User talk:UDScott

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Some IP users are not only trying to mess with me on Wikiquote...[edit]

But it is also doing so on Wikipedia, on an account I abandoned. IP users: ( ( ( ( ( ( ( I request that all these and all other IPs it uses be blocked indefinitely, and all pages it vandalized and my talk page should be protected indefinitely (or at least for a year).

What I want to know is who is using these IPs, and why is it continuing to unfaithfully undo my good-faith edits without first consulting me? Plus, I want my dormant DawgDeputy page on Wikipedia protected indefinitely from these IPs. WikiLubber (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what I can effectively do at this point (I've been away from WQ for some time during the holidays). It appears that some of these are already blocked and some that are not did not have lot of activity anyway. I do not have any influence on Wikipedia, so I cannot help there either. I will keep an eye on your pages (and those that you frequently edit) so as to combat any future deliberate attacks. Hopefully all has calmed down by now. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the IPs have learned nothing from their blocks. And they're trying to sabotage by making multiple user accounts: (Mathew Broaderick) (‎TrialOfTheCentury) (Reverted edit by). WikiLubber (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Plus, I do not trust this IP: (‎). For all we know, it only undoes the user accounts' edits just to make fun of me, then uses this IP to continue sabotaging. WikiLubber (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Noticed that you split this article from Blaise Pascal in May 2014, and that the new article did not include the previous section's "History" with the move. I have seen previous splits move the relevant section's history from the original article. Where would I find out how to transfer the section's previous history to the new article? Thanks.

ELApro (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I created a separate page for this work, as the author's page had grown unwieldy and there was more than enough material for a separate page. But I am not sure how to extricate the history of a specific section of a page to then include it with the new separate page. I did not move the quotes so much as copy and paste them into a new page - again I am unaware of a method to move portions of a page into a new one (and to include any associated history). If anyone does know how to do this, I would welcome their input. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Did some reading at Wikipedia Splitting where they recommend using the Copied Template in the Talk pages and adding "split content to [[article name]]" to the edit summary for documentation. I tried using the "Copied Template" at Ethics (book) Talk and a "Split from Template" at Baruch Spinoza Talk for a split similar to Pensées, but the templates aren't being recognized. They also do not show up in the wikiquote List of all templates, so I posted an inquiry at the Village pump. (ELApro talk) 02:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Master (Doctor Who)[edit]

Can you extend the protection time?

Last protection expired on 4th January, and usual edit warring has begin. Until now, no discussion(Talk:Master (Doctor_Who)) has been made by the IP. OccultZone (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. I extended it three months. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

America (2014)[edit]

Thanks for your edits here. I deleted some quotes (which I had left hidden) for fear that they'd be too many—even though the film is very long, with lots of dialogue... ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Block vandal request[edit]

There's a vandal named Alabaster going around pretty much destroying the wiki. Please block him immediately. Look at his edit history and you'll see what I'm talking about. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 05:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was not online during this latest attack - but I see that Miszatomic has taken care of the issue. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose[edit]

Billinghurst has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sock connected to accounts Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose their involvement in the socking.

You are one of the accounts that voted before 12:09, 25 January 2015.

I ask that if you are behind the socking of Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed socks Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose please at Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Asking_socks_to_self-disclose.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What is it you wish of me? I am confused by this post. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My reply was a bit facetious, I admit. I am not in any way connected to these accounts, but I am curious as to why this question was even asked - what would lead anyone to believe I was connected? ~ UDScott (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Billinghurst is playing the role of the Sphinx in the Checkuser request brought about by sockpuppetry in the RfA at issue. He has told us that one of those who voted is also connected with the sockpuppets, but will not say which, preferring that we puzzle it out ourselves. BD2412 T 14:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, the explanation by BD2412 about Billinghurst is accurate here. And that's why I've asked the third-party sock(s) to self-disclose at the Request for Adminship, on direct recommendation to do so by Billinghurst. Hope that explains things a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an issue that started months ago but still do not have an answer[edit]

Why do you revert some of my edits with rollback? It makes me look like a vandal messing up pages, why can't you use "undo" and give a valid reason as to why you decided to revert my edit instead of rollbacking my edit and making me look like a vandal? --Goldenburg111 15:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, you are correct - I tend to use revert often when I am correcting either vandalism or something that seems obvious, and undo when I wish to explain why I am changing something (something I do far less than revert). If you could provide some examples of what you are talking about, I could perhaps comment more directly. I've looked back about three months and do not see any reversions of you rwork, but maybe I am missing it. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I seem hasty and all. Anyways I'll provide a few edits soon now since I'm busy on other projects. --Goldenburg111 14:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for formatting help at the new page I've created, Psychobabble, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/InvisibleSun (inactivity discussion)[edit]

When you have a moment, will you give a proper close to this discussion? It should be done by a 'crat, but I am involved. Cirt already went ahead and had InvisibleSun's rights removed at Meta, which could be reversed if the discussion was deemed not to have actually come out that way. InvisibleSun's own comment sort of moots the point, but this should still be done right. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with BD2412, and thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Unfortunately, InvisibleSun said in addition to his four (4) years of inactivity, he won't be able to come back to active status for another five (5) years. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Request Crat to close 3 discussions[edit]

  1. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/MosheZadka (inactivity discussion)
  2. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Nanobug (inactivity discussion)
  3. Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Jaxl (inactivity discussion)

(Notifying all Bureaucrats on this site.)

