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


Help with my user page[edit]

Can you help make this edit (Difference between revisions of "User:Just A Regular New Yorker") look like the rest? You'll know what I mean when you see it. I tried making one of those tabs that are on the side of user pages and this was as close as I got. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I am definitely not the right person to help with this (I am not a tech-savvy admin for sure), but it appears that if you change [[File:Mistery stub.svg|Mistery stub]] to [[File:Mistery stub.svg|45px]] it will look better - pretty close to the others. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This helped a lot. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Years[edit]

DanielTom many times has "corrected" my edits, 'cause the years are "too exact". I've noticed that You create new categories of the years of death, but that takes time, of course. Many 1960's and 1980's years are still red. If DanielTom keeps on disturbing, somebody must write the years again. Is that wise? And Ningauble has changed some "People from" -categories. Would "Born in" be better? - the people move all the time to other states. --Risto hot sir (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) - You still haven't answered what it means to be "from some state"? --Risto hot sir (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It is very true that "people move all the time to other states." This is why I think categorizing people by states, provinces, and other granfalloons is irrelevant to Wikiquote's purposes and is often misleading as well. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Where a person is born is the only fact we know for sure, everything else is speculation. In some cases, like with Obama, the state where he made his career, can be mentioned also. The people want to know who are born in the same state - it's not irrelevant.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Voting after vote closes limit expired[edit]

Hello, [1] a user voted today even though the vote limit expired yesterday. Votes are not being closed on schedule. But I just want to know if votes can be cast even after the time limit in case the voting has not been closed. I am new to this and want to clear it up. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Haven't tools (not HotCat, only CoolWife) to create categories. Wanted categories: 1986 deaths (24 persons), 1965 deaths (16), people from South Dakota (9) and people from Hawaii (7).--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

First, you can enable HotCat in your preferences (under gadgets). Second, you don't need it in order to fix this - another way is simply to click on the red link and then create the category by giving it a category (for example, to create 1986 deaths, click on that red-linked category and give it a category of 1980s deaths). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You're a good teacher! --Risto hot sir (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Just one correction: when you click on the red link, you must add the category, not just the text. For example open the 1986 deaths category and add this [[Category:1980s deaths]]. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Finns[edit]

Hello! I just wanted to see all finns together - like all new yorkers are. --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

But that category is redundant - when they already have something like Finnish politicians, then they already have the category Finns implied. It is redundant. Finnish politicians are contained within Finns. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
OK! --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Partridge Family[edit]

Thanks for adding categories, a pic, etc. to The Partridge Family. Hopefully I got the formatting right. I had it wrong in my first edits because I copied it from another article which apparently was formatted incorrectly. But then I found Wikiquote:Templates and Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows so tried to follow that. Thanks again! Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you marked it as a stub. I tried to keep the introduction short because the formatting guidelines said to avoid trying to reproduce Wikipedia. How long should the introductory (pre-quote) part of an article be here? Or is it a stub because it has few quotes? Thanks again for your help! Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I marked it as a stub because there were only quotes from one episode. That's not a bad thing (there are plenty of stubs on the site) - that just means that further quotes are expected, from other episodes. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hazel[edit]

I started an article on the TV show Hazel. I wanted to add this pic to the article, but I'm not sure of the best way to do it. Any advice for me? Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess you haven't been on in a few days--hope you're doing well! In any case, I found a pic on wikicommons I used. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry I forgot to respond - but you found your way. We only use images that are taken from wikicommons (and do not directly upload images to our site). ~ UDScott (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Boi13414413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has repeatedly vandalized. Please block him before he does it again. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Kalki has just taken care of it. Thanks anyway. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

'Quotes' in the Intro[edit]

Hello UDScott, - I understood! I shall remove the rest of 'Quotes', which I have placed in Intro's of many artists. All the best! FotoDutch (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional Edit Conflicts[edit]

  • To UDScott: I am engaged in a second edit conflict with WikiLubber, this time over some dialogue on the 1997 movie Liar Liar. I added some italics to one section of dialogue after reviewing the scene in question, and determining as best I could that the italics better depicted the emphasis Jim Carrey's character put on certain words. WikiLubber absolutely refused to even consider this and has undone my edits twice now, backing his actions with nothing but his opinion. I have tried to be reasonable, but both times I have clashed with WikiLubber, it seems that he regards his opinions as being just as good as actual regulations on this site. I'd like you to intervene on that page. I cannot seem to find a way to work things out with WikiLubber. Frankly, he seems to patrol pages he regards as "his" and works to remove anything he personally doesn't approve of. Any assistance you can offer on that page would be appreciated. --AC9016 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a connected question I have. See, one of the several areas where WikiLubber and I disagree is over capitalization and italicizing in dialogue. That is, scene descriptions. The [] brackets either go inside the italics marks, or outside them. Does Wikiquote have regulations on that? And, if there's a line of dialogue describing action in a scene, like, [Opens the glove compartment], is that first letter of the description 'sentence' to be capitalized, or not? Does Wikiquote have any official regs on that? --AC9016 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

---The main issue of the conflict seems to be getting resolved between the two of us. I am still curious as to official site policy that I asked about, however. --AC9016 (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There really is no consensus on such details, although I can give you my (non-binding) opinion: I usually put the brackets inside the the italics marks and I usually do not capitalize the first letter inside the brackets. But as I said, there really are nor rules on such details. I certainly would not spend time arguing or fighting about things such as this. As for the behavior of Wikilubber, there have been numerous conflicts with this user in the past - I do hope you have been able to work out your differences, but if anything flares up, do not hesitate to ask for help from an admin. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
There's not? Huh. I assumed there was. However, since I trust and respect your opinion on these matters, I will adopt your practice of placing the brackets inside the italics marks. And I agree, it isn't really something to fight over.
As for WikiLubber: So after a brief calm, the fight is back on. Same deal as we had on the Mulan page. Honestly, I do not see what makes everything a federal case with this guy. My actions in editing these pages aren't meant to pick fights. I try to follow the rules. But WikiLubber seems eager to fight if someone edits a page in a way he doesn't approve of. I can almost understand being too strict about enforcing site regs; at least those are REAL. But I cannot find any proof that WikiLubber is enforcing something other than his opinion. I am not surprised to learn there have been "numerous conflicts" with this user in the past. He seems to honestly believe he's right, but again, his actions seem largely backed by his opinion and nothing else. --AC9016 (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It's continuing. I would like to ask for an admin to intervene. I apologize fully for my role in this latest edit war, but this and my past interactions with WikiLubber strongly suggest an argumentative attitude and a willingness to treat subjective opinion as being as good as official policy and fact. WikiLubber and I have clashed twice, and on neither occasion has WikiLubber been even remotely willing to compromise. I'm trying to make the site better, but some people only want that if it's their way. --AC9016 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Posted on WikiLubber's talk page, asking for a truce between us. He deleted my entire address to him without a word in reply. I think that says plenty, all the same. --AC9016 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Matshona Dhliwayo[edit]

Hello, I wan't to know why they are going to delete this post, I was paid to do a wikiquotes pages to this famous writer, he is very skilled and wan't to show his quotes to the world. Thanks - —This unsigned comment is by Juanca1996 (talkcontribs) .

Feel free to make an argument at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matshona Dhliwayo, where any user may add to the discussion on this page. The reason for the nomination was that this person appears to lack the kind of notability we require at the site. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Help With New Page[edit]

I just made this page in a haste. It definitely needs work, and I was hoping you could help by adding new links and content. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

Hello, UDScott. I was wondering how I should cite the sorces of the content I added on an article, in this case Wilkie Collins. In many cases, I have just added the title and the link to a Google books version of the source book as I usually do on Wikipedia. I have also used secondary sources of other notable or scholarly authors to prove the quote's notability.

