User talk:UDScott

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is UDScott's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to UDScott.


IP ban?[edit]

The moment the Ghostbusters: Afterlife page protection expired, the IP made the exact same changes that convinced me to request the page protection increase in the first place.

Any chance of blocking this IP? Else this is going to turn into an edit war where I revert the inaccurate changes only for the IP to restore them. Giftheck (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: is once again changing the quotes in Ghostbusters: Afterlife to something incorrect. Can we either get this IP banned or the article protected from IP editing? Giftheck (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've placed a longer protection on the page - hopefully the user will lose interest (but if not, will address again after the protection expires). Thanks ~ UDScott (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid it looks like this IP did not lose interest because they did it as soon as the page protection expired I've reverted the change but I notice another user has already placed a 'last warning' on their talk page for the same thing on another page.. Giftheck (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Matrix Resurrections[edit]

Now the film is out, can you restore the version of The Matrix Resurrections that was deleted previously? I'm not sure I want to try and start that page again but I'd be happy to add to it after seeing the film today. Giftheck (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[edit]

Hi UDScott, would you mind block Special:Contributions/ This user is vandalizing talkpage. Thanks! Stang 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:[edit]

Hi UDScott, could you please delete talk page and semi protect it for a few days. Thanks. EN-Jungwon (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#External links (The Game of Death)[edit]

Hello UDScott, can I help you? 13:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page seems to lack a lot of sources - and when there are some, it is in the form of a ref section (which is not the preferred method in WQ). The About quotes should also be below those from the film itself. Take a look at the template for a film page and that should provide some guidance. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I increased the sources
About quotes cannot be inferior to those of the film itself: I cannot write otherwise because The Game of Death is an incomplete film and it was distributed in 2000 by two documentaries, Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey and Bruce Lee in G.O.D 死亡的遊戯, after in 2019 Game of Death Redux... The short film THE STORY is a 2000 prequel and sequel Game of Death Redux...: It's not my choice, it's not my decision. The distribution of the film is not independent 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What sources are missing? 17:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire About section appears to be unsourced. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not understand. Forgive me, could you be clearer Please? I am at your disposal 17:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section titled "Quotes about The Game of Death" appears to consist of unsourced quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, you can see:
UDScott ok? 22:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey: https://www. dailymotion. com/video/x5nc39r (The First part in Francais but the second part (The Game of Death) in english.
Bruce Lee in G.O.D: Shibōteki Yūgi: https:// youtu. be/8zNROmKeHtM (ONLY secon part: The Game of Death) 09:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm really not sure what you are saying (or what these links you've provided are for) - I still fail to see sources for some of the quotes and the page still requires cleanup. It also appears to be a mashup of quotes from other films - and it is not apparent how it all fits together. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Game of Death is an incomplete Hong Kong martial arts film, filmed between August and October 1972, directed, written, produced by and starring Bruce Lee, in his final film project. Lee died during the making of the film. During filming, Lee received an offer to star in Enter the Dragon. Lee died of cerebral edema before the film's release. At the time of his death, he had made plans to resume the filming of The Game of Death. In 1973 some fragments were shown exclusively within the documentary Bruce Lee: the Mand and the Legend. After Lee's death, Enter the Dragon director Robert Clouse was enlisted to finish the film using two stand-ins; it was released in 1978 as Game of Death, five years after Lee's death, by Golden Harvest. The 1978 film's plot was altered to a revenge story. In 1978 the Golden Harvest has released Game of Death (and sequel Game of Death II in 1981). The 1978 version uses portions of the original footage married to an entirely new plot. The revised version of the film uses only 11 minutes and 7 seconds of the footage from the original The Game of Death. Several years later, Bruce Lee historian John Little released Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey, a documentary revealing the original footage and storyline of The Game of Death. The documentary also includes a fairly in-depth biography of Lee and leads into the filming of The Game of Death. Five years after Bruce Lee's death in 1973, Golden Harvest used about 11 minutes of Lee's uncompleted original footage intended by him to become the film "Game of Death", completing the rest of their 1978 film using Lee look-a-likes. Twenty-three more minutes of Lee's original footage were considered lost for 28 years, until they were discovered by Bey Logan in 1999. John Little assembled these parts according to Lee's script notes, reflecting more accurately Lee's intentions. In 2000 it was directed the short film The Story. The movie is the storyline (Plot)for The Game of Death and the missing part of Bruce Lee's The Game of Death, not played in 1972. (The Story is also a prequel and sequel of Game of Death Redux). Directed in South Korea by John Little, distributed as a special feature in DVD of the documentary Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey. In 2000, the Japanese film Bruce Lee in G.O.D 死亡的遊戯 was released on DVD. This film shows Lee's original vision of the film through the existing footage that was shot for the film before he died (= The Game of Death of Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey), interviews, and historical re-enactments of what went on behind the scenes. On 2019 producer Alan Canvan edited Game of Death Redux, edit only uses footage shot during the original production of The Game of Death. The film was released as a special feature in The Criterion Collection's Blu-ray box set of Bruce Lee films, on July 14, 2020. 23:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly understand that there are a number of related films for which you are trying to create pages. But the fact remains that the page in question (The Game of Death (1972)) still requires cleanup as I have explained - and there are still no sources for some of the quotes about the film. I would again encourage you to look at the film template for further guidance. The pages for the other films in this family seem OK - it's just this one that has these issues. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources of the quote about The Game of Death:
  • Hello UDScott, I hope you enjoyed my work. Could you dismiss the warning?:
    please 18:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello UDScott my work is done. Do you want to ask me more? I am available for you. It's all OK? I would like to leave but Can You delete your notice ({{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}:film-cleanup|2022-01-31) in The Game of Death? Please 20:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are certainly free to remove the cleanup tag at any point (it's not that I am the only one who can do so - I was just trying to explain what I saw as issues). If another editor deems the page needs more cleanup, the tag can be replaced. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok but I will always be available, thank you very much, also for your information, by 21:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts on an editor[edit]