Can you please close these above three discussions?

They've all been open beyond the requisite time period.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I request a speedy deletion of my own creations[edit]

Dear UDScott,

I was tired last night when I created this and this, both redirects to lying.  Had I been more awake, I would have noticed that I had not written "liar," but instead "lier" (the latter of which means, according to Wiktionary, "A person or thing that lies, in the sense of being horizontal").

If we had a page for lying down, I would fix my error by simply redirecting both "lier" and "liers" to "lying down," but we have no such page as of yet.  Thus, it appears that the only appropriate solution is for you or one of the other admins to delete these erroneous pages altogether.

My apologies for burdening you with this.  Thank in advance.

allixpeeke (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • This is done. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Manuel Quezon page.[edit]

Hi. Thanks for noticing my page. I am new to Wikiquote so i could use some help. I started that page to try and move the quotes off his Wikipedia page in accordance with Wikipedia's style guide. What is the standard policy on what do with the unsourced quotes? I have looked em all up online and i cant find any sources that aren't dodgy looking blog posts or Wikipedia mirrors on other sites. Thanks in advance for the response and I look forward to being able to make a good quality quote page for the president of the Philippines. —This unsigned comment is by Awnman (talkcontribs) .

The first thing is that any unsourced quotes should not be placed on the page - without sources, the quotes cannot be verified. Usually, when we encounter unsourced quotes, we move them to the talk page, pending sourcing. In the case you mention, where you cannot find reliable sources, I'm afraid they should remain on the talk page. In the past, we used to have sections on the pages for both sourced and unsourced quotes, but this got us into some trouble (and opens the door for quotes that are not genuine to be placed on a page - which is especially troublesome for living people). The best guidance for you in this area is probably Wikiquote:Sourcing, which although not official policy (instead it is still in a proposed state, as we often find that the process for creating official policy takes a long time here, since we have so few dedicated users), still provides a lot of information on the best ways to proceed regarding sourcing the quotes. If all else fails, by all means ask questions - to any admin or if we're not around, just on the Village pump, where anyone with knowledge can help. Welcome and good luck. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding page: Al-Mutanabbi[edit]

I noticed that you have been editing the newly made page of Al-Mutanabbi;
I would like to thank you and also request further formatting improvements, especially with the Notes and References, with which I lack dexterity.

Again, thank you.

Global auto-block[edit]

Hello. My account was compromised during my absence. Can you indefinitely block my account globally to prevent damage to all sister wiki projects? Thanks for collaborating! --BScMScMD (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ron Kaufman[edit]

This article that you recently {{prod}} as unsourced[1] formerly did include a source citation, before it was removed without explanation in the previous edit which may have been inadvertent. (That said, I am unimpressed by the quotability of these motivational blandishments, and by the author advertisement at Wikipedia – but that is a different matter.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you - for now I removed the PROD tag, since this cancels out my initial objection. I'm still not really convinced of the notability or quotability of this person, but for now I will let it be. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well. It might be rather tedious to research whether these pronouncements from a "prolific purveyor of prosaic platitudes" are actually widely quoted by independent sources. At least it would be less tedious now than when the article contained over 2,400 quotes to check! ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clemente on WQ (belated emergence from stubhood)[edit]

