User talk:Sketchmoose

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Copyright Cleanup[edit]

I responded to your question at Wikiquote talk:Copyright Cleanup Project. ~ Ningauble 17:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

30 Rock[edit]

No problemo - I'm just relieved that I didn't get myself into a "this joke is funnier" debate. :) Jon202 01:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why have you reverted my change?[edit]

Why have you reverted my change?

You blanked the page and typed "sgdsfgdsfgdfgsdfg." I thought this was unconstructive, so I reverted back to a previous version of the page. I ought to have added the subst:test1 template from Wikiquote:Vandalism to your talk page; I will do so now.
In future, sign all edits to talk pages by typing ~~~~. -Sketchmoose 20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


OK, that makes sense. ~ ~~ 87.68.61.208 87.68.61.208 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC) 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC) 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)~ 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)~~

Terry Pratchett QotD[edit]

Hi Sketchmoose. Is there a reason you nominated Night Watch quotes for May 25 rather than the author's birthdate April 28? If so, you should indicate the memorial occasion with your nominations. Otherwise they will likely be voted down as being more appropriate for another day—almost a year later. ~ Ningauble 21:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I was wondering if I needed to do that. It's along the same lines as Towel Day. The Glorious Revolution of the Twenty-Fifth of May is the subject of Night Watch; since it was published, and increasingly when Pratchett was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, fans began wearing lilac pins on that day in support and tribute. To be fully honest it might be recent/fancruft-y/OR to be appropriate. Should I have asked first? Should I remove it? -Sketchmoose 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see the date has in-universe significance. That might fly—but perhaps only on a day without other strong candidates. I don't know. You could ask Kalki if you want, as his opinion is influential at QotD and he has the most experience with it. ~ Ningauble 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuck (TV series)[edit]

Thanks for your cleanup of Season 3 - I didn't want to do it because I'm only through Season 2 so far and didn't want to spoil it for myself. ~ UDScott 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) I try to stay on top of it but I've been a bit busy lately. -Sketchmoose 13:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Sketchmoose[edit]

Surprise! Please accept and serve. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, surprise indeed! Thanks! -Sketchmoose 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

You are now an administrator. :)

I unfortunately don't have any helpful links to share with you, since this is my first RfA that I've closed here, but if you've got any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a line or ask on the Village Pump. EVula // talk // // 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Congratulations! Welcome aboard. ~ UDScott 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Welcome indeed! Glad to have another helping hand with the ol' mop 'n' bucket ~ Ningauble 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all! I am looking forward to helping! -Sketchmoose 13:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Belated welcome aboard from an inactive lawikiquote adminstratorix. As for helpful links, you may have noticed User:Jeffq/Admin shortcuts? --Aphaia 07:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed! Sorry I nommed and ran, but family came up. I'm sure you'll do fine, and I see you've already deleted an article pursuant to a deletion debate. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Aphaia and BD2412! Yes, I did manage to close a discussion and delete a page, after about a half hour of checking to make sure I was clear on the process. ;) It was a proud moment. -Sketchmoose 19:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User messages[edit]

Hi Sketchmoose. I noticed that after deleting some articles you wrote custom user messages in situations that are covered by some of our boilerplate templates, such as {{fame}} and {{WQisnot1}}. Writing a personal note is a Good Thing™, but you may find it easier to use the templates at Wikiquote:Template messages/User talk when they fit the situation. ~ Ningauble 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was looking for something like those, actually, but couldn't immediately find them and didn't want to wait too long before explaining the deletions. And then I'm afraid I got distracted before asking someone about it or looking some more. This will definitely help in future. :) -Sketchmoose 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion question[edit]

Sketchmoose, you recently deleted my post "Don't change your socks in the middle of the world series". If you don't mind, could you please clarify the intention of the Wikiquote website? Is one possible intention not to be a place for people to come to collaborate with other people to figure out the originator of a certain quote? Forgive me, I had made this assumption prior. (This is the second time I have posted a single quote where I asked if anyone knew the originator. In both cases the page has been immediately deleted). Again, if you don't mind, if this is not one of the intentions of Wikiquote, could you please explain to me the reason? I assume this is for lack of resources (server, disk space, etc.)? I very much admire the Wikipedia site and am a frequent user of that site. As mentioned, I simply was looking to Wikiquote to accomplish the aforementioned goal. Are you aware of another quote site which is intended to accomplish this goal?

