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.


Archive
Archives

Please consider accepting BD2412's invitation[edit]

@UDScott: On December 26 you posted in favor of taking the permanent edit protection off of WQ:WQ, BD2412, who placed the protection and declines to unprotect the page, invited you to unprotect it, saying "if you want to unprotect the page, you have that authority." Would you please consider accepting this invitation? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have considered it, but this is still a site based on consensus and it seems that this is not a settled topic. Just because I do not see the harm at the moment in removing the strict protection level does not mean that I act on my own, which is why I have hesitated. As a compromise, I will lower the protection below admins, but this page will be closely watched and is subject to further protection in the future. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my request. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The West Wing[edit]

The Pilot episode wasn't the only one with more than five. There are several others with at least six, so I'm going to trim them. Fair's fair. Joe Bethersonton (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Einstein[edit]

Hiǃ For some reason I can't undo vandalism on Albert's site.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wp-links[edit]

Hello UDScottǃ Have you noticed this?w:Wikipedia talk:External links--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please edit protect Ferris Bueller's Day Off[edit]

As you may recall, a couple months ago @WikiLubber: and I had a lively discussion regarding Ferris Bueller's Day Off. During that discussion WikiLubber made frequent edits to the page itself, constantly moving the goal post. I would like to resume the discussion but fear it will not be productive if WikiLubber continues to "edit while discussing." Would you please temporarily edit protect Ferris Bueller's Day Off so we can focus on the discussion? (Note: I made a previous request to Miszatomic but received no response.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why protect it if there has hardly been an edit on that page over the past few months? And why bother continuing that already-resolved discussion when the page is all right as it is now? WikiLubber (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The edits, mostly yours, stopped when our discussion stopped. Our discussion stopped because you kept editing (making it impossible to resolve one issue before you created a new one) not because the original discussion was resolved. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any proof that was the reason? Because there was (and still is) nothing worth editing if I could not remove quotes to keep within the quote limitations, regardless of the discussion. And the discussion was resolved. End of this discussion. And I did not start that issue. You did, adding absolutely unnecessary information that even IMDB does not need. WikiLubber (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see an immediate need to protect the page, but if you two try to resolve your differences, please refrain from doing so through edit-warring. Instead, I suggest you use the article's talk page or the Village Pump (if you need others to comment). I will keep an eye on things as I am able, so I will step in if it becomes necessary. Thanks ~ UDScott (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Toy Story vandal lingers on in the Shrek franchise...[edit]

As this remorseless edit will prove to you. WikiLubber (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, protecting Toy Story for one month was not going to stop the vandal. I recommend a year's worth of protection at least, and the same goes for all of its sequels. WikiLubber (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues in the Shrek franchise. I request no less than a year's worth of protection on each Shrek film. WikiLubber (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This IP vandalism epidemic...[edit]

...is getting out of hand, especially on admins' (and my) talk pages. One day, we have to put a stop to this permanently. I request that all our talk pages be protected indefinitely (because shorter terms will not stop the vandals). WikiLubber (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And why is no one putting their talk pages under indefinite protection? Blocking the IPs will not stop them. WikiLubber (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wq-links[edit]

Helloǃ Someone reverted the Wq-link at Wikipedia (Lodi dynasty). Could you put it back, 'cause I don't want to start editwarring? This subject has been discussed before - either we use link boxes or don't use boxes at all (including Commons).--Risto hot sir (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added it back - although I'm not sure if they will keep it. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanksǃ It seems that that editor is nearly always the troublemaker with boxes.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Typo[edit]

There's a category Peligious leaders from the United States. Could you fix it pleaseǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Fine, a lot of workǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sitush has reverted two Wq-links at Wikipedia, again.--Risto hot sir (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC) - Well, now I can't link Indian articles anymore...--Risto hot sir (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Please, block 86.145.71.174. Vandalism. Tks! Stanglavine (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars and theme pages.[edit]