Greetings, UDScott. Having only discovered it two days ago myself, I appreciate your attention to this so-long neglected page (and, btw, strongly second your Chinatown, Hitchcock, Homeland, FNL, and Gilmore leanings, among others). That being said, speaking strictly as a WQ novice (not to mention possessor of a plethora of well-sourced RC quotes, which will soon be forthcoming), and seeing as how your edit summaries didn't address this point, I'm curious as to whether or not there is a principled objection to - or, for that matter, a hard-&-fast WQ rule against - subdividing each section as I'd done. Looking at it now, I myself have mixed feelings; there's certainly something to be said for having all quotes by a given source in one place. That being said, given both the large number of quotes involved and Clemente's distinctly multi-faceted nature (both as the proverbial 'five-tool' player, and as a player who has become at least as famous for his off-field concerns and activities), I can't help think that those subdivisions - or some version thereof - would prove useful, if not invaluable, to future visitors to this page, whether casual fans or serious researchers. Thanks again for your time (and btw, apropos of both FNL's Katims and Gilmore's Graham, I - and my better half - would respectfully throw the late, lamented Parenthood into the mix) DavidESpeed (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and questions (and of course your shared favorites in film and TV). Basically, such subdivisions have been frowned upon because they can introduce a bit of a POV in the presentation of quotes. While dividing them into subjects might seem like a way to make them more easily digested by a reader, the selection of not only the sections themselves, but where to place quotes within them is inherently subject to the point of view of whomever adds a quote. In most cases, it might seem obvious how a group of quotes should be categorized within a page, but we have seen more than once situations where disputes have arisen regarding such placement. It would be better to let a reader decide what a quote is about, rather than someone else making that decision for the reader. In the end, as we strive to promote a non-POV environment, it has been found to be best to avoid such subdivisions of the quotes. A past discussion related to this topic (which you may wish to read) can be found here. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. Thanks for laying out your rationale, and for the link. Not sure how the latter relates to the former, though; since the consensus reached there seems to support at least limited use of subdivision. In any case, while I can see the subdivisions within subdivisions that I'd imposed being an issue, I think a simple division of each section here - i.e. Quotes = Baseball-related + Other, & "Quotes about" = As a player + As a person - would prove far more useful than constricting. So unless that 'frown' is prepared to escalate into an outright ban, I'd like to give that a shot. Thanks again DavidESpeed (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I guess such a concrete subdivision makes some sense - it is when more abstract concepts are imposed as subsections where the problems arise. Go for it. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Gracias; I'm on it... I think this'll work; also added ordering instructions for the Quote sections. BTW, apropos of nothing in particular, I've noticed a number of articles employing seemingly arbitrary bits of bolding. Notwithstanding the obvious POV issues, are there in fact WQ guidelines for its accepted use? (e.g. highlighting an excerpt that is itself considerably better known than the full quote?) Thanks again. DavidESpeed (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
PS - Two more points:
1) At the risk of ascending to 'mile-taker' status, I've quickly come to the realization that one added level of subdivision seems a no-brainer. This would apply strictly to the "As a player" subdivision (in which the lion's share of yet-to-be-added quotes will reside). Again, NOT anything abstract, but simply a handy categorization of contributors within the section. I'm thinking: Teammates, Opponents, Media, & Other (with the first two encompassing every level of an organization, from owner to ball-person)
2) Apropos of my previous bolding inquiry, it has since occurred to me that a particularly helpful use of boldface would be for the source of each quote, whether article, book, online resource, et al), if only to help provide a quick visual distinction between article and attribution (esp. for this article, in which I dare say both articles and attributions are of above-average-for-WQ length). I think this, too, would help make the whole seem less daunting/more digestible. DavidESpeed (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
These are all ideas that should probably be brought into a larger conversation, where other members of the community may comment - I suggest a post on the Village pump with some of your ideas. Some of these style questions (including the idea of bolding sources) would amount to a potential overhaul of many pages, so before straying too far from convention, I suggest such a discussion with other community members. Your enthusiasm is most welcome! My initial reaction to your proposal for an additional subsection is reluctance to see it - I fear that we start down a slippery slope with added subsections where users feel appropriate, but without any consistency in their use across the project (but of course it can be debated at VP, as I am hardly the ultimate "decider" on this site - community consensus drives us here) As to the initial bolding question, this has actually been a point of contention in the past, but has never truly been settled. As such, there is no official policy that prohibits its use to highlight quotes (it is usually done to emphasize well known or particularly pithy quotes, primarily on people or theme pages, but not on film or TV show pages). Thanks again for your contributions. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Block 70Jack90[edit]

Would you do us all a favor and please block 70Jack90 for its false allegation against me?

Furthermore, it has been undoing all my highly-justified edits and constantly failed to comply with Wikiquote's limitations on quotes.
And now it has become the real sockpuppet, as its other account: 90Jack70, has proven. WikiLubber (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I think the reason it doesn't work for you is that you haven't got a js file. Is recommend the following:

  • Go to m:MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js.
  • Copy the text it suggests as it is presented there from the word window onwards.
  • Create your own global.js file by pasting that text.
  • After saving the page, purge your cache using whatever method is recommended for your browser on that first Meta page above.
  • Go to any page on WQ that normally has categories and see if it works.
  • If not, throw computer in bin and start a new hobby :) (only kidding)

Green Giant (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford[edit]

You created a page for this movie which makes me very excited! Sketchmoose (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


