Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/031

Uck Feaglestorm (talk · contributions)

Judging by the multiple edits and the obviously HATER nickname, this is some guy who got called out for his trolling. I think I can draw up a couple of suspects. Somebody please shut down this loser. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as an unacceptable username. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steinmetz2020 (talk · contributions) is another and wow only one contribution - on my talkpage! Jig is up kid. all of those socks' edits should be deleted because they got nothing to contribute but hate on me. this is probably an outgrowth of Garth Raider (talk · contributions) and his BS.--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both accounts have been locked and belong to the user Garth Raider. RadiX ∞ 03:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can their contributions be deleted from the pages they worked on? It seems their names may be gone but their idiotic rant summaries remain.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. please expunge all associated details on my talkpage's history and the contribution details on all the pages they vandalized. Oh and Garth Raider who the F you are, suck some eggs.--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to know the person behind kalki.

Please. ௐ. Ѻ

Kalki is Wazzawazzawaz

Deletion of User:Risto hot sir "Definitions of... in recordings" ‎pages

Per the discussion in Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Definitions of love in recordings and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Definitions of hell in recordings, I have deleted eight other pages created by User:Risto hot sir with the same format for other subjects (life, death, war, home, God, etc.). I believe it would waste the community's time to relitigate the same scope issue for each. BD2412 T 05:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine. They were all enumerated in the nomination statement, and do not need to be discussed individually. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just deleted half of the music sites in Wikiquote! These songs have been visited 5500 times during last months. Could You please count the votes! What are the rules (one vote came too late)?. --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risto hot sir, the discussion is over and it is time to drop the stick. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My country and me will never "drop the stick" when we are right. We've got "sisu", of which You can learn from the Winter war against the Soviet Union. All the material You've deleted is in fi-Wikiquote (and also the "Words represented the first time in recordings" - the 5th longest site). So You're welcome to study Your own language and music on our sites! --Risto hot sir (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikiquote is not to facilitate the study of language and music. It is to provide a reference database for quotes. BD2412 T 16:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the notability? Now it seems that every idiotism with sources is welcome. --Risto hot sir (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate issue altogether. BD2412 T 02:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do what You want!: concentrate in entertainment. But other Wikiquotes have very different ways of thinking. --Risto hot sir (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection on this point would be more salient if it were not in pursuit of adding snippets of pop songs. BD2412 T 03:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism incident on the SBSP pages

I was about to read one of the lines from the episodes, but as soon as I started reading them, I discovered explicit language not featured in any of the episodes. So, when I nominated them for deletion as an attack page, they got declined by the admins as not being met, but this is a serious situation on the pages.

Have a look for yourselves. They contain profane words not featured in the episodes:

These words were added by a crew of anonymous users who wanted to put curse words onto the lines, which is what I don't want. These pages have to be deleted to begin investigation of the problem. These users also have to be blocked for a long period to prevent further damage. Thanks for advice. 2600:1:B14A:C964:982F:5BF7:8F4C:6FB0 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sessions

Please semi-protect this page, or at least block 173.174.78.172 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log). ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both have now been done (by other, faster admins). BD2412 T 03:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban user ID:179.60.100.236

My Dear Administrator

We want the user ID:179.60.100.236 to be banned because he has been spam the regular show season 8 Wikiquote:https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Regular_Show_(season_8) for too long with a false ending claiming it will be continued to the next season too many times and we want him to be banned. Proof: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Regular_Show_(season_8)&action=history--Belrien12 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Belrien12--Belrien12 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the show or all the issues that might be involved in the edit warring which seems to have gone on for a while, but for now I am favoring the assertions of named accounts which indicate many of the anon IP edits are not correct, and thus I have protected the page for one month from anon IP edits, during which time a clearer assessment of the situation might be possible. A block might have been done were this clearly deliberate vandalism, but I am not sure this is the case, and the ranges of the IP addresses which have done such edits which are similar will also be prevented from editing that particular page, and hopefully a clearer determination of a proper solution can be made within the next month. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for deletion backlog

A lot of the deletion discussions at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion have not been closed despite being open much longer than a week. Can someone please help clear the backlog?--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 20:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm a bit too involved in some of those discussions to close them. BD2412 T 01:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: How about Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Pavan Kumar N R, where you have not (!)voted or commented?--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 19:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that one I have closed. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was waiting for that to happen so I could delete its Wikidata item, which I have now done.--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 19:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for numerous page protections:

Numerous IP addresses (presumably from the same vandal) continuously make vandalism edits by either:

1. Adding unneeded emphasis to quotes.

2. Copying/pasting directly from DVD/Blu-Ray subtitles (which are highly unreliable).

3. Adding extra quotes when the article already has enough.

And on the following articles:

The Shrek series

The Toy Story series

Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) (adding a line from an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants that is NOT part of the film!)