My recent edit to betrayal was reverted, and rather than edit war, I was wondering if Peter1c is correct, and whether more should be done regarding the removal of Star Wars quotes from theme pages. For example, would you consider it appropriate to remove the rather simplistic "Don't give in to hate. That leads to the dark side." from the page for hate? The quote does basically amount to "X is bad", although that's true of the Ten Commandments as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that the removal of that particular quote was because it was from a Star Wars film, but rather because the quote itself is not really about the topic of betrayal (despite the quote including the word betray, it is not really about the topic). Your example about hate however does appear to be on-topic, and I would not remove it from that page. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification, I would like to learn more about which quotes to delete, as I tend to overwhelmingly just add them. Only time will tell whether it has improved my editing of theme pages any, however I'm going to avoid adding quotes about particular instances of themes, such as the many songs/poems about having love for a specific person, i.e. "I love the way you X" (where X is, for example, "Don't lie to me") that I'm guessing would be inappropriate to add to the love page. Now if the song/poem goes, "Love is X" (where X is "not lying to those close to you"), I still I might add it. Unless of course both of those examples would be appropriate, would they? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I think you had it right - only the second would be appropriate. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again, you've been very helpful.
On an unrelated matter, I saw your edit to Mean Streets and at a later time would like to discuss about sections with you in some detail, should I eventually go back to making those kinds of additions, which I'm guessing I will when I get bored of reading medical journals and want to read something more entertaining and less depressing. For now however, the last question I have is this...is it possible to edit war on your own talk page? I chose to stop bothering Daniel Tom on their talk page when they told me to go away, and I assume if I hadn't I would have been blocked for edit warring, but were I to do that to Peter1c, on my own talk page, to get rid of what I consider to be soap boxing against Hollywood, disguised as (admittedly somewhat justified) criticisms of my editing, could it still be construed as edit warring still? CensoredScribe (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
First, I do not consider our talk pages to be something that each user owns, but rather they are pages for the community to discuss issues with users. This is why I do not support the removal of any comments from them (unless they are obviously vandalism), even if I do not agree with them. State your argument and let others do the same. So, yes edit warring can certainly occur on one's own talk page and I would discourage you or anyone else from engaging in this. If a disagreement or discussion becomes heated, I would appeal to the larger community (either on VP or to Admin's) rather than edit war. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Not to get too preachy or off-topic, but for what it's worth, assuming it exists, I don't consider my own soul something I own either, though for legal purposes my body is my own. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Work[edit]

As an administrator, might I request your arbitration? I have no idea what percentage of my edits you will agree with, but I think opening with shackles is odd, I personally like the glass ceiling and than shackles, imgs are a bit arbitrary, but there seems to be a conversation on the United States page, would you care to comment whether or not I made an improvement. I apologize if over the years I've been less than sociable and left a bad impression, but I came here to do work... CensoredScribe (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

UDScott, I've come to bargain. You will removed protection from this page?[edit]

I will removed protection in this page? I get change protection level for this page to like team, protected 12+ months ago, edit war has not resumed, protecting admin no longer active. User:MrSoccerRock (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the protection, as I see no need for anyone to make any changes to this page (the redirect seems appropriate to me). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you recommend adding images to the talk pages of other users as Peter1c is doing with me now?[edit]

This recent behavior from Peter1c seems rather strange, and it bothers me that they may not be feeling well enough to think vandalism is a good idea...I don't know whether this is officially a problem yet, maybe I'm just being paranoid but I figured I should talk to a 3rd party at this point. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding an image to someone's Talk page is not something that I would classify as vandalism. I'm not sure I see the issue you are raising. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In general, or always? I wouldn't mind doing the same to Peter1c's page, if that would be an option...I would consider it to be "tagging" personally. I noticed that some images do seem to be prohibited, feel free to add an image of feces or genitals to this conversation at your discretion. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I added the quotation "You have not taken your final form" from Dragon Ball Z, with an image associated with Dragon Ball Z character Goku to a section I had earlier created on CensoredScribe's talk page to discuss a pattern of edits. The quote was intended to convey that we are all still evolving. I apologize the addition was unwelcome. It was intended to be conciliatory. ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Imagine me captioning an image as "two heads are better than one" claiming I was being "conciliatory" every time I argue with a user, lose and feel the need to have the last word.
As a bonus, I could end my conversations with "Forget about it." or "Now shake my hand Walter." CensoredScribe (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Another IP vandal...[edit]

IP user 98.214.101.235 is constantly adding categories that are absolutely wrong to certain series.