However, there seem to be multiple policies including WQ:CITE and WQ:S. The latter one is however a proposed policy. But even ignoring the other policy WQ:S, WQ:CITE seems to have multiples styles of citation. Can you please advise properly citing sources in my particular case including secondary sources? Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but can you please respond to my question UD. I don't want to make the source details too long. I believe it's urgent for a better format. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
There really is no standard way of citing sources. Some prefer more elaborate ways and others prefer simpler approaches. But it should have enough information that one could verify the quote is so inclined to do so. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, it's good there is some freedom to cite in the format you want. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Policy Question[edit]

Does Wikiquote have an official policy regarding user pages like this? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You can review Wikiquote:User page, but I don't really see an issue with the page as it stands. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Question on talk page[edit]

Dear UDScott, hi there! It's nice to find a fellow film aficionado, especially film noire. Thank you for contributing so much in the film "department" and preserve those quotes for posterity. I wanted to ask you if you could take a look at my question that I posted here. You will see there that I ask about the suitability of organizing quotes according to themes instead of doing so chronologically. I understand that the more usual practice is to do so chronologically, but I would be interested to see if at times a theme-based approach could be also appropriate. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 06:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've answered there. The issue is that the selection of such themes and the quotes that fit them is inherently NPOV. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Prague[edit]

Good morning! I'd like to create the category People from Prague, but what could the main category be? Kafka, for example, wasn't a Czech.--Risto hot sir (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Although Kafka was born in what was then called the Kingdom of Bohemia, it was also known as the Czech Kingdom and eventually became what is now the Czech Republic. I would place this category under Czechs (which is how Wikipedia does it as well). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Johnny Test[edit]

Am I correct in assuming that this category should not exist? It seems too specific, and unnecessary since the article Johnny Test fulfills the purpose of this category. If you agree, I would appreciate if you voted here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Mistake[edit]

Hi! I wrote "Frankurt am Main" instead of "Frankfurt am Main". Could You please please correct?--Risto hot sir (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Where is this? What page? Sorry - I've been offline with power outages for quite some time. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
A nice person corrected that already!--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Koavf[edit]

Can you please close this? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Cities[edit]

Hi! Is it OK if I regard Los Angeles as Los Angeles County - the smaller cities might not be worth categorizing. San Francisco and Boston are more difficult; should it be the metropolitan area? New York means now the State of New York, Buffalo should maybe also have its own category, but that would cause a lot work 'cause there are about 1000 New Yorkers at the moment. France surprises: nearly all notable people seem to have born in Paris!--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

The voting is history, and no one has supported the deletion of these poets.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Silence does not mean disagreement. The vote is not history, seeing as it has yet to be archived from the Village Pump. You are the one who so desperately wanted a vote, and I am helping you by bringing it directly to the attention of the administrators. Furthermore, no one is saying that these poets should be "deleted". The discussion is about whether or not the poorly made pages that are all a possible copyright violation, are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, are all from one source, and all clog up this category, should be deleted. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Are the quotations from Top Gear (646 000 bytes) from one source? Copyright violation?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
That article is to long. However, it does not take the place of the show. Copying a book word for word, does, as it makes buying the book unnecessary. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Haven't wrote those Japanese poems for a long time - and if Wikipedia or Google do not know these poets, who would buy the book?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is about the 102 articles that you already made. As for your second point, please clarify. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, people may not want to see Top Gear, 'cause nearly everything of it can be found at Wikiquote.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
That is not even remotely relevant to the topic at hand. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Some readers maybe want to buy Hoffmann's book if they get information of it. Do you think it will be a bestseller?--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If you received written permission from Tuttle Publishing to violate the copyright for the sake of advertising, than you may post a copy of the written permission to the talk pages of all 102 articles. Whether, or not that makes the articles spam, and thus eligible for speedy deletion can be discussed after you have done so. If you have not received written permission, than you have no business to try on your own accord to make this book a bestseller by violating the copyright. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't understand irony very well. Do the same permission job with Top Gear, please! Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt. (Horatius)--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You don’t understand reality very well. A single article does not clog up whatever categories it is in. 102 articles is a different story. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing[edit]

The user User:Jedi3 is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source. Or making 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.

He falsely keeps saying I'm censoring him when all I've done is remove those quotes which arenb't notable in any manner. Not those which are notable and i've preserved many of the quotes he has added. also removed the subsection of my complaint here. He himself censors me here and here in the past.

I've warned him several times including here, here and here. He doesn't listen and has removed my comments several times from his talk page.

Not to mention this person has also insulted me by terming me annoying after another user called me so, besides also calling me a vandal, when he himself can be indicted for edit-warring and vandalism. please block this user. I've been trying to cooperate with him, but it is clear he only wants his ideology imposed here. Their is no bar on any person of any ideology, even though Wikiquote is about neutrality but he doesn't care about anything and is being unprofessional. and it is clear he doesn't care what he does to get his edits here at all costs. Please block him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations to mask the continuous edit-warring and censorship and vandalism by this user. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
If I'm making "poor excuses", then what have you been doing with your blatant false claims? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MonsterHunter32[edit]

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) doesn't care if he gets blocked, he only wants me to get blocked, even if he gets blocked too, he said this here, that is why he is continuously continuing his edit-warring despite warnings because he believe that will get the both of us blocked. Since he is not a content contributor, but only is here to follow my edits and revert them, because he thinks I am "biased", as he explained many times, for example here he says: "I am constantly monitoring him...".

First he started nominating several articles for deletion, after this didn't work, he is now edit-warring to censor quotes I added. Despite his constant edit-warring he is refusing to move censored quotes to talk and to discuss them in any reasonable ways (his poor excuse is that his edit summaries are enough discussion).

For example these two quotes i have attempted to discuss with him, but he either refuses to discuss it, or continues editwarring against consensus. That is why other users have called him extremely disruptive, because he is continuing the same behaviour for days and weeks and refuses to discuss in any meaningful way, claiming his edit summaries are "enough" discussion.

  • At that date, the Mohammedan conqueror, Mahmoud of Ghizni, crossed India; seized on the holy city of Somnauth; and stripped of its treasures the famous temple, which had stood for centuries--the shrine of Hindoo pilgrimage, and the wonder of the Eastern world. Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares.
  • Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers.