Aladdin (1992 Disney film)

And I am positive that there will be more victims unless you block these IP addresses and protect the articles indefinitely. They will not stop. WikiLubber (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the vandalism resumes with IP user 24.212.194.146 constantly making the same blatant vandalism edits over and over again (and not to mention on talk pages concerning the films listed, making it seem as if I am encouraging vandalism (which I never do)), completely ignoring our warnings. WikiLubber (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improved search in deleted pages archive

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=0

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe is back...

...copying quotes from various Wikiquote articles and pasting them into other articles where they are mostly irrelevant. Taking into account the extensive warnings he's received over the years about this kind of pernicious behavior and his previous blocks, I believe this edit alone should be enough to have CensoredScribe (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) blocked again – as soon as possible, given that he's made over 100 edits today! I haven't reviewed all of them, but if admins are unwilling to block CensoredScribe at this time, ideally they should carefully review each and every one of his newest edits (which evidently is going to take much more time and care than what he himself is putting into them). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to discuss these allegedly irrelevant edits with you and all others present at this notice board, I'm guessing God is one of them because the word has a rather loose definition, particularly the Ayman al-Zawahiri quote which defines God as someone who doesn't like America. I was concerned about that quote as well, there are also the improper uses of bold text that you mentioned which I've seen other editors use incorrectly, like the many bare URL's users leave for others. If you want to make bold text based typos that don't effect legibility a ban worthy offense feel free to argue so, and if you would like to actually discuss the issue of quotes not adhering to a theme instead of allowing everyone to imagine it, please elaborate with actual examples. I chose not to label whoever has incorrectly organized Arabic names on this wiki with the single word critiques you use to besmirch my standing here, and allegedly improve quality of writing. To quote Michelle Obama, "When they go low we go high." because right now your scrapping the bottom of the barrel. I look forward to a rebuttal with actual examples instead of taking your judgements on faith and reputation alone. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of incompetence (the same type that already got him blocked for 3 months, twice). ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would really block someone over an incomplete citation they than fixed in addition to another users incomplete citation wouldn't you, I guess that's why you're an admin on wikiquote after all these years. I assume you've no issue with the quality of the quote itself you are calling into question or else you would have further complained. Accept that you will never be an admin on wikiquote Daniel Tom, I have, although I am an admin on another wiki, uncyclopedia where you could attempt to tell a joke if you believe the emotion of humor is something you'd be interested in exploring. I say this having seen you recommended to another user in an edit summary that they write a book, your edit summaries are so hilarious and helpful.
Also stop using me as your sacrificial lamb, to try and appease the powers that be into giving you a promotion and go back to editing the articles on Greek classics you are respected for or anything else constructive that doesn't waste this communities time. Notice how many people cared what either of us had to say the last time you bothered to rabble rouse at this "red headed stepchild of wiki media". I also couldn't help but notice that there was no false positives of sock puppetting on my wikipedia account until I offended you last month, what a coincidence. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That so-called "quote" does not belong in that page. It is irrelevant to most readers and largely off topic. And it is from a Mailing List. You can't find it in any book. When I google it, I get just 5 results. It is not famous, well known, or widely quoted. And it certainly is not "at once mundane and sublime", "the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words". I know you don't understand this. That's why you keep getting blocked, and why you need to remain blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for articulating the point you were trying to make clearly when pressed DT, it means a lot that you talk to me like a person with a paragraph and not like your dog your trying to convince the family to have put down, with your barking out execution orders using less than 10 words. Your one complaint you’v so kindly warned me of the imminent danger of however is a quote several of wikiquotes administrators are personally familiar with from someone with a wikipedia article, who doesn’t seem to produce the most notable interviews to quote from but does elaborate on this theme never the less, so perhaps you can see how that would complicate the nature of it's notability and be a question best left to an open forum. I assume that other editor who adds a constant stream of blog posts you’ve noted on occasions hasn’t been active recently or else you would be lobbying ban threats at them as this isn’t personal, obviously you’re more professional and sportsmanlike than that and want