I have noticed that Leonardo Coelho contributions seem to be largely restricted to quotes about how the Jews are Freemasons or Marxists or otherwise a source of trouble. I grant that a complete compendium will contain this sort of thing, but I'd like a second opinion on whether this focus is legitimately concerning. BD2412 T 21:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree - I had noticed a couple of this user's edits, but had failed to put the whole picture together. But when you look at the full list of contributions, it does seem pretty clear. As you say, a complete collection of quotes will have such quotes (as well as others from differing viewpoints), but this particular user appears to have a bit of an agenda. I agree with your concern - and support and action you might take as a result. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be away for a week, but will look more deeply into this when I get back. BD2412 T 00:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion on the user's talk page is not more elucidating than their edit history. BD2412 T 07:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I saw that - it seems that the user is not seeing that their edits imply a certain bias. Or if this is known, that this is an issue. I suggest we keep a further watch on things and try to ensure that any quotes added are not pushing a POV - I'm not sure what other options are available to us for now. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I quote what Jews say about Jews or non-Jews, am I being biased too? Leonardo Coelho (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concern IMHO is not about the individual quotes themselves, but rather that your additions seem to define a pattern that appears to drive a POV (specifically that there is something nefarious or negative about a distinct group of people). This focus is what we have both deemed as potentially harmful. It appears almost to be a coordinated campaign that slowly (but not obviously) pushes the POV across many pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My dear, if those people said that, they did. And they spoke. Regarding bias, forbidding these quotes from being made available here is a form of bias. These are quotations at different times and made by different and notable people: writers, journalists, kings, queens, diplomats, priests, saints, popes, rabbis, etc. My impression, I could be wrong, is that there is already a certain veiled bias: if there wasn't, there would be no reason for it to be causing discomfort. I think the best way to have no official point of view is to have all points of view. If many people, notables and at different times, say similar things about a certain subject, then there is a common point of view and it deserves to be here. In our times, when something is said against Christianity, it is rarely labeled as anti-Christian or hatred of Christians. On the other hand, anything that is said against Jews that is not positive is classified as anti-Semitism. Well, we can adopt this way of labeling here, because, in fact, it has become the default. I don't object. I can put all these authors in Category:Anti-Semites, but we have so a problem: many Jews will be put in this category. If you can specify the problem more clearly, exactly, I would appreciate it. God bless you! Leonardo Coelho (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leonardo Coelho: I think the concern has been stated quite clearly: "your additions seem to define a pattern that appears to drive a POV (specifically that there is something nefarious or negative about a distinct group of people)". Is this incorrect? Is it not your intention to primarily add quotes perpetuating tropes that paint a specific group in a negative light? I gather that if you came across a quote of equal notability saying that Jews were great philanthropists, you would ignore it and go looking for more negative content. BD2412 T 19:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with quotes that saying that Jews were great philanthropists. I know this. One example of this is the support of George Soros, a great and well known jewish philanthropist, to the free and open knowledge etc. You and anyone else can post quotes here that show this side of the Jews. As I said, the ideal, for there to be de facto neutrality, is put all points available to the public. And I would never object nor would I delete them. Have I ever deleted something another contributor posted here? The fact that I put a point of view, which you consider negative, is much more because of the lacking of this point of view than because of its content, which, I agree with you, does not seem positive to me. This point of view may be true or false, but it is a people's right to know that it exists and that it has existed for a long time. In my humble opinion, hiding this information is more dangerous than making it available. The other point of view, the positive one, that they are great philanthropists, that they have