Can the following minimum be applied:

You have warned him here and said that you are going to block MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) if he continues his edit-warring, and he is continuing after your warning, which he chooses to completely ignore. He should have been blocked a long time ago for his censorship and vandalism and even more so for his refusal to seek consensus and collaborate with others. His vandalism and edit warring show a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views.- --Jedi3 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not have the time (nor the inclination) to try to understand the depths of this conflict between the two users, but two things seems evident to me: I agree that prior to removal, since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement. I ask that you both find a better way to resolve your differences and use established protocols rather than to continue to edit war. As I stated on both of your talk pages, in the absence of civil behavior, you will both be blocked (no matter who is ultimately deemed correct in the original dispute). Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

UDScott, this means, if I understood you correctly, that the following minimum is now valid and must be observed:

Regarding your second point, I have attempted discussion with him many times, as you can read on the talkpages. But a bare minimum should be that the above point from Template:Remove is observed, which should then be the basis for further discussion. Otherwise he will just continue his edit warring, with poor excuses like that his edit summaries are already "enough" discussion, and continuing his uncivil behavior, as just now observed when he ignored your warnings. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been trying to implement the minimum point that was agreed to. But MonsterHunter just keeps on reverting and edit-warring, hoping that by his behaviour I will also get blocked. But MonsterHunter refuses to even discuss, claiming that the mass blanking of different quotes from different authors from different articles is justified because he "already gave the reasons in the edit summary", refusing to give full reasoning for each quote on the talkpage. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
If he doesn't even abide by the bare minimum that was agree above, how can any reasonable discussion and collaboration with MonsterHunter32 take place? Other users have already said that he is being "extremely disruptive". It is plain to see he is going to continue his edit warring with the hope to get both of us blocked. In the light of his refusal to abide by the bare minimum that was agreed above, and his continued ignorance of your warnings, what else can be done to resolve the situation? What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion? --Jedi3 (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
How is anyone supposed to cooperate with an edit-warring vandal like Jedi3 who keeps lying, denying, making up claims and at the same time doesn't stop edit-warring? I don't want anyone to get blocked. But it is clear you'll keep lying and won't stop edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This person Jedi3 keeps on claiming "censorship". However, I have nothing to censor about them nor I did. All I said was they aren't wide-reported nor relevant or notable. He has never been able to disprove this. I've already explained that I won't remove any of his edits which are relevant. Also he keeps on falsely calling them poignant or witty despite me already explainng to him at Talk:Somnath temple 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. 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 poignant or witty etc.
He needs to be blocked for his multiple false claims including the other instances of lying and censorship which I've mentioned in the section before. And talking about warnings, Jedi3 knows edit-warring is not right. He still did it many times in the past. I tried cooperation with him many times, but it is clear he doesn't want any "cooperation", only what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 has started edit-warring again. See his recent edits at his user page. it is clear he doesn't care that edit-warring is wrong no matter what. It is clear he won't stop and is using it as an excuse to do what he wants. Please block him as he's not interested in contributing to Wikiquote. He has reverted my edits at 6 articles recently. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I tried to get you both to move to more civil behavior and to cease the edit-warring. Instead, you have both continued. As such, I have blocked you both for a week. Please use this time to reconsider your actions and plan to work better together in the future. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

82.118.230.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This anonymous user added a spam page advertising his company. When I marked it for speedy deletion, he removed the speedy deletion notice, and proceeded to add more to the article. Please block him. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 11:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

130.185.239.34[edit]

130.185.239.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This anonymous user has added multiple articles that contain only advertising spam with no actual quotes. Please block him. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 won't stop edit-warring[edit]

Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revrt is a revrt wheter partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. It is clear he has no intention to stop disruption and edit-war. I haven't opposed any dialogue, but he should stop his edit-warring. But it is clear he won't. Please block him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have complained about him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. Please take actiona against him for his continuous disruption and edit-warring and bad-faith as well as false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32[edit]

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

  • 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. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You said, I agree that prior to removal (by MonsterHunter32), since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Observing this 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, using religious or political smears against me and others (attacking others like Daniel, or attacking Kalki because of his vote [Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion#Hindu–Islamic_relations]). As Kalki has said in one of the deletion nominations it seems that MH is acting "because the creator of the page is disliked" by him.
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."
  • "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes ... and wikihounding him. These are very reasonable concerns. .... 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."
  • "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "
  • "I am sick of you trying to drag me into it. Never bother me again, about this or anything else. If you persist, I will take this to administrators and you can explain it to them. Leave me alone. "
  • "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.
  • 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.
  • 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 [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7].
  • 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 DanielTom 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 [8] 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) 06:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 not stopping edit-warring[edit]

User:Jedi3 has again started edit-warring despite being warned several times even by admins. I ask you to please block him since he has abused the chances given to him. It is clear there is no chance of his improvement. Just today, he edit-warred on 7 different articles: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Enough is enough, I request he be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I must say that once again I am growing weary of both of you in this dispute. Even if I had the time to go through the blitz of comments and reversions that both of your are making, I doubt I would be able to follow everything. I am again inclined to block you both because this whole situation has just become one big nuisance to this project. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
UDScott, as I told you previously, MonsterHunter is edit-warring because he wants to get blocked, if he can get me blocked also. He has nothing to lose, that is why he is being disruptive. But I did not edit war. My edits were well explained and well justified in the editsummary and in the talkpages and discussion pages. Unlike his edits, which were not. He has always been editing disruptively like this, before the block, right after the block (see for example his edits at Muhammad bin Qasim), and now again.
Just because MonsterHunter is disruptive again does not mean that I am guilty of the same, that I am doing the same. As an admin, you also have a responsibility to read my comments. Otherwise , you are not acting fairly.
I have explained the rationale for all of my edits on your talkpage (see above), on the Admin noticeboard, and other places.
Please read.
I have also asked for your (and other peoples) opinions on the deleted quotes, and for your opinion if you have a different interpretation to how Template:Remove should be observed by MonsterHunter32.
Please also see my table at the Admin noticeboard.
You can also ask other editors about their experience with MH32.
In fact, I have copied some of their opinions on your talkpage.
My reply is short, as I am short on time, but I will comment more when I have time. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't start the edit-warring Jedi3, you did. If there's anyone who wants to get everyone blocked, it is certainly you, because you never stop edit-warring. The only one that must be blocked is you who does't listen despite being warned even by admins. I already asked you to discuss solely at the relevant talk pages. i asked you many times to discuss it one at time to make it convenient and non00cpnfusiong. you never listened. all you do is repeat the same false claims even on unrelated pages or stop discussing abruptly. Pl;ease block him now UDScott. It is clear he won't stop his disruption. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please block Jedi3[edit]

I have grown tired of User:Jedi3 and his constant edit-warring, bad faith accusations, false claims etc. I can't edit like this. He is not a user that is supposed to be here. Either you block him or I quit permanently. Then Jedi3 can do what he wants. It is clear he won't stop until either of us are blocked. Please stop his disruption. He even keeps posting the same comments on my talk page. Another user or maybe the same user, DanielTom keeps supporting him for ideological reasons and also makes similar disruptive edits. It may sound like a threat, but the reality is I can't take this harassment. Months have already been wasted on him. I don;t want to get blocked because of him, nor I am willing to continue this cycle of harassment. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

UDScott, I have already asked MonsterHunter32 to file a report and Checkuser request at Meta, but he didn't do it and is still falsely accusing me of being "the same user" as Jedi3 across many pages. Isn't that block-worthy? How am I supposed to respond? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I asked myself to file a report if you think I'm Beefybufoon. All you do is edit-warring, make bad-faith claims and be disruptive. That's not all. Your claim of me censoring "quotes critical of Islam" (except I didn't) or claim you thought me of as censoring even though I already was ready for a compromise. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's all I do. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I invited you to a discussion. And no one will assume censorship over something as useless as "Yeah, I want to water down some targets." Your only objective is "censor" edits that don't agree with your view about your "quotes". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
You had already "censored" countless other articles. And that quote you mention that I restored (and that later you restored) was added by Cirt in the first place, not by me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Other articles aren't a reason to see some useless non-notable quote as "censored" if removed. Besides I "censor" nothing. If your articles contain useless non-notable quotes, then that isn't my fault. Oh and I never "claimed" it was originally added by you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, I don’t have time to make or deal with complaints. I already did many, but nothing happened. I've already notified UDScott so many times that Jedi3 is edit-warring. I've shown it so many times that he is disruptive. Don't you care? If you don't then there is no point in continuing any further. All you have been doing is that you claim you don't have time. You never even bothered to read through some of my posts If you won't, then there's no ppint in continuing. Take action by tomorrow or I quit. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

MH32[edit]

Above I have said I will comment more later. But since it seems that MH32 said the truth when he told you and others that he quit [16], I will add only a few points (but will expand if necessary).