Examples:
It refers to Alvin and the Chipmunks (1983 TV series) as a Cartoon Network show, but that series was cancelled BEFORE Cartoon Network even existed!
It refers to certain anime series as American TV shows, but none of them are!
It refers to some anime series as cancelled shows, but virtually none of them are!

I request that this user be blocked indefinitely and that all of its edits be undone. There are so many, I cannot do it alone. WikiLubber (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding images of voice actors to the pages of the films/shows they worked on[edit]

I was wondering if this would be a good/extant idea, the page for Star Trek shows the actors in costume, and various film pages show the actors at press events out of costume. Given TV shows (the popular/long ones anyway), unlike films are often divided between season list pages that would be stub length without about sections and the various seasons, I'm not sure that a cartoon show with a large cast would really work for this, but in case of a show like say, Samurai Jack, we could probably fit images of Mako Iwamatsu or Phil Lamarr captioned with excerpts from interviews. What do you think? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to only add images from the TV show or film (meaning that people would be in costume or shown in scenes from the work), so I would not really be inclined to do this. I also (as I expressed in the past) am one who doesn't really see a lot of value or notability expressed in interviews or other 'About' quotes. To me most of these types of quotes, while interesting to some, are ones that don't really provide much in the way of being memorable or pithy - which is the primary aim of this project. So, to sum up, I am probably not a supporter of the idea. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Adjust block[edit]

Hi would you please adjust the block for 86.179.176.75 and yank talk page access. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done - was just doing it when I saw your message. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Mind getting 71.218.26.8 too? It's another LTA. Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed in intros copied from Wikipedia.[edit]

Introductions obviously aren't the most important aspect of Wikiquote articles, however I'm bothered by the seemingly unverified claim copied from Wikipedia in the Race and appearance of Jesus article that emphasizing his race in addition to and sdistinct from his appearance is an early Christian concept, rather than say "Musculature of Jesus" may have been a topic of interest to the Muscular Christianity movement, but does not seem to originate as a phrase in this undefined period of "early Christianity". I believe the two references are, (The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined by David Friedrich Strauss 2010 ISBN 1-61640-309-8 pages 114-116) and (Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship by Shawn Kelley 2002 ISBN 0-415-28373-6 pages 70-73). I would need to check these two references to see if there is some important yet apparently unquoted "early Christian" text that uses this term "race and appearance of Jesus", but it would seem that without this text that this is a modern phrase and thus this article begins with a historical inaccuracy that we should not repeat, or at the very least should note that this term has no origin that can be shown with a quote. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

question[edit]

Hello, why was I (1.152.109.131) banned for edit warring but Rupert Loop was not? Islam is not a race, so removing category:racism on islamophobia is not vandalism, as I had told Rupert on his talk page.

First, Rupert loup certainly had regrettable actions in this dispute and would have been better served to appeal for help from others rather than edit-war. But you do not have the long history of positive edits on this site that Robert does. Second, while it is true that Islam is a religion rather than a race, it is commonly included within the topic of racism (although there remains disagreement about whether or not it should be categorized as such - from the page on Wikipedia: "Several scholars consider Islamophobia to be a form of xenophobia or racism. However, some scholars view Islamophobia and racism as partially overlapping phenomena and others have questioned the relationship between Islamophobia and racism." (also see here)). If there is disagreement, the best course of action would always be further discussion (which you or anyone else) is free to start on this topic. But there is no reason to change the accepted category here and on WP without such discussion when there is disagreement. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Another question[edit]

Hello again, I have made a few edits but I suspect Rupert will revert them. If you could look over them for me and let me know your thoughts on them I would greatly appreciate it, I have left edit summaries but they are brief.