great scientists, that the State of Israel is a success, etc. is available. It doesn't seem to me at all to be withheld from people. It seems to me, in fact, the exact opposite: it is the only point of view available. If you want to forbid the hidden point of view, ok, fine. Write a new guideline forbidding the point of view, but have the decency and moral honesty to be clear and explicit. Leonardo Coelho (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding our intentions - neither of us said anything about removing or prohibiting the addition of valid, sourced quotes. The concern that was raised was as stated - a pattern has emerged - and we were simply trying to ascertain your motives and suggest perhaps a more balanced approach. If such a one-sided pattern emerged on any topic on the site, we would likely have similar discussions with a user. This is not about having "decency or moral honesty", but rather a simple concern raised about your contributions - in fact I believe we are being very clear and honest about that concern. Whether we can ever truly achieve a state across the site where quotes are not pushing one POV or another is debatable and perhaps naïve, but when a case presents itself that seems so clear, we are obligated to point it out. Your additions seem to drive a negative view on the subject of Jews and they are slowly permeating a large number of pages - we believe this stealthy campaign has an overall negative effect on the project. That is the reason for this discussion, nothing more. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my dear, to achieve a more balanced approach, as I said, is necessary to share all the common points of view available. When I was a teenager, I was taught at school that the negative conceptions about the Jews were due to the nazis. This is absolutely false. Negative conceptions about them have existed for a long time, especially since the birth and flowering of the Church. Saints, popes, kings, queens, politicians, artists, writers etc. have expressed negative feelings towards them throughout history and these people have a high-notoriety status. On the other hand, when we go into the exclusively Jewish world, we find horrible things they say against non-Jews. Horrible moral values. Jews, culturally, are not terminally opposed to pedophilia. This is in the pages of the Talmud, the most important book for them. Stealing from a non-Jews is fine, it's not morally reprehensible. Lying to a non-Jew is ok, no problem. And many other immoral, abject, disgusting things. Did you know that? Nobody said that about them. They themselves have said these things and teach these things to their own. One thing I don't understand is: if jews themselves admit these horrible things in the literature they produce and if so many notable people have expressed negative feelings about them throughout history, why is this not here? Is there something orchestrated that this is not here? 'Cause that's what it seems to me, I could be wrong, and if so, then this is a way to pushing one POV. Withholding information is a way of pushing one POV. That's what I said and you, I don't know why, ignored it. If a point of view was omitted (why?) and is now being made available it is natural that the overview on the subject be shifted a little. My question to you is: why this point of view, so common throughout history, is not here? I can't see any reason other than intentionality in this. Your behavior seems to support this impression. If I'm wrong about this, may you and God forgive me. Leonardo Coelho (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen enough. I have blocked this editor, as they are not here to build a neutral and useful resource. Cherry-picking individual quotes to accuse an entire group of adhering to condemned views (which is a practice that could be applies to any group), is so wildly irrational as to be beyond any further attempt at reasoned discussion. BD2412 T 18:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The S is supposed to be capitalized, that’s why you didn’t see that it had an enwiki article. I’ve also improved it. Dronebogus (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just in case you missed my reply to your comment on EliasKingston's talk page. That user is using their account as a sock puppet due to being blocked for their disruptive actions on Wikipedia. They tend to focus on the horror film article there and how the decade sections are arranged. Due that article, and other, being semi-protected due to their disruptions, they frequently create new accounts and ask me, and other users, to make their desired changes. With that not working, they've now moved here to continue their harassment. NJZombie (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - yeah it's pretty apparent what's happening. I just warned that user to cease and desist, lest a block be applied. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much thanks! NJZombie (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