Please see this table for a summary of some of the steps I have taken for dispute resolution.

Action Jedi Comments
Asking admins about observing rules, especially also Template:Remove. I did ask you to confirm that Template:Remove should be observed by MH32 and should be enforced, to which you replied "I agree that prior to removal, since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed."
Notifying admins of edit warring despite warnings and notifications about observance of rule (discussed above) and asking admins to enforce rules. I did do that. And I asked on your talkpage "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion?"
Notifications to MH32 on his talkpage I gave many notifications.
Using edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions) I did use edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions). See also please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes. I did use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes.
Moving quotes to talk per Template:Remove After MH32 refused to do it in almost all cases, despite being asked so many times, I moved quotes to talk for him.
Applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion I did apply Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion
Asking you what happens if MonsterHunter32 continues censorship and edit-warring. [17] And asking admins that they should enforce the rules per Template:Remove, and that if MH32 continues to refuse to observe Template:Remove, he should be blocked, or the page should be protected. On 22 March I asked you if what happens if MonsterHunter continues with his edit-warring and with the massive censorship of sourced quotes without moving the quotes to talk and without giving full reasoning for the censorship, as told to him is required just before and so many times before by multiple users.
Explaining all edits and restorations on the talkpage (following Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion) Jedi explained all edits on the talkpage. On many articles, MonsterHunter32 did not even once use the talkpage (including at Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Swami Vivekananda, Talk:Historical negationism). In other cases, where he used the talkpage, he did not give full reasoning why he removed the censored quotes. Only in very few cases did he address SOME (not all) of the censored quotes on the talkpage of the article. He used poor excuses like that explaining the deletion of sometimes 10 or more quotes in the same article with 3 word edit summaries is enough. But he was told please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Asking the community for opinions. I did ask the community for opinions and comments, see Admin noticeboard and many other places. Jedi: "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? [18]
Asking you again what happens if MH32 again refuses to agree on the rule based on Template:Remove. Also asking you to please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes it. Also asking to please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of it.[19]
Notifying MH32 again that the rule must be observerd by him You have been notified of this rule dozens of times and you have chosen to ignore it dozens of times. But if you do not observe this, you will be blocked. Previous time he deleted the notification. This time he didn't delete it, but he ignored it again, as he also ignored your warnings.
Notifying you that MH32 has continued edit-warring, without reverting MH32 again. Jedi said "You said, I agree that prior to removal (by MonsterHunter32), since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Observing this rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:"
Notifiying MH32 that he must stop the edit-warring Jedi made again many notifications.[20] [21] [22] But each time MH32 ignored it and just continued.

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

  • 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 necessary by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion or by page protection. 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. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I already told I am quitting so why is User:Jedi3 arguing?

I tried discussion with Jedi3 but the problem is that he wants to censor atempts at correcting his disruptive edits and anything that disagress with his irrelevance of his quotes.

Jedi3 disregarded WQ:WQ as not "policy or guideline" but talks about Template:Remove. However the template only states you shouldn't remove it without edit summary. I provided one. It only states you should almost always move and discuss, not always.

The above fact Jedi3 hides. Regardless I tried discussion many times. But whether it be edit-warring, flae claims or abruptly dtopping discussion in the middle many times, it is Jedi3 who didn't cooperate.

There is no point in arguing. As I said I would quit if Jedi3 isn't punished for his disruptive actions. I am linger interested in his edits.

We have already been told by admins to avoid each other. He should stop uselessly pushing the issue and repeating the same thing. There is no point in arguing any further as there is no point in fighting over this issue any further. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I agree it is best to avoid each other. This will be my last post about it if you stop following me and removing my additions in the same manner like previously. And since what you said, we can close the discussion. Have a nice day. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't removed anything in days. So the answer is already yes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please take action[edit]

Even though I decided to stay away on admin advice, Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].

Not withstanding most of my edits aren't about Islam, they are mostly about Muslim rulers, Jedi3's disruptive edits have also extended to European Christian rulers and ancient India.

He actually made 6 reverts, another one without any reason : [28]. Why don;t you do anything? he has lied multiple times, but I don't want to edit-war.

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [29], [30], [31]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [32], [33]

Some false claims of "massive blanking" despite only one quote being removed: [34], [35], [36].

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [37]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [38], [39]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

Action needs to be taken against this disruptive person otherwise it's a mockery of moderation and the Wiki policies. I have't edit-warred with jedi3 and reported him to Kalki too. Please take action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

We have already been told by admins to avoid each other, yet now you continue with it. If this continues, the admins will put on interaction ban on us. Because of it, I am avoiding responding directly to MH32, but if admins have any questions or queries related to it, I will respond directly to admins. If I don't respond within 48 hours, please leave a notification on my talkpage that you sent an email. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 Blame your own habit of lying and not checking the original sources.. You let go of that opportunity the moment you decided to use false reasons for reverting me. It was me simply avoiding you, not any talk page victory of yours that let your revert. It was you who didn't bother to verify some of your quotes beforehand. Besides, the thing about "avoiding each other" was a suggestion. I followed that suggestion in good faith, however seeing how perfectly false many of your edits are, you have broken that faith. Enough is enough. A person who keeps on habitually misleading doesn't deserve to be here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 should be blocked[edit]

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called a massive and almost indiscriminate removals and which as disruptive vandalism are surely a blockable offence.

He has been warned enough already.

He has been told enough times already that he should at the very least observe this rule:

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.

Other editors have noticed the same, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Need_your_help_again and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:UDScott#MonsterHunter32 and other places.

Also see Daniels' latest comment here https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=2391342

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?

I will also gladly respond to any editor about any questions regarding the invalid and poor excuses that MH32 is giving for his massive censorship, most of which are deliberate misrepresentations or worse, including his most recent one at Babar (where he claimed that he couldn't find it in the source, even though the page of the source he linked does discuss the very issue MH32 is complaining about in the footnote). And what is needed, after the pages are protected and MH32 is blocked, is some input and comments from other editors about the deleted quotes, which I have already asked for many times, since the discussion with someone like MH32 who refuses to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion on any issue is unproductive and third party opinons are needed. 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 unproductive, (maybe even worse are the deliberate misrepresentations, dishonesty and personal attacks), therefore third party opinon are needed, which I asked for many times.

On your talkpage, you said that agree that the following is valid and must be observed:

  • All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least 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.
  • I understand that means that this minimum must be observed, also by MonsterHunter32, and I will therefore restore to the status quo pre-censorship version, that is, applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion Please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please block disruptive Jedi3[edit]

User:Jedi3 keeps on falsely claiming I am "censoring him" despite me leaving intact many of his notable quotes no matter what they are. I've already explained to him that I won't remove any notable quotes. He must stop with his false bad-faith accusations

Jedi3 has been constantly edit-warring despite being warned by admins and told plainly some of his quotes aren't memorable and seem to be only meant for POV-pushing. While criticising me, Kalki criticised Jedi3 as well tating the biases are leading to "lapses of both logic and fairness".

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 don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeos calling them.

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47].

Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].

In some of these cases there were only one quote or the quotes were not as Jedi3 had added them. Despite pointing out so, he doesn't accept it.