Homosexuality is a vice . is not?. A salubrious life in whole the world is based on human nature. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would completely disagree. The definition of a vice on Wikipedia is as follows: Vice is a practice, behavior, or habit generally considered immoral, sinful, depraved, or degrading in the associated society. In more minor usage, vice can refer to a fault, a negative character trait, a defect, an infirmity, or a bad or unhealthy habit (such as an addiction to smoking). I fail to see how this applies to homosexuality or bisexuality in any way - and in fact believe the application of such a label is offensive and prejudiced). ~ UDScott (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
We talking about Morality/Ethics that is a global thing in whole the world. All faiths say this is a vice.I hope one user will be agree with me.--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You are confounding "morality/ethics" with "faiths". First of all, I don't know of any moral philosopher alive today that considers homosexuality a "vice". I don't even believe it made it into Aristotle's list of vices (and we know that the ancient Greeks engaged in homosexual activities). Nowadays homosexuality is not even an issue for moral philosophers. As Peter Singer (a famous Utilitarian) writes in his Practical Ethics:
"the first thing to say about ethics is that it is not a set of prohibitions particularly concerned with sex. Even in the era of AIDS, sex raises no unique moral issues at all. Decisions about sex may involve considerations of honesty, concern for others, prudence, and so on, but there is nothing special about sex in this respect, for the same could be said of decisions about driving a car. (In fact, the moral issues raised by driving a car, both from an environmental and from a safety point of view, are much more serious than those raised by sex.) Accordingly, this book contains no discussion of sexual morality."
And you are factually wrong: 1) in many Western (Christian-majority) countries same-sex marriage is legalized; 2) some faiths don't even address homosexuality – e.g., Jesus never mentioned it, and the current Dalai Lama supports gay marriage. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Who says that a vice has to be something that is illegal? UDScott agrees that smoking is a vice. And your own "New Testament" is crystal clear: "homosexuality is a “shameful lust” (Romans 1:26), a “shameful act,” an abandonment of “natural relations” (Romans 1:27), a “wrongdoing” (1 Corinthians 6:9), and “sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 1:7). Homosexuality carries a “due penalty” (Romans 1:27), “is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10), and is listed among the sins that bar people from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9)." [2]--Abramsky (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not speak for me - I merely posted the definition of the word from Wikipedia. I firmly believe that homosexuality or bisexuality (or any other flavor you choose related to sexuality) are not vices. And I also believe that the attempt to characterize them as such is offensive and displays ignorance and prejudice. Since when is Wikiquote a place in which to impose someone's moralistic view of others? ~ UDScott (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That was written by the apostle Paul. See my response [

title=Talk:Homosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=1997723 here]. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

user ignoring WQ:LOQ[edit]

Hi, I've recently interacted with the user Alexandervonweimann when he reverted my edits on Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. which were cutting the page down to 5 quotes per episode as policy requires. After leaving a message on his talkpage, I noticed through his history that he was twice informed about this in the past (which he deleted from his talkpage), once by you about Game of Thrones, and once by Eaglestorm about Captain America. I suggest speaking to him again, and if such behaviour continues, maybe a block? --SuperJew (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep he's continuing. I would think a block is in order. --SuperJew (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I will keep an eye on adding too many quotes to pages, but actually the removal of discussions from talk pages while discouraged, is not really a blockable offense. Should this user continue to disruptively add too many quotes, then I will likely block. Thanks for the heads up. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey, the user has started to resorting to offensive personal attacks, such as here. I have asked him to refrain, but wanted to keep you in the loop. --SuperJew (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a new one, I'll wager[edit]

Well, OK, I wouldn't wager all that much. Still, it is pretty obscure. Briefly, this concerns the three images I added to Arnold Hano on 22:24, 1 September 2015; specifically, the middle image (then heading the "Other topics" section), which, for whatever reason, has proved to the default thumbnail pic whenever the link is shared (a use to which said image is singularly ill-suited, being, as it is, quite peripheral to Hano's central concerns); moreover, this head-scratching state of affairs (which, worst of all, persists to this moment) was first noticed after I had already deleted said image more than a week ago.

Off the top of my admittedly inexpert head, I can come up with no 'cure' short of—after, of course, having securely saved the page's current edit in its entirety—actually deleting the page itself, only to recreate it, using the saved version, minus only that damnably persistent pic and its accompanying quote. If, in fact, said solution is less problematic than I fear, or—better yet—if my dilemma has a less drastic remedy to which you're privy; if, in fact, either of these is the case, I will again be in your debt. Thanks, in any event, for taking the time. DavidESpeed (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite following what the issue is - when I look at the page, this image is no longer there. Is the problem that it persists when you view the page? ~ UDScott (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
My bad; I did not quite finish my thought—i.e. whenever the link is shared ON FACEBOOK (where the deleted image has stubbornly refused to die, over the course of daily attempted shares. The good news, however, is that, after noticing your response this evening, I thought I'd give it one more shot before getting back to you, and—lo and behold—the problem has finally resolved itself. So thanks again. As you were. DavidESpeed (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Godfather Part II[edit]

Fredo: Sometimes I think I should have married a woman like you did. Like Kay. Have kids. Have a family. For once in my life, be more like Pop.
Michael: It's not easy to be a son, Fredo. It's not easy.