is continuing the vandalism of Special:Contributions/ and should be blocked too. Best regards Johannnes89 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+ Special:Contributions/ -- Johannnes89 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Johannnes89 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And please semi protect Talk:Shrek‎‎ EN-Jungwon (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revdel request[edit]

Can you revdel the edit summaries of these revisions? Special:PermaLink/3073711 and Special:PermaLink/3073709. Thanks. -- EN-Jungwon 16:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't visit here often, but some users seem pretty "tempestuous"[edit]

Greetings, fellow Scott!

I was hearkening back to a brief tussle I had with Eaglestorm about the absence of the "It's a trap!" quote from Admiral Ackbar in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. I only just read their reply to my talk page entry, and I thought you might be interested to see its rather uncivil tone. Sorry for the belated notice! Cheers,
-- Xanderox (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did Eaglestorm only get a 2-week block?[edit]

They’re clearly not remorseful or willing to change and have done nothing but behave abusively for many years. They are also blocked on enwiki. Why not just indef them and unblock them if they truly show awareness for their wrongdoings? Dronebogus (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The length of time for a block is not something for which we have any hard or fast rules. My decision was based on the fact that despite the egregious behavior on the part of Eaglestorm, this user does also does a lot of good work in combatting vandalism and bloating of quotes. However, should the uncivil behavior continue after the block, there will be no room for forgiveness and there will be a longer block implemented. I am not inclined to indefinitely block users that continue to contribute - and I fail to see how any such user could show how aware they are of any wrongdoing once they are blocked. Let's see how this plays out once the block expires. To be sure, I will be diligently watching the actions at that point and will not hesitate to address any issues. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi UDScott, do you think it'd be a good idea for unregistered users to be blocked from creating pages in other users' userspace? All the times I've seen userpages being created by IPs, it is to vandalise. I want to hear your opinion on this though. Thanks :) --Ferien (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ferien. While I understand the sentiment - and you are probably right that the majority of such pages are for the purposes of vandalism - my inclination would be to not do this. Even if the likelihood is low, there's the possibility that someone might actually use the talk pages in the right way (this is similar to why I have never locked my own talk page except in brief times to stop some excessive vandalism). That being said, there has always been some sentiment among regular users to require users to register a name in order to edit in general - if this were the way we operated, it would at least eliminate this issue that you have highlighted. I just don't know if that will ever get enough support to get implemented. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For user talk pages, I definitely wouldn't want an abuse filter to be implemented, I agree. For User: pages though, I can't think of any time an IP would need to make one for another user. --Ferien (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, good point - I didn't read your initial question closely enough. I think I would tend to agree in that case. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I think I will start a discussion at the village pump some time soon to see what everyone else thinks about it. Thanks, Ferien (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quote submitted "...automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed.//" ?[edit]

Dear UDScott, I just attempted to post a recent powerful quote on both inter national l aw and the U Kraine Ru-ssia crisis, that was disallowed. The following message came on screen:
Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: GRP
Prior to sending this to you, I searched for the abuse rule mentioned, but was unable to find it. If you could please share a link to that information, it would be very helpful & appreciated! Thank you/with respect, JulianVerdadCastro (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@JulianVerdadCastro: Hello, sorry about this, this was not supposed to have happened. The abuse filter was created to try and stop a persistent vandal on our site. I have temporarily disabled it while I take a closer look at it. Have a nice day and happy editing. --Ferien (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Ferien for fixing it with a green light! All the best. JulianVerdadCastro (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JulianVerdadCastro: No problem. I've reenabled the filter but I believe I've fixed the issue now. Happy editing. --Ferien (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Several Attempts to send to you the entire text (and later excerpts) were rejected multiple times.... the author of the quote Da vid Mc Bride quoted by cait lin john stone dated 17 March 2022

Spider-Man: No Way Home[edit]

Any chance you could block IP editing to Spider-Man: No Way Home? We have unregistered users adding quotes to the page when the page is currently within the limit of the number of quotes that could/should be added. Giftheck (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I protected it (for a short period for now, but will extend if necessary). ~ UDScott (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return of the Jedi[edit]

This user, Dronebogus, has just added an Admiral Ackbar quote in the Return of the Jedi page:

Could you please consider removing that quote from the page and tell the user not to add it again? The reason for this is because he thinks I started an edit war with him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think UDScott is going to take your side on this? Dronebogus (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen this argument before. My two cents: I don't find this quote particularly memorable, but I also don't see the need to delete it if it is seen as such by someone else. I am not one to hold as strictly to the quote limits for films as others might be. I do think there is a point where it is obvious that too many quotes are added to a page (and usually I try to find a compromise to address such situations). In the end, I just don't see the criticality of deleting this one quote. I wouldn't add it myself, but don't really have an issue if someone else does. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about songs[edit]