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58].

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring: [59], [60], [61].

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [62], [63], [64]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [65], [66]

His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [67], [68], [69] and [70]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [79], [80] and [81]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [82] and [83]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.

Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "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."

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [84]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [85], [86]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result. He even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.

Please block this disruptive edit-warring vandal immediately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called a massive and almost indiscriminate removals and which as disruptive vandalism are surely a blockable offence.

This is what other editors have said about MonsterHunter32:


  • isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes critical of Islam (as you yourself have pointed out). It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.
  • You have been told by an admin that you need to generate WP:CONSENSUS before your content can be accepted, and in order to generate consensus, you need to start answering questions that are being posed. Claiming that it is all clear, "read it for yourself" etc. constitute stonewalling. They get you no closer to any form of consensus.
  • "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 find it morally repugnant when people .... simply seek to remove quotes if they are not complimentary to the views they favor, to the extent they can — MOST of your edits seem to be CENSORSHIP ....
  • " 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."
  • "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes ... and wikihounding him. These are very reasonable concerns. .... 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."
  • And if you don't stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you will end up getting blocked. Please be warned.
  • If you persist in .... that has been questioned without getting consensus first, you will be either topic banned from Indian subjects, or blocked for disruptive editing.
  • "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "
  • "if you keep this up you will be blocked"
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.)
Wikiquote is not prepared to handle persistent, disruptive editors like MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).--Jedi3 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 selectively omits his own criticism This is what other editors have said about Jedi3:

  • Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement - UDScott
  • Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. - UDScott
  • I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. - Kalki
  • * 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.
  • Even though another user removed his quote saying the article is about Ambedkar, not Elst, though he presumably made a grammar mistake. The reason used Jedi3 to revert? Falsely call the user a vandal.

Wikiquote certainly isn't a place for disruptors like Jedi3 who make false claims. He should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Babur[edit]

Can you please take a look at this discussion and comment on it [87] I have given my responses, now third party comments are needed. AS others have noticed too, in discussions he always refuses to make the slightest concessions that others might have different opinions, and keeps on stonewalling the di that is why third party opinions and comments are very important in all discussions with MonsterHunter. This discussion is not about the censorship, (although he has censored other quotes on that page), but it seems to me he is using it as a justification for his mass-censorship on wholly unrelated pages. If you read it and ask me to clarify any unclear points I will happily clarify them. The article of the dispute is Babur. Thank you. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Babur and actually many others[edit]

It is ironic User:Jedi3 is talking about stonewalling when he never even concedes on one of his quotes being non-notable and neevr even apologises for mistakes and false claims.

What is also ironic that the discussion he points to, the whole fiasco at Babur was due to his own misleading edits where he never bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources. Jedi3 was using a very obscure Hindi translation from SAA Rizvi of Baburnama he himself hasn't accessed.

I didn't find the other quote earlier, only found a contradictory one, so I simply shifted it to another section jnstead of removing it. Only after my edit, did he bother to Jedi verify it from an English translation by Annette Beveridge. However, the quote wasn't exactly the same as Jedi3 had originally added

After being able to verify the similar quote, I added it back and rewrote it to match the source. Jedi3's disruptive editing and never caring for anything, even checking what he is adding is becoming really troublesome.

Also as already said, is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [88], [89], [90]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [91], [92] So please also comment on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already given my responses, see here:

  1. After you moved the quote to misattributed here [93], I moved it to disputed [94], as I explained on the talkpage here
  2. Your edit summary was "The actual description of Baburnama is completely different then what Goel claims. All Rajputs nearly almost exterminated themselves, there is no mention of any slaughter or darul islam. Can't even find it in the Thackston version)"
  3. Here I could easily have called you a liar, as you have called me and other editors multiple times, but unlike you, I was assuming good faith. You linked to this page here, and this page clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
  4. So the points you made (that you cannot find the quote in your translation, and that you cannot find any mention of a massacre and of Dar-Ul-Islam) can be easily proven false by just reading the very page that you linked to.
  5. But still unlike you I was assuming good faith and did not call you a liar, like you usually do.
  6. Also the translation by Rizvi is not obscure, it was published by the reputed Aligarh Muslim University. You can google Aligarh Muslim University and find out for yourself that it is very reputable, I don't need to repeat what you can google in one minute. Also, calling a book obsucre because it is written in an Indian language, or because it is not online, or because several decades later in 2018 there are sources that are more widely used, or because it is from Aligarh University, is just bias.
  7. Your claim that I did not read the original source (besides violating the Assume good faith rule) is a straw man. There are thousands of quotes on WQ that were added from secondary sources like here Dance#Hoyt's_New_Cyclopedia_of_Practical_Quotations or here Dance#Wisdom_for_the_Soul:_Five_Millennia_of_Prescriptions_for_Spiritual_Healing or here and I do not for one second believe that they were checked against the original source. But I did include the secondary source as a source for the quote, so I don't see where the problem is when the secondary source was even noted below the quote. Also of course, the original quote was written in the Chagatai language, an extinct language, so checking the original is not even very feasible in this case. Besides, most translations into English were translated from Chagatai language to Persian language, before being translated into a modern language. I assume this is also the case for the translation you used. Were you checking your addition against the origianl Chagatai language version, or at least against the Persian version? In any case, while in this case I checked only the version from the secondary source and did not check not the original version in the Chagatai language, the most I could have done, without knowledge of Chagatai language, is checking muliple English translations. This is not a requirement at wikiquote, but when feasible and appropriate I will do it. I read the secondary source from which I used the quote, I clearly marked all the sources below the quote, including the secondary source. That is all that is needed. I did not read the Rizvi book, but this is also not required (and you would have to assume that I can read Hindi, you also didn't read the source in the original Chagatai language). I take your suggestions how to improve by comparing with multiple translations, although this is also not a requirement and which I did not do it in this case, but I am open to all suggestions how to improve, and as appropriate and feasible, I will to the best to improve using also your suggestions. But all this should not be used as a poor excuse for you for your massive censorship in other unrelated articles.
  8. At the end of the day it is just one more example you were unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles.--Jedi3 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I said that you were unjustly using it as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles. Your reply is again misleading, when you delibarately quote only half of the sentence. You were using this and other equally misleading examples as poor excuses or arguments [95].
The Aligarh Muslim University is a reputed institution, you can google it. There is no requirement that such a translation from Aligarh Muslim University is not valid as a source, it only betrays your bias against Indian languages. In any case, I did not oppose you in changing it to another translation that, in 2018, is more widely available online. I agreed to these changes about this particular quote, so there shouldn't even be a dispute anymore. It is normal that quotes can be changed by editing, and I agreed to these particular changes on this quote.
The translation and the page you linked to did clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
When you then link to the very page that, if you fully read it, mentions the very points you make, and disproves your very points, I could have called you a liar this is what you would have done if I had done anything like it --Jedi3 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that I have given my responses, comments from others are needed, which is why I asked UDScott for a comment. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's see who is misleading actually.

  • User:Jedi3 doesn't mention that the translated quote I added actually isn't exactly the same as the one he originally added. They are quotes from different translations or so it seems.