- (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what message is meant by placing this on my talk page. This quote is already on the film's page, so I'm not sure what is expected of me. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Was it already there? Sorry, I missed it. I only wanted to tell you that I have included it there, in the page. Just wanted to tell you that even I like film quotes, and this one was worth being on wikiquote. That's all. Absolutely no expectations!! - (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK - actually I guess I looked at the page after you had already added it. It is a good quote and worthy of inclusion on the page - thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Friedrich von Schrötter[edit]

Give it to me straight doc, how have I screwed Friedrich von Schrötter up? I don't hang around this project too much o_0 -- Kendrick7 (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Same deal on Peter R. Fisher, please let me know how I'm doing it wrong! -- Kendrick7 (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I've performed the necessary cleanup on both pages - please use this as a guide for any future additions. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Instinctively, I would hesitate to bother labelling Schrötter's article a "stub" though, given that he's been in the ground for roughly 200 years, was not an author per se, and thus is highly unlikely to have any more famous quotations attributed to him anytime soon (even as a forgery, as Prussia hardly looms large on the world stage these days).
But otherwise, I'll try to take this Wikiquote style under advisement; I like the thought of playing references closer to the chest, as it were. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point - if it's unlikely to ever have other quotes added to the page, perhaps it would be better to start a theme page on Prussia and move the quote there. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Steve Harvey Show / Eve (U.S. TV series) / Girlfriends[edit]

I thank you for your edits here and here.  I encourage you to make a similar edit here.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

page title: Quotes of Marianne von Werefkin[edit]

Hallo UDScott,

Recently you shortened the title of this page, as many others I am afraid. I returned this one. I think it is allowed to explain in the head what is in the page. Because I give titles as: 'Quotes of Baziotes' - the page appears higher in the search-machines, so that they are more frequently used by the people. And: in the search-result there appears a clear short description that people have found indeed the Quotes of... their artist they were looking for: good feedback I believe!! For instance now with the quotes of Kirchner. When you search with these 2 words, the Wikiquote page appears even not of page 7 of the search-results. so nobody will find them and can't use them. Yesterday I place more quotes of Kirchner and changed the title in: Quotes of Kirchner. In twee weeks the page will be shown on the first page of search-results. And with a clear description what people can find.

I think Wikiquote must be used. That's why we make it. A dead archive has no use, I hope you will return your other shortenings all the best, FotoDutch (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This subject has been brought to my attention, and I would like to give a comment here. Personally I have no preference, whether the first chapter is named "Quotes", Quotes of...," or "Quotes by..." Personally I doubt one such line changes much for Google or others. I do think we shouldn't think in terms of search engine optimization, but in terms of offering article quality and comfort for all users. In this test edit I showed how this could be improved on more then five aspects. I think that if we keep improving articles along those lines, this will also be recognized by any search engine. In the beginning and in the end I think this is no matter of SEO, but of personal preferences and local tradition. -- Mdd (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
My thinking on this change is that I was returning the page to the format of the accepted template - I do not really have a preference, but would like to see a uniform presentation of our pages. Should such a change be desired, I would recommend bringing it up at the Village pump (or on the template's talk page) as a proposed change to the template rather than just changing a handful of pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Rocky vandal[edit]


I see you're a sysop here on Wikiquote and you just blocked the "Rocky vandal". The same user has been indefblocked from many other WMF projects and not without reason.

At Wikivoyage they've been "contributing" since February, not under this name but rather under different IPs and circumventing a filter that was eventually set up. This morning one of his many edits (which BTW culminated in threats of physical violence against admins) included a link to Talk:Boxing here on Wikiquote which I out of curiosity followed and then I've noticed what the vandal has been doing here. I thought to let you know about how persistent this vandal is and would advice to keep eyes open. Ypsilon (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - will definitely keep an eye on it. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the 2001 (film) and the impossibility article[edit]

I see now that the About UDScott template, I will make sure to use that instead of just calling those sections about. I'm glad that's only 2nd about section I've overlooked. Sorry about the bit with Kubrick saying anyone can interpret things for themselves, I realized most of that interview is really about Stanley Kubrick's thought on sci-fi in general.