Hi UD Scott, Happy Friday. Question for you: For pages with quotes/lyrics from songs that have their very own wikipedia pages, is it ok for them to have their own WikiQuote pages, or should they only be a part of the author/source's page? Am asking because of the two pages created earlier today, both of which have their own WP pages, where you suggested that "Sweet Jane" be merged into the Lou Reed page, and "Try to Remember" be merged into the Fantasticks page. This is confusing to my simple/unrefined mind, because I thought that it was viewed as desirable at wikiquotes, to create individual WQ pages to compliment the same named WP pages. Is that understanding incorrect? Please advise. Thanks very much for your help and all the great work that you and the other admins do here. Alphabravo2022 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would answer in this way: for any work (be it a song, book, or other literary work), we generally keep the quotes from them on the author's page - unless there are such a large number of quotes either from the work or about it such that a separate page is necessary to house them (since their inclusion on the author's page at that point might make it a bit large). For songs, I would not imagine that this would be likely to occur - most songs have only a handful of lyrics quoted and may have a few quotes about it, but I would not expect that this set of quotes would cause the need to move them to their own page. Even when books are quoted, many remain on the author's page - only when there are a large number of quotes from them do they then get moved to their own page. For example, if you look at the Charles Dickens page, you will see that a work such as The Old Curiosity Shop has quotes that remain on the author's page, but those from A Tale of Two Cities have their own page (which is linked to on the author's page). In general, song pages are simply redirects to the author/band/singer page. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for bringing this question up, @Alphabravo2022. Just wanted to share with both of you the dilemma I faced when I created Do you love me. I thought the quote should be immortalized so wanted to find a proper location for it on WQ. I did not want to place it under Robots because I did not want it to look like a commercial for the company that currently owns the robot maker. I am not sure if Dance would be another anchor, since we don't know who choreographed this dance routine. So instead I created the stub Do you love me. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a good point - in the case where it is not likely that the author of a song has a page (for example if it was a "one-hit wonder"), then this is where I could see a stub page for the song itself, especially if it were mentioned in additional quotes. If there had not been an outside quote about the song, I would have instead recommended creating a page for its author (Berry Gordy), who wrote a number of songs. For an example of this type of page (where the author of songs did not perform them), see Holland-Dozier-Holland. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you UD Scott for being so clear. The suggested mergers have been made. As usual - i'm not sure wheter or not the way the mergers were done were 100% correct, but i trust any errors will be corrected eventually by someone who knows better. Alphabravo2022 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for deleting ROLLNO-288 HTCNO-771208 P.NO-551230 LICENSE APPLY NEW DATE/6/5/22/, as I requested. Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of talk-pages[edit]

Hi UDScott, I would like to ask your opinion as one of the most senior contributors to Wikiquote (WQ).

I know that when pages are deleted on WQ, their associated page is also deleted. What I don’t know is why? Is it because the system requires it, or is it merely a matter of tradition, and if so why?

I know you are VERY busy and don't mind waiting for a reply. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rollback rights[edit]

I am requesting rollback rights to undo vandalism – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked from reading (Crosspost from the Village pump)[edit]

I was looking through the API, particularly user permissions, and I saw that it listed read as a right, is this just how it lists permissions, or can you actually be blocked from reading? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission to run formatting regular expressions on all pages (Crosspost from the village pump)[edit]

I am requesting permission to create a bot that runs formatting regular expressions on all pages. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



To what is this referring? What formatting issues do you see? (And by the way, I am quite familiar with proper formatting and spend many a day fixing such issues on various pages. If I overlooked one on this page, please point it out or fix it.). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You used :''' instead of : ''' through out the page. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what I used is actually correct - and is the way all of the templates show it. Your use of the extra space is unnecessary. Now, I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other - I just try to ensure consistency and that the agreed templates are used. IMHO, there was nothing wrong with the edits to this page that I made. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well for the star and hash symbols the Manual of Style says to use a space, so I assumed the same for the semicolon character. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle, I am also curious to find out what you are trying to say. @UDScott spends hours and hours on WQ, and has done so for a long long time, in my short experience. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move request[edit]

Hello UDScott, could you please move this page without leaving a redirect? The new title should be "Rabia of Basra" instead. Thanks. --MonstrumVenandi (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple failed login attempts and "internal 500 errors"?[edit]

I recently received notices of a large number of multiple failed login attempts and figured it would be a wise precaution to declare my intent to be working on the page for Roe v. Wade for the foreseeable future; which at over three hundred references is going to take me a while.
On a hopefully unrelated note, on the talk page for Roe v. Wade, Ottawahitech says they are getting too many "internal 500 errors" to continue adding anything to said page. This is not an issue I've ever encountered, my largest technical difficulty editing Wikiquote has been adding links to entertainment news websites that occasionally trigger the spam filter's blacklist. To be perfectly honest I assumed no such errors occurred and that no attempt has been made to alert any administrator to this issue outside of the talk page before declaring it was too much of an obstacle. I don't care if anyone is just trying to save face, even looking at all those references gives me an internal 300+ error, however making it sound like one of the pages is being haunted by errors will deter further work from being done on it, particularly when it's the creator of the page making this claim. I'm still leaning on this being a BS-PR stunt being done at the page's expense, but recent events have given me some degree of doubt in that initial assessment, I mean we are both editors of a page concerning a front page news story. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PROD of Albert W. Tucker[edit]

Hi UDScott, I have just discovered the notification you have left on my user-talk-page (UTP). Thanks for notifying me that you "have added a "{{prod}}" template" to Albert W. Tucker. At this point I have no idea why you feel that this page should be permanently removed public view.