It is ironic Jedi3 is creating drama over this when he himself showed at Talk:Babur that he only went to find the quote after somebody took action against him. Even then it wasn't exactly the same. Is there any more proof needed of how much misleading he is? Please block him immediately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

And apparently Jedi3 saying it's just a "content dispute', even though he is disproved by the original source is called answering. I don't call that answering. This is actually more like refusing to accept wrongdoings and deflection: [96], [97]. please take back your false comments and apologize for your behavior Jedi3. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Why does it take so long until a vandal gets blocked?[edit]

User:UDScott, can you please take a look at MonsterHunter32 edit-warring and massive and indiscriminate censorship here:

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=MonsterHunter32&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=

I appreciate an answer to the questions I asked the community. "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion? How should I react when he continues to disregard everything and delete and censor and revert all my additions without discussion, without even moving the quotes to the talkpage? I need to know how I can continue editing articles in this case. Also I would like to know when it was said that it is being looked at, but there is still no sign that it is being looked at, when will it be looked at?

What will be done when as is clear MonsterHunter continues his edit-warring and his censorship without even starting to move the censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasonsing, as he was told many times by multiple users?

He has been warned enough already. He just ignores the warnings.

He has been told enough times already that he should at the very least observe this rule:

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.

It is plain to see that MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) will forever continue like this, there is nothing in MonsterHunter32 comments so far to indicate that he will change in the slightest.

  • 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 different quotes in the same edit in a three word edit summary)
  • He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
  • MonsterHunter32 has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged personal beliefs.

He has also been abusing socks.

Wikiquote is not prepared to handle pessistent disruptive vandals like MonsterHunter.It cannot be in WQ interest when a vandal can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with plain vandalism and censorship. How is Wikiquote going to handle such cases? Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough? --Jedi3 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

My time on the site has been severely limited in recent times as real-world concerns have consumed much of my time. Because of this, I have not had nearly enough time to digest the blizzard of comments the both of you have left nor to consider the additions and reversions that both of you have performed. That being said, I still do not have a proper sense of who is right or wrong in this conflict. I am extremely annoyed by the constant badgering of myself and others as each of you attempts to get the other blocked. This only pushes me in the same direction I moved before - that of blocking you both. Please tone down the rhetoric and allow the community to consider the situation. Your behavior is doing nothing to bring this to a quick resolution as every day seems to bring piles of arguments to reconsider. Please refrain from such behavior and soon enough action will indeed be taken to resolve things - but allow the process to continue without constant reminders about it. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter mass censored the quotes without even at least observing the rule (as he was told to you many times):

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least 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.

You are not the only one who is annoyed. Do you think his mass censorship of sourced quotes is not intimidating behaviour/harassment? Do you think that I am not harrassed and annoyed by the massive censorship of MH32 and by the lack of repsonse from admins about it?

Other editors are annoyed too and have said, "isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes".... It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.

I find it extremely objectionable when you are making it sound like it would be fair if both of us are blocked with the same block length. i find it very objectionable when making it sound like there is any equivalence between the actions of a vandal who indiscriminately mass censors sourced quotes without explanation on talk [98], and another one who constantly discusses the censorship on talkpages before doing any reverts. I have been trying to discuss the obvious vandalism and censorship that is committed by one editor.

All the more so because MonsterHunter has basically admitted that he is being so disruptive so that he get can get both of us blocked. His goal is to get blocked, as long as I (unfairly) get blocked too. That is why he is being so disruptive.

Last time I was punished with the same length block when I was the one who started the discussion on the censored quotes, when I (and others) notified MonsterHunter that he must at least move censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasonsing, which he refuses to do. I did Notify you that after your warning, he continued the reverts and the edit-warring. I did ask you if Template:Remove can be enforced, to which you replied "I agree that prior to removal, since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed." Based on this, I understood that Template:Remove is valid and should be enforced. I asked for your confirmation.[8] I used the edit summary "(see User_talk:MonsterHunter32#Warning and discussion with UDScott. All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least 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" Prior to that I left a note and explanation on his talkpage (which he promptly deleted). Shortly afterwards I left a note on Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress. MH32 then immediately editwarred again. Then I asked on your talkpage "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion?" [9] Then I was blocked with the SAME blocklength as MonsterHunter32. I was discussing and notifying, not plain edit-warring like MonsterHunter32 but got punished the same. Just 30 minutes after you warned both of us, MonsterHunter was ignoring your warnings and continued his edit warring. On the other hand, I did all the steps specified on your talkpage. I didn't just revert like MonsterHunter who continued his edit-warring and there was no sign that anything was being sorted out and no replies when I pointed out this behaviour already long ago. I simply didn't do any of the same blatant edit-warring as MonsterHunter that others have called extremely disruptive, but got the same block. I hope admins are being more fair in the future.

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?

How would you feel if I were also to remove all your quote additions, using very poor excuses, only calling them non-notable and biased in the edit summary? Would you like that?

If you woulnd't like it, don't you agree that it is understandable that I try to discuss the issue, and shouldn't you be understanding of this? It would also be more helpful if you could indicate what you mean by soon? It could be anything from one hour to several months... Because it was already said that is being looked a long time ago.

Are you aware of the mass censorship of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter? Did you look at this link here?

It only take a few minutes to ascertain these facts. This is what another editor said:

"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 will stop asking you about this issue unless it is necessary. Also, please let me know if you have a different interpretation of what I wrote above. --Jedi3 (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


It is ironic User:Jedi3 is talking about stonewalling when he never even concedes on one of his quotes being non-notable and neevr even apologises for mistakes and false claims.

What is also ironic that the discussion he points to, the whole fiasco at Babur was due to his own misleading edits where he never bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources. Jedi3 was using a very obscure Hindi translation from SAA Rizvi of Baburnama he himself hasn't accessed.

I didn't find the other quote earlier, only found a contradictory one, so I simply shifted it to another section jnstead of removing it. Only after my edit, did he bother to Jedi verify it from an English translation by Annette Beveridge. However, the quote wasn't exactly the same as Jedi3 had originally added

After being able to verify the similar quote, I added it back and rewrote it to match the source. Jedi3's disruptive editing and never caring for anything, even checking what he is adding is becoming really troublesome.

Also as already said, is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [99], [100], [101]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [102], [103] So please also comment on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already given my responses, see here:

  1. After you moved the quote to misattributed here [104], I moved it to disputed [105], as I explained on the talkpage here
  2. Your edit summary was "The actual description of Baburnama is completely different then what Goel claims. All Rajputs nearly almost exterminated themselves, there is no mention of any slaughter or darul islam. Can't even find it in the Thackston version)"
  3. Here I could easily have called you a liar, as you have called me and other editors multiple times, but unlike you, I was assuming good faith. You linked to this page here, and this page clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
  4. So the points you made (that you cannot find the quote in your translation, and that you cannot find any mention of a massacre and of Dar-Ul-Islam) can be easily proven false by just reading the very page that you linked to.
  5. But still unlike you I was assuming good faith and did not call you a liar, like you usually do.
  6. Also the translation by Rizvi is not obscure, it was published by the reputed Aligarh Muslim University. You can google Aligarh Muslim University and find out for yourself that it is very reputable, I don't need to repeat what you can google in one minute. Also, calling a book obsucre because it is written in an Indian language, or because it is not online, or because several decades later in 2018 there are sources that are more widely used, or because it is from Aligarh University, is just bias.
  7. Your claim that I did not read the original source (besides violating the Assume good faith rule) is a straw man. There are thousands of quotes on WQ that were added from secondary sources like here Dance#Hoyt's_New_Cyclopedia_of_Practical_Quotations or here Dance#Wisdom_for_the_Soul:_Five_Millennia_of_Prescriptions_for_Spiritual_Healing or here and I do not for one second believe that they were checked against the original source. But I did include the secondary source as a source for the quote, so I don't see where the problem is when the secondary source was even noted below the quote. Also of course, the original quote was written in the Chagatai language, an extinct language, so checking the original is not even very feasible in this case. Besides, most translations into English were translated from Chagatai language to Persian language, before being translated into a modern language. I assume this is also the case for the translation you used. Were you checking your addition against the origianl Chagatai language version, or at least against the Persian version? In any case, while in this case I checked only the version from the secondary source and did not check not the original version in the Chagatai language, the most I could have done, without knowledge of Chagatai language, is checking muliple English translations. This is not a requirement at wikiquote, but when feasible and appropriate I will do it. I read the secondary source from which I used the quote, I clearly marked all the sources below the quote, including the secondary source. That is all that is needed. I did not read the Rizvi book, but this is also not required (and you would have to assume that I can read Hindi, you also didn't read the source in the original Chagatai language). I take your suggestions how to improve by comparing with multiple translations, although this is also not a requirement and which I did not do it in this case, but I am open to all suggestions how to improve, and as appropriate and feasible, I will to the best to improve using also your suggestions. But all this should not be used as a poor excuse for you for your massive censorship in other unrelated articles.
  8. At the end of the day it is just one more example you were unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles.--Jedi3 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I said that you were unjustly using it as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles. Your reply is again misleading, when you delibarately quote only half of the sentence. You were using this and other equally misleading examples as poor excuses or arguments [106].
The Aligarh Muslim University is a reputed institution, you can google it. There is no requirement that such a translation from Aligarh Muslim University is not valid as a source, it only betrays your bias against Indian languages. In any case, I did not oppose you in changing it to another translation that, in 2018, is more widely available online. I agreed to these changes about this particular quote, so there shouldn't even be a dispute anymore. It is normal that quotes can be changed by editing, and I agreed to these particular changes on this quote.
The translation and the page you linked to did clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
When you then link to the very page that, if you fully read it, mentions the very points you make, and disproves your very points, I could have called you a liar this is what you would have done if I had done anything like it --Jedi3 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that I have given my responses, comments from others are needed, which is why I asked UDScott for a comment. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 himself is lecturing admins now and attempting meatpuppetry. I never remove a quote under any non-genuine reason. When I can verify a quote, I never remove it. Even at Babur, where I couldn't verify the quote I simply shifted it to to disputed section instead of removing. When I did find a different translation from Beveridge as the source used by Jedi3 was very obscure, I added that translation instead of jedi3 as Jedi3 himself hadn't verified the original source of SAA Rizvi he claimed it o be from. he himself indirectly accepted it.

When I can verify a quote is also notable, never remove it. I have let many of Jedi3's quotes remain, even those that are not notable. His thousands of quotes mean little as they're added from a few right-wing leaning sources without bothering whether the quotes are memorable. 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 don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them.

And here's the biggest difference between me and him; Jedi3 will never accept a mistake even if his quotes and claims are not genuine. isn't he the one who keeps calling them "content dispute" even when he is disproved? What else can one be called but a liar?

I don't know why Jedi3 is repeating the same thing again and again on every other page. But here's some examples of his non-genuine edits and his refusal to ever accept his mistake.

  • User:Jedi3 doesn't mention that the translated quote I added actually isn't exactly the same as the one he originally added. They are quotes from different translations or so it seems.

It is ironic Jedi3 is creating drama over this when he himself showed at Talk:Babur that he only went to find the quote after somebody took action against him. Even then it wasn't exactly the same. Is there any more proof needed of how much misleading he is? Please block him immediately.

If you find the time please also comment not just on Babur, but also on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. As it Jedi3 who refuses to accept responsibility for wrongdoings on these articles and still refers to them as "content dispute" despite being disproved with original sources: [107], [108]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 again edit-warring[edit]

Despite being blocked in the past, Jedi3 is again back at edit-warring. Will you please take action and block him? It is clear he won't stop and improve his behaviour until stern action is taken. All he does instead of actual discussion is edit-warring and complain.

Already two reverts have been made by him: [109], [110]. It seems clear he won't stop.

He has already been blocked today briefly because of his disruptive edits. See User talk:Kalki#Brief block of massive posting actions. It is time further action was taken. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's reverted at three articles now: [111] besides the other two reverts [112], [113]. Will you please do something? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

UDScott, Jedi3's sole purpose in his edits has been POV-pushing to spread hatred against non-Hindu religions even if his quotes are not memorable. Please be careful of his intentions and edits. And please if you can, give your opinion at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Cross-talk (discussion by principals. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding a category for gaming equipment or categorizing playing cards, chess and go as toys.[edit]

Wikipedia has a category for gaming equipment, including sports gear, which I would not consider a toy, though I doubt we are going to have many notable quotes specifically about sports gear. Poker is a game, not a toy, and distinguishing the many different card games from the cards they are played with is useful, unlike having a page specifically for chess pieces or the chess board itself. I think categorizing playing cards, chess and go as toys would be appropriate even though wikipedia does not have them categorized as such, defining what the difference between a toy and a game is is an interesting endeavor, simply providing entertainment isn't the defining factor as that would include objects more generally viewed as tools like paint brushes or musical instruments, perhaps a lack of diversity of usages is a factor that excludes chess and go as being toys, however playing cards are used for magic tricks as well as their more structured usage in games which I think makes them qualify as toys, though similarly coins are used for magic tricks as well but would not be classified as toys. It reminded me of when I wondered whether a lock should be categorized as technology so I thought I'd best ask a second opinion before going forward with any potentially controversial additions regarding categories. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

What is your question? If it is whether or not to classify playing cards, chess, and Go as toys, I would say no. I would not consider these objects to be toys, but rather games. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy delete https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Gerald_Whitmarsh,_Jr.[edit]

Why did you delete my page https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Gerald_Whitmarsh,_Jr. ?

It's something that actually means something to me that I want to share with others.

I would like people to be able to see the things I've said and be able to reference them

It's not a place to post meaningless bullshit. All of it has meaning

Isn't this what this site is about? XForbin99 (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

How many people have to know about my page for it to be relevant Scott? How many people know about you? Should someone speedy delete you too? XForbin99 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually yes - if I was to ever create a page for myself, I would expect someone to delete it as I am not a notable person. Wikiquote is a collection of notable quotes said or written by notable people. And it is not a place for personal quotes to be listed (see here for more). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

José Rafael Cordero Sanchez[edit]

Hi Scott, You took care of José Rafael Cordero Sanchez back in 2013, could you delete it again, please? Thanks, Sam Sailor (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

Hi! Have you noticed that the amount of visitors on main page has doubled during 9 days? In november 2015 the number was over 30 000 - but that was only one day. What might be the reason?--Risto hot sir (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Locating topics on the village pump[edit]

Can you help me find https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump#Boldface_in_all_%22last_words%22? It doesn't appear to be on the village pump any more. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 19:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Please semi-protect The Prince of Egypt. It has become victim to IP address vandalism. Thank you. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 02:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just returned online after a work-related absence, but I see that Kalki has already taken care of this. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Internet Trolls[edit]

Does Wikiquote have a policy regarding users like this? He/she has not edited yet, but I think it's fairly safe to say that this user does not intend to edit constructively. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 17:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really (there is one for offensive names, but not for this). But I also noticed it and will be keeping an eye out for any suspicious edits. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminship[edit]

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions) - J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 18:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

24.156.198.139[edit]

About cleaning the titles in my contributions[edit]

Hallo UDScott, You are now busy cleaning my contributions, especially the titles. I try to make the quotes on Wikiquote more accessible for the people who are searching for them. That people can find them rather easily on the Internet. That's why I use the titles to mention the name of the person and the word 'Quotes'. This combination is rather essential, so that people can find them, if they are searching on-line.