As per the necromancy page, I disagree on Jesus not being an example of a revanent, by definition, though by the same logic, technically the gods of most mythologies were at one point considered demons by the Abrahamic and Dharmic faiths, but Wikipedia doesn't classify them as such. Though admittedly my definition of it being anyone coming back from the dead would include a disproportionate number of ridiculous sci-fi explanations for the returns of cartoon characters, so the page would mostly be Dragon Ball Z, YuYu Hakusho, Inuyasha, Bleach Spider-Man and X-Men with the occasional mention of antiquity. I admit the only reason I didn't consider Doctor Who necromancy is because of the episode where he dies before he can regenerate, though that's kind of one of those weird liminal states, like cryonics or the transporter; all three of those have their own pages though. Zombie is not a page though, even though its use a metaphor is far more common than necromancy, vampire is a page though. I think soap operas tend to veer more towards incredibly unlikely survival and identical twins played by the same actor, more than outright bringing characters back to life, though it would be interesting to see how many cases of that there are.
May I ask if your opinion of my editing on Wikiquote in general? I mostly focus on about sections for TV and film, add dialogue from TV film and video games to theme articles, and move quotes from categories of people to the appropriate theme articles (so far just film directors, fashion models and minor religious figures). CensoredScribe (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
First, with regards to necromancy, I consider that topic to be more about a specific type of bringing someone back from the dead, with the specific purpose of divining the future, rather than just the broader topic of resurrection in general - which is why I felt that the Bible verses were not relevant for the page. For the second question, I have a mixed answer for you - I definitely applaud the enthusiasm with which you are adding quotes. But there are some times when I feel that the connection to a given topic is merely that the word was mentioned in the quote. To me, you need just a bit more than that - just mentioning the word may not mean that the quote is really about that topic, and the quote may very well belong on a different page altogether (I find that this is a fault of the index in Bartlet's as well). Also, one minor formatting quibble - the source of quotes should make use of the "double bullet" (i.e. ** rather than :* ). For the most part, many of your additions are fine, but I do agree with some of the past contentions regarding your additions - I would just recommend using care in drawing direct relationships between quotes and a given topic (be sure that the quote truly is about the topic in question and does not merely have the word itself as its only connection to a WQ page). As an example, I would not place "Dogs are a lot of fun to own" on a page for the topic of "Fun", but it could fit on a page for the topic "Dogs" - the point is that the quote is about Dogs, but is not about Fun (even though fun is mentioned). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Planet of the apes is about a terrifying religion.[edit]

I see that w:M (1931 film) isn't a horror movie on wikipedia; just a thriller, even though it's about a serial killer, so no I don't think Planet of the Apes would count; although I disagree with Wikipedias categorization. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Family films[edit]

I don't think this is a good category, and was wondering if you could tell me how to properly list restart the discussion. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You could try one of three ways: start a discussion on the category's Talk page, start a discussion on Village pump, or nominate the category for deletion at VFD. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


I was putting all the films that are listed here into the category.  allixpeeke (talk) 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the way I read that particular category on WP is any film in which there is an appearance of a unicorn. The category we have here is worded much like other film by theme categories, in which the topic of the given theme must be a major part of the film in question. I believe this is a subtle, but important distinction. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


Can you pls review this user's activity? The miscategorizations just keep on coming. I mean, look at this... ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Disease is pretty vague. I'm aware you don't want every action movie where someone gets injured I tried to limit it to more debilitating illness which is why I thought Rear Window and Breaking Bad would count. I definitely think Star Trek should count but didn't list the other Star Trek's which should also count. I will now stop editing main space for the next week as I've done enough, my total estimate for the number of edits correctly reverted is again less than 12, which means most were correct, my apologies still. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:CensoredScribe,

I would not count the Joker's sociopathy toward the film's categorisation as a medical film since he is never officially diagnosed as a sociopath in the film (even though it is plainly obvious he is one).  If we include it because we, as viewers, opt to diagnose his mental illness, then we run the risk of opening other films to be likewise categorised based on similar viewer diagnoses.  This, in turn, would cause the category to be overfilled and unuseful to people using the category.  After all, in addition to psychopathy, we could diagnose characters with aspergers, ADD, ADHD, OCD, ODPD, depression, paranoia, &c.

Two-Face's medical condition, on the other hand, has at least some possible justification in counting toward the film's categorisation as a medical film, since not only do we see him in a hospital, but we are told a thing or two about his medical condition, specifically that he is refusing to accept pain medication and skin grafts.

Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


I was putting all the films that are listed here into the category.  allixpeeke (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough - I still think the categorization on WP is incorrect, as I don't believe there are actually dragons in those Godzilla films, but I don;t object to matching what is there. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


You reverted this edit, this edit, and this edit on the grounds that these films were "already shown as…journalist film[s] - author film is redundant."

But, it's not redundant.  As you yourself correctly pointed out to CensoredScribe here, "journalists also encompasses broadcast journalists (as evidence by such films as Network)."