May I come back here with additional questions//comments? I know you are very busy, and I don't mind waiting for an answer, as long as the 'proposed deletion" of Albert W. Tucker is not carried out while we are in the process of ironing out all issues. I spent some volunteer effort& time, which is precious to me, composing Albert W. Tucker, and I don't want this effort to go to waste. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I placed the tag (as I explained in the notice) because the only quote on the page ("I grew up in Ontario, Canada where I was born in 1905") is merely a statement of the fact of his birth, and is in no way memorable or notable. While I definitely believe this person is a notable person, such a statement as the only quote from him is not really worthy of having a page here. I would recommend reading Wikiquote:Quotability for more details on what makes a quote worth placing on a page here. If you can find other quotes that are more worthwhile, I would support it staying. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so it sounds like you do not believe in collaboration between "editors" here. The quote I included in the article was the opening of an interview in which Tucker, who is a mathemtician was sharing some of his experiences growing up with the interviewer. The source for the quote is not paywalled and can be accessed by all. Since I am not a mathematician and my interests lie elsewhere, I thought the best way to treat this is to let others choose what sentence(s) are worth quoting, and use my own time improving other areas at WQ.
But it appears that the system here favors deletion unless one provides an article that is perfect from the get-go. It also appears that admins here do not appreciate simpletons like me fixing other tidbits here and there. In other words wiki-gnomes are not in high demand.
I guess I'll have to re-evaluates my enthusiasm about adding new articles under these conditions. I am tired of having to fight to defend every addition I make, and tired of having to deal with functionaries who are comfortable ordering others to comply with rules while they themselves feel above those same rules. I will not remove the prod, so feel free to remove the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ottawahitech: To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about. Tagging a page for deletion that only features a bland quote about when and where a person was born does not represent a lack of collaboration (especially when the PROD tag is meant to encourage the author to improve the page as noted - that is why there is a week provided before the deletion occurs if no action is taken). I also take exception with the characterization that "fixing other tidbits here and there" are not appreciated - how does this tagging of a page needing work relate to that? And finally, how have I "ordered" anything, let alone shown that I expect anyone to follow rules that I do not follow? The so-called rules that you decry are ones that have arisen through consensus of the community as the best way to present quotes on the site (and of course are always open to discussion and revision) and I make every effort to remain within those bounds as well. I'm really not sure why you would accuse me of such behavior. The bottom line is that this page does not measure up in its current form. I simply tagged it as needing improvement. If you cannot understand that, then I cannot help you. And I would appreciate if you would keep your accusations of bad behavior to yourself, especially when they are completely unfounded. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin accountability poll[edit]

Admin accountability poll is open, vote here. – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 10:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to ask you something[edit]

What if 2020 came to your house? What would you do? — 04:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Why did you de-redacted’s comment? – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF) (talk / e-mail) 15:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general (unless the comments are inappropriate or attacking in nature) I do not remove or censor comments on my talk page. Instead I choose to ignore them when something is really not worth my time. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user is globally blocked/banned though. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF) (talk / e-mail) 16:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Global blocks ≠ global bans. Content from globally blocked users do not have to be reverted or redacted. --Ferien (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What’s the difference between a global block and a global ban? – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF) (talk / e-mail) 16:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A global block is an action taken by a steward, usually quite quickly, to address sockpuppetry, vandalism or spam. Open proxies are also globally blocked. A global ban is done after a discussion on Meta in an RfC, and whenever when/if they evade their ban, their edits are all usually reverted, the accounts globally locked and IPs globally blocked. Ferien (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF) (talk / e-mail) 16:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revdel request[edit]

Could you please revdel this? Edit: Done. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF) (talk / e-mail) 16:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Why did you block for 31 hours (they should be block, just wondering why exactly 31 hours [seems oddly specific])? – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF) (talk / e-mail) 19:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe Biden[edit]