I did a little research - finding on-line the quotes of 3 well-known persons. This I did to find out how Wikiquote appears in these searches. I hope you are willing to read this here. I sent it also to Kalki. I did the little research with Google, because in January 2018 74.52% of the searches worldwide were powered by Google. Only 7.98% by Bing (the second most popular). Baidu did c. 20%, but this search-engine does not work in English. Moreover: Google is dominating the mobile/tablet search engine market share with 93%.

- first search I am searching for Quotes of Beethoven. So I search with two words: Beethoven' & 'Quotes. As result Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Beethoven as 5th link. The first four links are all commercial quotes-websites with a lot of advertising. They really take care for their searchers!! Morover: the Google.com-link to Wikiquote says: 'Jump to Quotes about Beethoven'. It means that Google refers to the second title of the Wikiquote-page: 'Quotes about Beethoven' because the first title there only says Quotes!! Beethoven is not mentioned.

- second search: I am searching for Quotes of president Kennedy. So I search with 3 words: John' 'Kennedy' 'quotes. As result Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Kennedy as 14th link - the second link-page of google.com! The google.com-link says in this link: 'Jump to Quotes'. Because the name Kennedy is nowhere mentioned in any title of the Wikiquote-page of John Kennedy. A part of the reason why Google gives Wikiquotes on the 14th place in the row of links.

- third example: I am searching for Quotes of Bob Dylan. So I search with the 3 words: Bob' 'Dylan' 'quotes. Google.com gives me the Wikiquote-page of Bob Dylan as 22nd link. This is on the third link-page of google.com! The google.com-link says in the link: 'Jump to Quotes', because the name Bob Dylan is not mentioned in any title of the Wikiquote-page of Bob Dylan.

My conclusion: Search-engines look for security. That's why titles are very important for Google to check them for reliable search-words, in relation to their content. You cannot cheat in your titles because titles promise something to the searchers - and Google knows that! But Google also want to verify the search-words in the texts, do they appear there also... If they are only in the title and not in the texts, there comes alarm from the spy-robots of Google and your link-range goes down…

Wikiquote on the contrary is very busy for years already with keeping itself clean. It is eliminating and removing the important search-words – out of the titles and from the texts. Now many of my attributions are getting a cleaning by you.. .So the important search-words are lost.

I think Wikiquote is a very precious and valuable public source for people all over the world. In fact it is property of everybody, I believe. Just the same as Wikipedia. Wikiquote is the only website worldwide with sourced and reliable quotes! It creates so human history. I am very glad to attribute to this project! But then Wikiquote must also accept the responsibility to take care that people who are searching for quotes are able to find them. It must create the necessary accessibility on-line. There is one fundamental law on the Internet: you must name your content. If you don’t name your content, you are not found by the people who are searching for you. You make your project less useful. In fact you hide your precious content, for a part. It is a waste of all the energy and work and dedication. kind regards, FotoDutch (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are most concerned with how the pages here might be found in Internet searches. I can understand this, but simply creating your own template for pages is really not the way to go. Better would be to start a more general discussion (perhaps on the Template talk pages). But the reason for not adhering to the standard you are espousing is that it presents redundancy and does not present the cleanest and best looking pages here. The other changes I have been making to the pages include removing bolding for every quote, sorting the quotes by a more standard period of time (e.g. by year or decade), removing extra text about the quote's source, and sorting the About section alphabetically by author. All off these changes are also in the template for a people page. The bottom line is that it would be better to propose changes to the templates in discussion rather than having a whole swath of pages with a different look and feel. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This is how it works on Google Search - I searched for 'Quotes Andy Warhol' and this were the first five links, given by Google as best source:

1. Andy Warhol Quotes - BrainyQuote www.brainyquote - (this website is triggering the spamfilter of Wikiquote so I removed the link) Feb 22, 1987 - Andy Warhol Quotes. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art. They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself. Don't pay any attention to what they write about you.

2. Top 10 Andy Warhol Quotes - BrainyQuote www.brainyquote - (this website is triggering the spamfilter of Wikiquote...idem) Top 10. Andy Warhol. Quotes. Art is what you can get away with. If you're not trying to be real, you don't have to get it right. In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. Don't pay any attention to what they write about you. They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself ...

3. Andy Warhol Quotes (Author of The Philosophy of Andy Warhol) https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1203.Andy_Warhol Andy Warhol > Quotes. “They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.” “Don't pay any attention to what they write about you. “People should fall in love with their eyes closed.” “When people are ready to, they change. ‎Don't think about making art ... · ‎They always say time changes ...

4. 20 Brilliant Andy Warhol Quotes | AnOther www.anothermag.com/art-photography/3995/20-brilliant-andy-warhol-quotes Oct 9, 2014 - I think everybody should be nice to everybody" – this and 19 other brilliant Warhol quotes.

5. Andy Warhol - Wikiquote https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol Jump to Quotes of Andy Warhol - Warhol, 1962: 'Soup Cans', synthetic polymer paint on thirty-two canvases; - quote of Warhol, 1973: '..just look at ....

this Quotes of Andy Warhol is the title you are removing now . Here it is a big part of the reason of position 5. Not bad for Andy Warhol.. FotoDutch (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

When I just searched for 'Picasso Quotes' with google.com I get a 10th ranking for Wikiquote, just at the bottom of the link-page there. And that is very probably, because now in the page the title says: 'Quotes of Picasso' This is already since 23 March 2018, when I enlarged the title. From then the Wikiquote-statistics give a considerable monthly increase of visitors till now: February 2018: 2279 visitors, March: 2661; April: 3029, May: 3644, June.. But when when the title go back to 'Quotes' only - I bet the ranking for Picasso on google.com will fall down to c. 20th in a period of 2 months. Also the amount of visitors in the Wikiquote-statistics will fall back from 3644 till probably again c. 2280 a month. I consider that as a waste of energy of us all. A loss of 1/3 of visitors.. just because of a few words difference in the title..
I did some more searches on google.com, to get a better picture - they differ completely in results:
- 'Einstein quotes': 21st ranking - beginning, third link-page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)
- 'Faulkner quotes' 3th – beginning, first link-page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)
- 'Sartre quotes': 4th – beginning ,first page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)
- 'Leonard Bernstein quotes': 7th – bottom, first page
- 'Janis Joplin quotes': 10th – bottom, first page (a small Wikiquote-page)
- 'Pablo Neruda Quotes': 8th – bottom first page (a comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)
- 'Sara Teasdale Quotes': 5th - first page
- 'Stephen Hawking Quotes': 33rd – fourth page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)
- 'Gandhi Quotes': 8th – bottom, first page (a very comprehensive Wikiquote-page!)FotoDutch (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Great - I think you are building a solid case for this to be considered. My point was that rather than making wholesale changes to a group of pages, the best way to go about this is to start a discussion about and make a proposal for change. If other users took it upon themselves to make changes to templates, there would not be any sort of consistency in how pages are displayed here and we would quickly lose control over the project. All I am suggesting is to open a dialogue and make a proposal before making such changes. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! But I have no experience. Can you help me to start, how and where?
The easiest way would be to go to Village pump and open a new topic. There you can request feedback and lay out your arguments. To further bolster the discussion, you could also place a note on the Admins' noticeboard, with a link to the VP discussion, that references the ongoing discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)