Thank you very much and best regards,

Andy 148.87.67.139 20:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Andy! I've moved this message down to its own section, and removed your email address and phone number, as it is generally not a good idea to post such things in public view.
The purpose of Wikiquote, as described at Wikiquote:Wikiquote, is to collect memorable, accurate, sourced quotes. While this often requires editors to engage in discussion, that is a side effect of the primary purpose. Editors can collaborate with each other to determine the source of a quote, but independent pages in the article namespace are not to be used in this way. (For other things which Wikiquote is not, please see Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not.) The place for such a discussion would be a page in the talk namespace. ("Article namespace" refers to the main pages of Wikiquote, such as Albert Einstein or Leaves of Grass, while "talk namespace" would be the discussion pages related to those articles, which are called Talk:Albert Einstein or Talk:Leaves of Grass.) Since you don't know the origin of this quote, you could try the Wikiquote:Reference desk, which exists to try to solve such dilemmas.
Please let me know if this didn't clear things up, or if you have any other questions. You can also ask at Wikiquote:Village pump or check the Wikiquote:FAQ or the help pages. Cheers! -Sketchmoose 02:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sketchmoose! That is exactly what I was looking for. I also have made use of Village pump. Thanks again and best regards, Andy. --148.87.67.139 04:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Clean-up of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Page[edit]

I noticed that you added some info to the discussion page for the above article on which I am trying to work. First, as you are an administrator and I am a very new newbie, can you tell me if I am doing this correctly? Second, can you tell me if there is too much content on the page to comply with fair use/copyright guidelines? I have deleted some things that seemed less than notable to me. Third, can you clarify for me what you want done with the quotes from Lord Voldemort that you listed on the discussion page? (This learning by the seat of ones pants can be challenging for people like me who know very little about technical matters.) I appreciate any guidance you can give me. Carmaskid 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Carmaskid. From what I have just reviewed at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it looks like you are doing it correctly. Cleanup of sourcing such as you are doing is very valuable to the project, so thank you! In terms of length, our copyright guidelines (listed at Wikiquote:Limits on quotations) limit literary works to 5 lines per 10 pages of book. For this book, my check at Amazon gives 784 pages in the paperback edition, which give a maximum of 390 lines of text. Obviously there is some rounding involved, since the number of pages can vary based on edition, and a line of text is not a discrete unit. I think the page as it is now is within or just at the limit, but it's hard to tell because the Dialogue section is not formatted properly. Literary quotes do not need to be modified from their source; they should match what is in the book. The second quote in the section looks fine other than the absence of a bullet point and sourcing. (To accommodate a line break within a quote begun with a *, you can type <br/> where you would otherwise hit the enter key.) Regarding the Voldemort quotes which I placed on the talk page, those were added without chapter or page number to an article which was converted. Since I don't own a copy of the book I couldn't source them myself, so placed them on the talk page (I definitely could have explained that more when I did it). If you can locate the quotes in the book, they can be removed from the talk page and added to the article page.
I hope this helps. If my explanation was unclear or if you have any other questions, please let me know. :) -Sketchmoose 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and kind words. There's a lot of material there so I am just working my way downward, a little at a time. This was a big book for a first effort but I own the book and have read it several times so I often know in which chapter I should look. I like working on this project in my limited way. :-) Carmaskid 02:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote interlanguage communication[edit]

Hi, I'm Nemo from the Italian language Wikiquote and I'm writing you (via a bot) because you're an administrator of Wikiquote in this language; please excuse me if you've received this message more than once.
The simple thing that I want you to know is that Wikiquote has an official mailing list, Wikiquote-l, which can be used to communicate and discuss matters which interest all Wikiquotes. This mailing list was last "advertised" about three or four years ago, before many of us joined Wikiquote, and is currently almost not participated at all by Wikiquote users and very low-traffic. I ask you to subscribe, to participate in discussions and to write about your Wikiquote.
I love Wikiquote, as you probably do, and I think that we should be proud of what we do here, share our experiences and good practices to make Wikiquote better and raise awareness of it.
I remind you that Meta-Wiki is the best place for Wikimedia projects coordination, and it contains several pages about Wikiquote, and specifically this talk page which can be used to discuss about Wikiquote if you don't like mailing lists.
I hope that this message has been useful for you. Cheers, Nemo (write me) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing VFDs[edit]