Since not all journalists are authors, those journalist films that are also author films ought to be categorised under both, while those journalist films that are not also author films ought to only be categorised under journalist films.  No?

allixpeeke (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow - to me the only kind of author the people in these films are are journalists. If they also happened to write novels, then I could see having both categories. But the film His Girl Friday is about a journalist, not someone who is another type of author - and the same for the other films. So I guess my question is: in what way are these three films about both journalists and authors, but not just about journalists? I don't disagree with your premise that if there were a film about a character who wrote a newspaper column while also writing travel books, then that would have both categories - but I don't think in these films that we have that situation. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are all journalists authors?  If so, then the journalist films category should be a subcategory of the author films category; if not, then those films about written-word journalists (as opposed to broadcast journalists or photo journalists) should be categorised both under journalist films and author films (while those films that are about broadcast journalists or photo journalists should only be categorised under journalist films).

You write, "I don't disagree with your premise that if there were a film about a character who wrote a newspaper column while also writing travel books, then that would have both categories."

That wasn't my premise (although I don't disagree with it).  Apologies for the confusion.  I'll try to restate my case.

If a journalist is a type of author, then one should be able to go into the author films category and find all films about authors, including journalists, which means that this edit should be undone.

But, if a journalist is not a type of author, if only certain types of journalists ever write anything, then this edit is a good edit, and should not be undone.  But, if this is the case, we would say that Hildy Johnson from His Girl Friday is both a journalist and an author, while Howard Beale from Network is a journalist but not an author.  Fair assessment?  Since Howard Beale is not an author, journalist films should not be a subcategory of author films.  But at the same time, Hildy Johnson (unlike Howard Beale) is an author, and thus one should be able to find her (but not Howard Beale) when searching though author films.

To put the matter more succinctly, if this is a good edit that should not be undone, then this is an edit that should be undone.  Your argument for having made this edit ultimately undermines your argument for having made this edit because this edit only removes a redundancy insofar as all journalists are authors, which this edit had correctly pointed out was not the case.

Does this make sense now?  Let me know if I'm still being confusing.

allixpeeke (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll just say that yes it is still confusing...but your point is well made and I agree. :-) Feel free to revert my changes. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Cool.  allixpeeke (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland (1915 film)[edit]

You added the clean-up tag to the film.  If I may inquire, what about this needs to be cleaned up?  Granted, I elected to space the text as it appeared in the film—e.g.:

The Queen of Hearts,

she made some tarts,

All on a summer's day:

The Knave of Hearts,

he stole those tarts,

And took them quite away!

—as opposed to altering the spacing in order to organise the lines into a single line—e.g.:

The Queen of Hearts, she made some tarts, All on a summer's day: The Knave of Hearts, he stole those tarts, And took them quite away!

—is this the issue?  I thought it only proper not to change the text, but to display it exactly as it appears in the film.  Is there anything improper about this?

Yours truly,
allixpeeke (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the spacing of the quotes in this way - much like we do with poems or song lyrics - but rather the additional notes regarding the book as well as the look of the dialogue section. Also, the use of subsections within each character's section is not standard either. It is not that I think it looks bad - plenty of this actually looks good. But it does stray pretty significantly from our film template, and thus the tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair point that it does seem to stray from the template in that the template doesn't make specific reference to the inclusion of explanatory notes or the employment of subsections.  That said, the alternative to the subsections would be either of the following:  (A) The time-honoured tradition (also not technically codified by the template) of adding something to the effect of "[to Alice]" prior to each quote directed at Alice.  I felt that this approach, while appropriate under normal circumstances, would not work as well with the intertitles, and might even mislead readers into thinking that the "[to Alice]" is actually part of the intertitle.  (B) Adding "**To Alice." below the quote.  At first, as I was constructing the page, this is what I was doing.  But, the result looked a little off.  Ultimately, I opted to go with subsections because it allowed the text to flow with minimal interruption.  Take the Duchess's lullaby, for example:
Option A Option B Option C
  • [The Duchess's Lullaby]

    Speak roughly to your

    little boy,

  • [The Duchess's Lullaby continued]
    And beat him when
    her sneezes.
  • [The Duchess's Lullaby continued]

    He only does it to annoy,

    Because he knows it teases.


    Wow!      Wow!      Wow!

  • Speak roughly to your

    little boy,

    • The Duchess's Lullaby.
  • And beat him when
    her sneezes.
    • The Duchess's Lullaby continued.
  • He only does it to annoy,

    Because he knows it teases.


    Wow!      Wow!      Wow!

    • The Duchess's Lullaby continued.
The Duchess's Lullaby
I doubt we will disagree that the third option is the easiest to read.  But, assuming we agree on that point, then, even insofar as we admit that subsections technically deviates from the standard format, the question stands: is it not better, in this case, to deviate from the standard model?  To put the question another way, the clean-up template says, "This film article needs cleanup"; but do we actually want to "cleanup" this article if doing so deceases readability, or ought we instead simply remove the clean-up template and accept the page as it is?