others to know. Now if you’d like to discuss banning that other editor I would be happy to support you on that, though I somehow doubt you’re nearly as interested in them as you are me, despite the fact most of my edits come from transferring quotes from one collection to another. It surprises me you haven’t bothered with adding quotes from science today yet, though I suppose that would be admitting I found something useful. I’m curious what science related quotes you’ve added or whether your additions on wikiquote are almost unanimously political and literary, and you work exclusively with the subjects whose worth is constantly contented by critics and in which there is little peer consensus. Do you not like the additions I’ve made to the page for botany or Tesla, and have you ever once thanked me for anything I’ve done here as I’ve thanked you? Do you like the Rumi quote added to the page for complaint? Thanks for your concern for the project, now is there anything you are thankful for that I've done or do you have only mean things to say about me? I'm warning you as you've warned me that this is an issue that has been raised here before by other editors and that if it continues long enough it may result in you being blocked for a day, on the off chance someone bothers to read another one of our long boring conversations that goes nowhere. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what Wikiquote's first quote about Mythology now is, thanks to CensoredScribe (master of off topic)? Answer! ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that CensoredScribe has also added the exact same quote to the following theme pages: Analogy, Scripture, Tradition, Logic and Probability! Hello?! This is the same behavior for which he's already been blocked here many times before: copying and adding (with little or no thought) quotes with very tenuous relevance to theme pages. @User:BD2412: can you please look at this? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the quote from those pages - you are right, it is not relevant to the topics of these pages. Just because it may contain the word does not mean the quote is about a word. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, thanks for fixing that mistake Scott, and I'll go on to say that I'm reluctant now to add any quotes from Buddha about the eight fold path that simply list right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration without elaborating on those themes.
Also, thanks for the free threat of exile DT, which sort of sounds like you punihsing someone, contrary to what you said about not believing in such things in your conversation on Illegitimate Barrister at the administrator noticeboard. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UDScott: "Just because it may contain the word does not mean the quote is about a word" – perfect description of the problem! Here's another example from today. CensoredScribe is engaging in somewhat subtle but no less damaging vandalism; if he is doing this unintentionally, then clearly his abysmally weak reading comprehension makes him too incompetent too edit. In either case, he should be blocked, or at the very least prevented from adding more quotes to theme pages (a kind of "topic-ban"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually UDScott I was going to ask you whether Martial's quote would be more appropriate for critic instead of complaint. Also I'd ask you to chime in on the conversation about Daniel Tom's incivility, which is another loose term that can be used as justifications to block someone. It's unfortunate I can't spin Daniel Tom's incivility out of proportion as "hilariously" as he does my occasional errors, if you think I've made too many errors over too soon a period of time there's really nothing I can do to convince you otherwise outside, of making good additions until blocked.
I would argue that quote is a witty way of addressing complaints and the fact Daniel Tom doesn't realize that has to do with the fact they constantly complain and are unaware of that calling people retarded is acceptable for X-Box live and Youtube comments and internet forums that allow doxxing, not a wiki, certainly not in a school, a workplace or a professional sporting event. It seems his nature to lie about his vindictiveness is a symptom of socioapthy, a serious psychological disturbance best left diagnosed by professionals much like my untreated reading comprehension issues the schools never noticed, by which I assume he means not reading Greek and Latin; monolingualism, unfortunately an epidemic among American public schools. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example. This will go on indefinitely. Why isn't CensoredScribe re-blocked? I don't understand. Now he is copying huge chunks of text from Wikipedia and adding them to UNRELATED Wikiquote theme pages. Please, admins, either block CensoredScribe or prohibit him from adding more quotes to theme pages. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the word is not even mentioned. Here's an example (from today): "Why are the heavens not filled with light? Why is the universe plunged into darkness] [sic]?" added by CensoredScribe to Space. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sorts of incompetency at play here. As an example (from today too), CensoredScribe added to Adultery the following quote:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not murder,” and “anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.” But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment … You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.” But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
- Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28 (NIV)