Hi Sketchmoose. Thanks for stepping up and closing some of the overdue discussions. There are so few participants these days that it can be hard for a clear consensus to emerge, and even harder to find an "independent" closer when it is unclear. FYI – There is a colorful {{vfd-kept-new}} template for tagging talk pages like Talk:Total Drama Action. ~ Ningauble 20:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ningauble. I wanted to help in some way—I've been pretty absent lately due to some life-stuff and was feeling a bit guilty about it. Thanks for the heads-up about the template; I tried to use {{vfd-kept}} and the link to the vfd discussion wouldn't work, so since I was in a hurry by that time I just used the text. Anyway, good to hear from you. I should be around more again within the next couple weeks. -Sketchmoose 18:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Clean Up Tag[edit]

It took me a while but I have done my best with this page. Could you or another administrator review it and, if appropriate, remove the clean-up tag. People will certainly continue to add and subtract quotes, but the format for the page has been corrected. Thanks,Carmaskid 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

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) 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on MonsterHunter32[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.

What would be most helpful would be if other editors could add comments to the summary table here Talk:India#Summary_table.

Since you are an admin, I would also welcome your view on the following.

Other editors and me have previously told MonsterHunter32 many times that the following rule based on Template:Remove should be strictly observed by him:

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

This really is the bare minimum that must be enforced. If MonsterHunter32 as a rule continues to refuse to do this, I don't see how any meaningful discussion of the deleted quotes is possible at all.

Please note that this was asked to him dozens of times, and dozens of times he continues to ignore it.

Can you please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes this? He has been told this dozens of times by multiple users, but I will notify him again about this on his talkpage (my last notification was promptly deleted by him). If he starts edit warring again without observing this rule, he should be blocked, or at least the page be protected.

Please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks.

Observing the rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:
  • MonsterHunter32 has done blanked and censored dozens of quotes, most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary)
  • He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
  • MonsterHunter32 has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
  • MonsterHunter32 has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged religious beliefs or opinions or alleged bias, using religious or political smears against me and others.
MonsterHunter32 as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that he was wrong, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. Discussion with someone who as a rule and always refuses to make the slightest concession that he might be wrong, or that others may have different opinions than him, is becoming a waste of time. Maybe even worse are the misrepresentations, dishonesty and personal attacks.
This is what other editors have said about MonsterHunter32:
  • "I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer."
  • " I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. "
  • "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...."
  • "Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ "
  • "I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote." (in response to MonsterHunter32)
  • "No more of this time-wasting dispute here. I don't want my talk page to be used to call people vandals, liars, etc..... "
  • "Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). "
  • "and IF you revert this again you WILL be BLOCKED."
  • "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "
  • "if you keep this up you will be blocked"
I have attempted to solve it with discussion with him, but by his refusal of even the most elementary things, like giving full reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage, he is making it extremely difficult. What really is needed, and I asked many times for this, are comments from other users on the quotes. Please see Talk:India#Summary_table for my latest attempt to ask others for comments.
Ultimately, I agree with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard:
  • "If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.)
Please let me know if you too agree with this.
Wikiquote is not prepared to handle persistent, disruptive editors like MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who by his own admission is "constantly monitoring" me, attacking me for alleged religious bias or my alleged religious beliefs, and reverting all my additions with poor excuses that in most cases he refuses even to discuss. It cannot be in Wikiquotes interest when such editors can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with censoring and blanking quotes. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's disruptive edits[edit]

What does User:Jedi3 hopes to achieve by repeatedly complaining instead of any actual cooperation? When I discuss he either abruptly leaves or keeps on repeating the same things. He keeps on edit-warring over and over and even started edit-warring right after User:UDScott block on him expired.