While we ponder that question, in the meantime, I've made an edit to the page which might be seen as a reasonable compromise.  I retained the text of the subsections but edited the format so that they are not technically subsections in that (1) no 'edit' button appears to the right of them and (2) they no longer appear in the TOC.  Thus, this edit retains the readability of my previous construction while making the TOC less clunky.  Since I really doubt that we're going to want to revert to options (A) or (B), I do hope that you will find this alternative agreeable.

Regarding the appearance of the dialogue section, I similarly find this the most readable approach.  Any other approach would have either (A) combined the lines into a single line, which would be problematic for the "You are old, Father William" poem, or (B) leave the Caterpillar's lines jutted out from Alice's lines, leaving the whole section looking clunky.  Again, as I was originally constructing the page, I was originally going with option (B), but ultimately chose option (C) for its increased readability.

Finally, regarding the additional notation, it has always been my belief that when a given quote has some sort of history or is derived from another work, an explanatory note is useful.  That's why, when I created the I Origins page, I included an explanatory note in the Karen section indicating that the line was a reference to a Platonic observation.  Since Alice in Wonderland (1915 film) is a derivative work, I felt it only appropriate to note where the lines were similar to, or directly lifted from, the source material.

While I still think the explanatory notes are a positive attribute of the page, I do not believe the page would be ruined by removing them.  Unlike the other deviations I have herein defended, I do not believe removing this particular deviation will make the page any less readable.  If any of the deviations listed are to be exercised from the page, I would prefer it be this one.  That said, though, I honestly don't think this deviation is one that needs be removed, either.

I hope none of that came off sounding petty or unreasonable.  I will agree with you that the page does technically deviate from the standard template.  But, I must ask, do you believe the page would actually be improved by making any of these changes?  If no, I'd humbly suggest we simply remove the clean-up template; but if yes, then I must ask, what do you suggest specifically?

allixpeeke (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You have very reasonably defended your choices and I honestly believe that you may be right that perhaps it is best to leave this page as it is - this page seems to qualify as one that should be an exception to the template. That being said, I do not wish to see all pages deviate from the template and I think it is good that we discussed this case (and should other pages seek to deviate from the template in the future, I would hope similar discussion occurs). Thanks for your thoughts - I will remove the tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be interested in the Maxims of Chanakya and reviewing the pages for impossible and brain?[edit]

I restored a quote from Phyllis Chesler you previously restored on the impossible page. I think the quote from Michio Kaku for impossible page is on par with that from Baldwin and Bobrow on brain. I also noticed Peter1c tends to selectively enforce notability while using it as a justification for deletion; they were very quick to get rid of those quotes from Baldwin and Bobrow without taking the time to get rid of the quotes from The Ghost of Frankenstein and Batman the Animated Series. Afterwords they were more consistent in getting rid of all fictional quotes; with the notable exception of 2 quotes Orson Scott Cards Ender's series; which isn't something I can really chock up to chance with someone otherwise quite meticulous.

Also, thanks for your help and constructive advice; I enjoyed editing, but I'm going to be busy for a while. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

anon IP user ignoring WQ:LOQ[edit]

These past few days, the anon IP user has been consistently adding quotes to episode on Arrow and The Flash beyond the 5 quote-per-episode limit for a 60 min show. I have reverted them multiple times and wrote on their talk page. But yet they have continued doing so. I would appreciate you looking into this and taking the appropriate steps. Cheers --SuperJew (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up (and for reverting the additions). I've protected the pages for now, so that anon users cannot edit it. We'll have to keep an eye on it for sure. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Undelete my page[edit]

Hi, prior to me coming back (or at least planning to be active again), could you delete my userpage, and restore it to the revision of how my userpage used to be before Pmlineditor deleted it? Thank you so much! --Goldenburg111 12:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an older version - I'm not sure what it looked like before. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
After I created the page, you don't see anything? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No, the only history I see is the renaming of the page - sorry, I don't see anything before that. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Pedro Martinez[edit]

I would like to start a page on Pedro Martinez how do i go about this? thank you. --Quoter1989 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Provided you have properly sourced quotes, the easiest thing is to start here: Help:Starting a new page to create a new page. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I have nothing I need to know how to add properly sourced quotes to the page. thanks. Do I need to do a google search or something? --Quoter1989 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


What's the whole use in just copying Wikipedia's article? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not copy the whole article (or even the whole intro), but I added links and some information about this person that is significant and offers a bit more of her history than just one sentence (as the intro was at first). What is your issue with that? ~ UDScott (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no issue, I was asking. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember to block the spambots please. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)