The first verses are about murder, not adultery, but CensoredScribe still included them. Why? Because he is extremely incompetent and lazy, copying everything from Wikipedia with zero thought. He copied this from Thou shalt not covet where it reads: "The New Testament describes Jesus as interpreting the Ten Commandments as issues of the heart's desires rather than merely prohibiting certain outward actions." And they give these verses about murder and adultery as illustration. There it makes sense. Here, in a page exclusively about adultery, it doesn't. (I fixed the quote and citation this time.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point on excluding the sentence about murder, that is lazyness and that you rally behind it establishes I can't include a single unnecessary sentence in a paragraph of text without a block threat and must meet your standards of perfectionism and wait for someone to agree with your level of condemnation, which I'm still waiting for to be echoed by your usual crew of polyglot perfectionists that only factor bad edits into judgements and clearly don't care about any improvements to any of the sciences or religious and political figures that I've made, as you all possess one sided scales. However as I'm sure aware quotes that don't immediately mention the topic in the first sentence are allowed and you could omit those sections yourself while keeping the part of the quote you don't question, unless you are of course too lazy or busy to do so; just complain for hours.
As for outer space I'm afraid that's the area literati are referring to when they say the night sky even though it's not specifically spelled out it's rather obvious from references to light and dark regions of the sky, the fact DT can't read poetry written by a scientist shows extreme levels of incompetence in both fields or more likely that they have run out of logical ways to call for me to be banned and are trying to make visceral emotional appeals having seen it work in politics like many bullies are learning from Washington these days.
I call for whatever actions they call against me being taken on them instead, as they believe it fair treatment for incompetence. If I was as bad ad editing as you make me sound I'd be arguing that night and space are always synonymous regardless of the context and putting "Space...the final frontier!" on the page for night. "Why are the heavens not filled with light? Why is the universe plunged into darkness?" would also work for the pages for universe and heavens, but alas I was too lazy to add them there and thought heavens more in reference to the sky than the afterlife, despite the fact many ancient people viewed those concepts as synonymous just as they imagined deities personifying those concepts. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me propose a voluntary litmus test for Daniel Tom if they would like to demonstrate their superior abilities in determining the appropriateness of quotes on subjects outside of their field of expertise.

Whereas some ascetics and Brahmins remain addicted to attending such shows as dancing, singing, music, displays, recitations, hand-music, cymbals and drums, fairy-shows, acrobatic and conjuring tricks, combats of elephants, buffaloes, bulls, goats, rams, cocks and quail, fighting with staves, boxing, wrestling, sham-fights, parades, manoeuvres and military reviews, the ascetic Gotama refrains from attending such displays.
- M. Walshe, trans. (1987), Sutta 1, verse 1.13