@UDScott: Why are changing all the formatting? – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 01:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was restoring it to the proper formatting for a people page. Why was different formatting used on this page in the first place? ~ UDScott (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because most of the new longer quotes used {{Blockquote}} because it’s easier to read long quotes with it, most of the old quotes still didn't use it, so I was working on converting all long quotes to use {{Blockquote}}. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 01:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As with past discussion I've had with you, I don't believe such a substantial change to a page should be made just because one user feels it makes it look better. It's not that I am against new ideas or ways to show quotes, but rather as this is a community built on consensus, these things should be discussed. The template for people pages has been refined over many years - and of course is subject to change, but discussion about it has always occurred for major changes. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UDScott: If you don't substantial changes should be made without consensus then why did remove Blockquote on the quotes I added? – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 01:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the use of Blockquote is the change I am talking about. Its use is not according to the established template. And btw, you don't need to ping me every time to write on my talk page - there are already alerts given to me when wnyone writes on my talk page. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, could you start a discussion? – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 01:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What discussion do you want me to start? All I did was clean up a page to meet the established formatting. You are the one who appears to want to make a change - I suggest you start such a discussion on the template talk page or VP if you feel strongly about it. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you start an RfC, I do feel really strong about it, just doing something else. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 02:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, sorry - I'm doing plenty of other things as well - and it's not my issue, it's yours. I don't feel that I have any other actions to take. You can choose to drop it or bring it up if you wish. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback matters: Share your feedback in the Administratior accountability poll[edit]

Information.svg The Administratior accountability poll is open, vote here. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 21:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP address ban and Mass deletion of articles[edit]

We hosted an event on the 25 June 2022 for an Art and feminism events so we experienced an issue where there was a clash of IP address being the same and also having about 5 user accounts identify as one username under Leungo Mokgwathi. So the following usernames are identified as socketpuppet when they try to create articles all their articles are marked under deletion and identify as Memory Macheza, Wathuto, Kutlomasa, Tntsholetsang, Ikobeng. So currently Leungo Mokgwathi cannot create any article too as all her work is placed under mass deletion. from Shoodho 20 June 2022


Do you use Twinkle? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 18:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, and I know nothing about it. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More information available here. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 18:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am quite sure this does not work on Wikiquote. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
15:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vulgarity is overrated.[edit]

This user, Dronebogus, keeps asking me if I am a censorious bluenoser, which is why he keeps adding vulgar words to the Striptease page. Could you please do something about this? Here is the contribution history of this user: Special:Contributions/Dronebogus AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have never watched the movie so I don’t know what the actual lines are, ADH refuses to say, so I’m regarding it as vandalism. If the lines are correct then they cannot be edited because Wikiquote is not censored. Dronebogus (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 04:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to have worked itself out...the page currently does not have the censored version. But to the point that was raised, at WQ, we do not censor any quotes - they should appear as they were presented in a work and not be altered. If you don't like the words, don't visit the page (and never change them to suit your own sensibilities). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you give me Rollback? It has been added.Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 13:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UDScott: Do you think you could respond to this? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 17:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was under the impression there would be a discussion on this topic before granting it to any users - I just have seen minimal discussion at the Wikiquote:Admin accountability poll page, but it was not conclusive. No offense meant to you, but I'm not sure that the need has been demonstrated nor that you have shown any restraint in your edits here - I still have many unanswered questions about your plethora of templates that you've introduced and I have seen some impetuous (and sometimes relentless behavior that will only scare away new users) edits correcting others for formatting that doesn't match your sensibilities. While I realize these things have nothing directly to do with this request, it shows behavior that I am reluctant to endorse with the use of advanced tools. I just feel that you are moving at such a fast clip to substantially alter the site (so fast that I have a hard time even keeping up with all that you are doing) and I would rather use a bit of caution. Feel free to bring it another admin if you feel you have a strong case to be made. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I will ask other admins. Also, about the formatting Template:
I don't ever use the Template if they go against my personal preference, I only do it if they actually go against the Manual of style.
Also, about the Templates:
I will be cleaning them up soon, I will list a lot for deletion and significantly change many others, which should solve most of these issues, as most of them are not done.
Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 21:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blockquote thought[edit]

I had thought about the {{Blockquote}} debate:

We could create a {{Longquote}} Template which could displayed in several different ways which could be configured in Special:Preferences, which would set a magic word.

Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 22:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging Dupin with Poe[edit]

While there is nothing off about merging Dupin page with Poe, I can see Nero Wolfe and Rex Stout, Sherlock Holmes (in all iterations) and Arthur Conan Doyle, Hercule Poirot and Agatha Christie as separate pages. In principle, Dupin can be a separate page. Further, other authors have used Dupin as a character which I am currently reading and I intend to add those quotes here too. Let me know your thoughts. Msgtoab (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)ABReply[reply]

Question about Blockquote[edit]

I have now changed it so it is seen the original way by most users, but you can opt-in to see it using {{Blockquote}}. What do you think? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 23:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blp template on Wikiquote[edit]

Is there any blp template on Wikiquote? I've looked but I can't seem to find one. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I do not believe so. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How did you just add multiple categories in one edit? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 18:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you look at the bottom of a page (where you can add categories individually through HotCat), right next to where the word 'Categories' is, in parentheses is a double + sign. If you click this, you can then add as many categories as you wish. When you then hit 'Save' (in the same spot), it will add multiple categories at once. See here for more information. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the advice! – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 18:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"cleanup of Category:Films by director"[edit]