The edits being these ones here

Rupert Loop accuses me of vandalism[edit]

I am making edits that I think are best, Rupert Loop acts with no standards. Look at his edit summary on capitalism when he reverted me for example: he wrote in the edit summary, "gain consensus first". Fair enough, I didn't gain consensus, neither did Rupert on his edits to Ronald Reagan, Truth, and John Bellamy Foster. Did he go and get consensus? No, he reverted with no sufficient explanation. --2001:8003:412B:6300:B1B2:D6B5:A973:455A 10:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

on the page Equality, Rupert disagreed with my removing an image, with the edit summary, "Not off topic, read the article's lead: "equal treatment of people"". Fair enough I suppose, but the same then must apply to Eisenhower's quote on purpose, which is just as related to the page.--2001:8003:412B:6300:B1B2:D6B5:A973:455A 10:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Turning acceptable race combination theme pages into unacceptable categories.[edit]

Imagine having a container category for all of these terms. Now imagine that, but for every conceivable combination of ethnic, national or tribal affiliation, because I think that's where Wikiquote is currently headed: Wikicasta

I read the concerns you conveyed during the discussion about demonyms being used for categories on the village pump and had a similar concern regarding turning ethnic combination theme pages into categories and giving false impressions about people's heritage by using genealogically inaccurate rounded fractions force fitted into narrow labels. We now have a page for Mestizo, which no one is categorized as being on Wikipedia. Despite Wikiquote not being Wikipedia, we seem to regard their usage of categories as definitive, and the template for Wikiquote to follow and not stray from, which is odd. However, mirroring the categories on Wikipedia doesn't seem to really be an official rule from what I can tell, just a generally accepted social norm here, which leads me to fear we might one day have a category called Mulattos, at first consisting of early colonial accounts where that term was acceptable in common vernacular and also among academics, (perhaps parallels can be drawn to the formerly acceptable usage of retarded as an official diagnostic label that we would not categorize people as being on their Wikipedia pages), but eventually encroaching into present times where that term is rarely used, nor an alternative label provided.
We have pages for lots of intangible concepts and figures who may or may not have ever existed, so whether a page is actually a real thing is inconsequential, but I'm concerned about what message we would be sending by creating pages for various combinations of ethnicity and reinforcing the idea of Blood quantum and Casta and how that might scare away potential editors by making them think we are obsessed with race more than any other concept, like many of the opening images on theme pages imply. Just in Britain there are over two dozen tribal identities, which even if we drew the line at being half X half Y without further differentiating between which parent you inherited that affiliation from, still means almost 500 new pages just within Britain. I'm not sure if Afro-Finn is the actual official term used by the Finnish government but that makes as much sense to me as African American which is a page we definitely need given it's a term used on the census. I don't have a problem with this as it is a much broader label than the ultra specificity of casta and blood quantum, which I find not only creepy but lazy due to the use of rounded numbers and assumptions regarding ancestral purity that are more often than not disproven with a genetics test.
I thought about adding this concern to the talk page for Mestizo but than I realized it was probably off topic to bring up a slippery slope argument about pages that don't even exist yet. I would just feel more comfortable if the category versions of these types of pages were given protected titles like the various combinations of scatological terms currently protected from being brought into existence. I really don't want someone making the argument that we have a page for Mulatto]], which is a term that refers to people, thus people should be categorized as being Mulatto. I could insert some quotes from Buckminster Fuller about race not existing, but I'm pretty sure you can guess what page to find it on, I will however include one last link as I raise the question as to whether one or both of these twin sisters, (were they to produce enough noteworthy quotes to have their own pages, which I don't think that they have), would be categorized as black people and or African-English and how many words for people of African descent we really need to include. Black people may be an acceptable term, however referring to Indigenous Americans as being red people e.g. Red Man, certainly isn't nor is it seemingly acceptable for anyone but people of African descent and European descent.
By the way, you can feel free to delete the image if you want, I know that's something I get annoyed at when I'm confused why someone added it, I just thought I'd add it to show how this one page could snowball into being innumerable. CensoredScribe (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

OK...I appreciate your essay (and the concern), but is there a question? I'm not clear on what you are asking of me. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

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

Deleting Beano Video[edit]

Could you delete Beano Video? 148.72.152.135 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Why? ~ UDScott (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

image vandal[edit]

Please consider a range block to prevent this from continuing. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please also yank TPA. Praxidicae (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Would you consider range-blocking 176.227.0.0/18, 178.240.192.0/18, 5.24.64.0/19, 159.146.0.0/17, 37.154.0.0/16 and 188.58.64.0/18? This is the ranges used by the vandal. -- Tegel (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)