ED:6B36 06:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
        • No removed, quotes are moved to more specific articles all the time if needed. There were not moved because nobody wanted to move them yet. Rupert Loup 10:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

the link redirects to 3rd millennium BC[edit]

If you click on third millennium BCE, the wiki page is third millennium BC.

Doesn't matter the name of that article, the quote is not of Christian or Western origin, BCE and CE is a neutral term. Rupert Loup 05:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
irrelevant, the wiki page is BC for this. Aren't you pushing a non Christian non Western POV?
This is not Wikipedia, your edits fail WQ:NPOV. Rupert Loup 05:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a wiki and its bound by the same rules

Edit warring[edit]

Please refrain from edit warring - it really is not constructive. Instead, if you have issues with another user, please begin a discussion (or call in an admin). If the edit warring continues, it will likely result in blocking. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

UDScott: We already have a discussion with this user and refuse to stop warring and they had been blocked before for that, they continue to keep pov pushing. See above. I keep finding deletion of content in several pages, this user doesn't have consensus and several others already reverted their edits [1][2][3][4][5], even you did it [6]. Rupert Loup 13:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I haven't had time to look through all the edits, and I am not saying your changes were wrong. But the point is that once an edit war begins (even if you are right), it is best to cease and alert others about it. Persisting in back and forth reversions really doesn't do a lot of good. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC
UDScott: the ip dint't stop even if we already discussed it and keep censoring and adding irrelevant content, they are being WP:TENDENTIOUS. Rupert Loup 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
UDScott: now the veil is off and the IP shows their full WQ:VANDAL nature, I can't assume good faith anymore. Rupert Loup 10:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


What are your disagreements with the edits on capitalism, equality and markets?

also, what are your disagreements with. all these edits? Your edit summaries were insufficient.
Gaing consensus and stop warring. Rupert Loup 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Eisenhower's quote on Purpose[edit]

It is not off topic, read the article's lead: "Purpose is a term having various meanings involving intentions, targets, aims, goals, and objects or results which are desired."

"Purpose" is not the subject nor center of the quote, it's about freedom. It was already explain to you and you agreed about this. Rupert Loup 10:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)