Hello, just saw your contribs – you know you can use the "→" icon in Cat-a-lot to "move" pages from one cat to the other (instead of removing them from one and then adding to the other separately)? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do I exclude a section from the TOC? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 13:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure - I've never had the need to exclude a specific section. The closest I have seen is through Template:TOC limit, which can limit levels of the TOC. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to exclude the "notice" section from the Village Pump. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 14:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I am not sure this can be done. Also, why would you want to do this for the VP page? ~ UDScott (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


On your page, it lists vfd tips, but do you think you could give me advice on how to (successfully) fight a vfd? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I can say is that you need to rectify the issue(s) that were brought up ion the nomination. It's as simple as that. If you don't have the time to do that before the period expires, the next best thing is to work on it and recreate it later, with the issues resolved. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, will do. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But be warned: that is no guarantee. If the consensus remains that a page is not needed, even if you fix some issues, it may not survive. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism in a wiki[edit]

I have seen several cases of vandalism in this wiki, how can I report it?

Regards, Thanks. Johnysnooww (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! This seems to be Alec Smithson (recognizable for "Natoli" and "Lierna"), I think his contributions should be canceled. Spinoziano (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of Notability[edit]

Hi dear admin these two wiki have lack of notability: Changerinwiki (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kian barazandeh again...[edit]

I don't know how to tag this so that it shows it was previously deleted here, but there ya go. It's an xwiki vanity spammer. Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dont u have any pride scott?[edit]

allowing globally forever banned (on e dramatica) javahurricane such vandalisms and name calling, antandr's school! 13:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right vs. left image placement[edit]

Is there a guideline or rule that states images at the top of the page are required to be placed on the right side? If so I'll stop moving the picture on Jenn Colella to the left. Thank you. Oldbeeg (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no official guideline or policy stating that the images must be on the right side. That being said, convention has developed where most are shown there (and if no placement is specified, by default they appear on the right). There are pages where the images are placed on the left and right, so this is not forbidden. No hard rule, just that most pages will have their images on the right by default. If you'd rather have an image on the left, feel free (although you still may see some users move it back to the right as that is predominantly the way users are accustomed. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for that. Before I move it left again, I'll put a note on the talk page. Would you mind if I reference your comment above? Oldbeeg (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, no problem. Cheers. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the blocking of Isla[edit]

[1]. I fail to see the logic of it. Can you further explain the rationale for an indef banning ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really recall this one, but when I look at the contributions, it appears that this was in error. My apologies - I've unblocked this user. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - Anthere


Hi UDScott, Can you add me to this list? This will help me to categorize the pages easily. Saroj Uprety (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PlayStation 4[edit]

Hello, might want to revdel some of the revisions too. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
15:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks; what about 13:44 and 14:26? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
17:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got 'em. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi UDScott, I know you are busy, but I must ask you a question in regards to @User:Risto hot sir -- no hurry, take your time. I hope you don’t think I am wasting your time /trolling /etc.

I happened to run into a 2017 question that risto posted] on your talkpage regarding copyrights. I cannot find any response from you on WQ. Am I missing something?

BTW I have just checked Risto's contributions at WQ and apparently he has not been blocked here? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I have no recollection of this, but in re-reading it, I'm not sure what question was being asked of me - I have no control over what rules other wikis choose to impose regarding what quotes may appear on them. Here, we have no restrictions based on recency of a quote. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I do not wish to burden you, one of the best content creators on WQ, but I don't know where else to go?
As you probably know User:Risto hot sir who is currently globally locked on all wmf-projects by the Stewards (volunteers that have been endowed with technical-powers that supersede local admin powers, I think?) was a prolific contributor to enWQ for years. Since then this user continued to provide wiki-gnome services to this community using many sockpuppets. In particular risto has been extremely helpful to the shesaid campaign since 2020. I am trying to understand how this situation came about, but so far I have not been able to locate a Steward will explain to the WQ-community what REALLY HAPPENED. Yes, I have received a mountain of links that I could turn into a a long research project at the expense of using my time to improve this online compendium of sourced quotations, but is this the only way?
I don't understand why the label of sockpuppet justifies the way this community is treating risto, who is a volunteer like the rest of us. Thanks in advance for allowing me to tell you why I am carrying on this Quixotic drive. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not delete: Shado Twala[edit]

Hello - you placed a deletion warning notice on this page: Shado Twala. Please see the Talk:Shado Twala page for an explanation, and a request for 24 hours to complete the task. Thank you! Islahaddow (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem - the prod tag remains in place for 7 days before anyone would take any action. Hopefully you will have added quotes by then anyway and the tag can be removed. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]