All of the "complains" of his based on poor fact- reading and hiding the truth again. Oh he doesn't mention some of the comments made by other users about him:

  • User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claiming Template:Remove doesn't allow for removal of quotes and mandates moving and discussion. But I found out he hasn't read it properly. Templat:Remove itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. It says: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.
Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked.
  • What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.
  • While User:Jedi3 talks about "Bare-minimum", he doesn't stop to the do the most disruptive thing: Edit-warring. What's more he resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6].
  • He has also made some utterly false claims of "blanking", even though my removal of his quotes didn't involve more than 1 or 2 quotes and removed only a small part of the article. Some of his utterly false claims of "blanking" are here, here and here.
  • There is nothing wrong in checking another editor when they are being disruptive like User:Jedi3. And what I actually said was me categorically proving I never censored him. I was checking whether his edits are non-notable and non-memorable. "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • I already suggested at talk:India, let's discuss all quotes one by one at the relevant article talk pages. He refuses to do so.
  • Jedi3 keeps on smearing and making false allegations of "censorship" just because I disagree with many of his quotes being relevant. That too me telling it plainly I have only removed non-memorable/non-notable quotes: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • After Daniel Tom reverted me at Talk:India for removing Jedi3's vandal comments of baseless accusations and taking the issue to an entirely unrelated article while the actual discussion should have been at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles where I actually removed his quotes. His actions were very similar to Jedi3 by baselessly accusing me of censorship despite me discussing and compromising despite the quote being not notable, I asked him not to take sides with jedi3 over any ideolgical affinity. I told DanielTom about this [7] and also tried to prevent another edit-war at Talk:India like it happened on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I also told him the same at his own talk page.
  • After Kalki reverted me twice at talk:India and warned me, that was my last revert. I didn't start edit-warring and reverting like Jedi3. At User talk:Kalki#What censorship at Talk:India I asked him to effectively moderate and enforce the rules by blocking Jedi3 for his consistent disruptive editing. He kept saying he didn't have time but I pointed out I already made Jedi3's disruptive edits clear and if he moderated then this place would have been a much better place as i believe Jedi3 is not fit for here. I asked him to act against Jedi3 as the latter kept edit-warring right after after being warned and blocked by UDScott.
  • Jedi3 has no problem in making false claims about quotes. Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source, even though it isn't about Martand temple.  He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic. He made up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.
  • Jedi3 tried to justify his edit-warring claiming he had no choice as "I wasn't discussing". This despite me telling him that I already tried to discuss. I never said there will be no discussion ever. All i said was I couldn't discuss all of them at once. I have already asked him to discuss the quotes one a time.
  • Just a Regular New Yorker laimed in his comment that quotes canot be removed if they are sourced. He doesn't seem to have read tyhe policies.
  • Except Wikiquote:Wikiquote, WQ:Q and Template:Fame saying this is for notable quotes. And the Template:Remove Jedi3 keeps talking about itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning." I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES?
  • Jedi3 points to the comment "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...." Except I never said such a thing. But I do dislike is Jedi3's disruptive edits and him not giving two hoots about notability.
  • "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion " Will Jedi3 say it is Kalki claiming so about me removing his unrelated vandal comments at Talk:India which had nothing to do with India. I had even explained this to him in my only revert of his unlike jedi3 who still edit-wars after being warned or blocked. And I have repatedly said I don't remove any quote I found notable: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes aren't even near to what he claims. This is aside from the fact that especially a user merely calling something as notable or poignant or witty doesn't make it notable. But then again he doesn't even care about the dictionary meaning of the words he's talking about. From Oxford dictionary Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Anyone who reads a dictionary can understand he's making it up about any of his edits being eloquent, poignant or witty etc. yet he makes the same claim at Talk:India yet again despite already being made aware his quotes are not near what he's falsely claiming them to be.
  • All policies say this website is about notable quotes. Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced. WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Not to mention the quote itself being notable criteria mentioned by it as well.

Jedi3 needs to be blocked for his constant disruption, caring for nothing except POV-pushing at all costs even if becomes disruptive, bad faith edits and accusations as well as false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.