This quote could be paraphrased as essentially though shalt not go to X, which for purely cultural reasons works for the Ten Commandments but would not work for this list of prohibitions, so on what page do these Buddhist commandments belong if any I ask you? I would say it pertains to the list of games Buddha doesn't play and would also work for sports and entertainment, though I obviously wouldn't add it to video games even though the sentiment would probably carry.
Now let's try something a bit more culturally relevant which also just drops some themes. I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.
Now already this excerpt from "It's a Wonderful World" is over the 10% allotted for LOQ, and without the first two it's unclear why the world is wonderful, so in accordance with the rules of LOQ and being on topic, how would this widely popular song best be quoted and on what pages? I would provide this excerpt only for the page for wonder as it simply drops a theme than moves on, much like the ten commandments doesn't elaborate on any of them to great detail. If anyone thinks they have the correct location for these two quotes, or can explain why they are best left where they are I would appreciate their leadership and think it would assist me in correctly placing quotes from Buddha and other religious leaders and public speakers who cover a lot of different moral high grounds very quickly sometimes. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question falsely assumes that the specific quote belongs in Wikiquote at all, outside a page on the work containing it, or perhaps the its author. That is not necessarily the case. BD2412 T 02:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may have picked a bad top charting song and major religious leader's moral code as examples. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote is not Wikipedia's dumping ground (despite your best efforts). They have very different purposes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now quote-dumping CensoredScribe is engaging in likely copyright violation by copying the quotes selected and given at "Today in Science History" in a massive scale, without even bothering to reformat them. And we're not just talking about quote selection, because he is copying the references too, word-for-word, without double-checking them, and without attribution. See this edit and this one, and contrast them with this page and this one. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CensoredScribe: If you did copy these quotes en masse from another site, please revert this addition before it needs to be reverted for you. We can not copy like that, even from garbage sites. BD2412 T 01:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not add any further quotes from Today in Science if it presents a copyright presentation concern in your opinion BD2414, though I thought (perhaps mistakenly) I once heard you say no copyright notices have been given to the English Wikiquote before throughout it's history, I know copyright issues shut down the French wikiquote. I will note this was never mentioned during the additions to Botany, Organic chemistry or Nuclear power; nor were any changes made to these quotes, even the formatting, during the months since when I was blocked, which strikes me as odd it's an issue suddenly now. I've added a lot of quotes to review, though I don't doubt the legitimacy or quality of any of them, and any formatting issues are minor given they are full citations, an issue similar to turning more text into links or the inappropriate use of bold text to emphasize a passage; though I imagine this has more to do with the copyright than the formatting.
I have the feeling the next edit I make could be my last so I'll do something else. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As CensoredScribe keeps adding obscure and unremarkable "quotes" (or excepts) to theme pages at an alarming rate, I once again urge admins to impose a "topic-ban" on CensoredScribe prohibiting him from adding more quotes to theme pages. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe continues to dump material from Wikipedia articles into Wikiquote without the slightest alteration (this time from w:Inferno (Dante)). While some are quotations, others are simply explanatory notes. I don't see the point of quoting translator's explanatory notes out of context. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright than DanielTom, than I won't do so anymore, with this being the first time this particular problem has occurred. Problem solved. Any other grievances? I would like to point out your soap boxing in edit summaries would get you banned on wikipedia and the fact wikiquote has entirely different and seemingly undefined rules regarding soap boxing is rather bizarre. If you want to call for me being banned, this is the correct place, not every single edit summary in which you revert me. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kedar Joshi

Link to blogspot raises eyebrows. Page recreated circumventing due process (deletion review). See Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Kedar Joshi and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Kedar Joshi. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the link to blogspot should raise eyebrows when he appears to have been quoted by independent, reliable sources. There is objective evidence that he is quotable. Hinduresci (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Deleted and salted. This topic has already been deleted multiple times on multiple wikis. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 24.212.194.146

This user has made numerous unnecessary/vandalism edits (even on talk pages, such as these edits) and refuses to persist.

Even this edit was vandalism. Shrek said "swamp", not truck. Shrek has no motorized vehicle. I request that this user be blocked for a long period of time, and all of the pages it vandalized be protected indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now it is attempting to vandalize talk pages on Wikipedia. Take this edit for instance. Minor, but still vandalism. WikiLubber (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 30 days.--Abramsky (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Returning vandal

IP user 71.224.12.113 is at it again after a year of being blocked. I request this user be blocked for at least twice as long. WikiLubber (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And nearly a month later, the IP's vandalism continues. Examples:

A Bug's Life and Bug (2006 film) -- changing "bug" to "horse"

Monsters, Inc. and Monsters University -- Changing "monkey" to "monster", "Art" to "Student Slug Monster", and vice-versa

This vandalism must desist, and in addition, lest any sockpuppets appear, protect all pages this IP ever vandalized for a long period of time. WikiLubber (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked again and protected the pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a great deal. WikiLubber (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block ban-evading Daveydolphin sockpuppets

Please long-term block the following sockmaster/sockpuppet accounts and IPs from Wikiquote. This user repeatedly ban-evades for over a year and shows no sign of stopping. These accounts have already been blocked from Wikipedia (see the sockpuppet investegations/archive from the English Wikipedia here [[1]]. This user often creates self-promotional wikiquote articles of quotes from himself and his non-notable fictional works, such as "The Garbage Can Man Show." I'm tired of cleanup up after this guy.

Accounts/IPs to block (not all have been used on Wikiquote, but all are socks of the same user):

Cactoboi1
Ben12312
TheCanonGuy
Preston109876
The Garbage Can Man Show
BubbaMan123
Mr.Johnson123
G-WIZ123
BigP123
Preston Hazard
24.151.94.76
24.107.231.252

Thanks, GretLomborg (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]