User talk:Miszatomic

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

title correction...

I noticed a page you seem to be creating or linking to was misnamed "User/Miszatomic|Themes" when I believe what you meant to type was probably "User:Miszatomic/Themes|Themes." Just making a note of this as I once again prepare to leave. I hope to do a bit more on the project within the next day or two, but have numerous things keeping me busy. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you already created it while I typed the above — you might want to correct the link you made though. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Bias vs. Prejudice

I just got in after having been gone much of the day, and I noticed you had just redirected Bias into Prejudice. While the concepts are definitely related, I believe bias is a more general term which can include irrational or rationalized forms of prejudices and assumptions, as well as dispositions which are not limited to the "pre-judgment" of prejudice. I know that they are often used as if they were synonyms, but there are definitely significant distinctions in some uses of the terms. While the Bias page was so small it is not a big deal as yet, and I am not going to revert the change, I would prefer the pages eventually both be separate articles, probably with some overlap, and might work on both in coming months. I am too busy with too many other things to do much with either of them right now. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

To make a summary of some of the ways I myself tend to distinctly use the words, I would say that all prejudicial assessments are not always entirely wrong, nor all biases improper or unjust, but such qualities are very common in both aspects of human attitudes, and both, when left unexamined or unchallenged can be very dangerous, and full of errors conducive to many forms of further errors and even profound forms of evil. To transcend attachment to either is usually a mark of wisdom, even as tolerating the ignorance and confusions of those who cannot yet do so is often prudent, in efforts to help them and others to eventually do so. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the tip. Miszatomic 23:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

merges and protection

Hello Misz. Things are calmer now, no? Just a reminder: when moving (merging) material from one page into another, it's important to make that clear in the edit summary, to make the history of edits list all contributors (or make them traceable). Something simple like "moved from [[page name]]" should be enough. Okay, one more thing: maybe you'll want to change the protection level of your talk page (remove it) so IPs can edit it again. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My talk page

I'm curious why my talk page was deleted and why I am not allowed to have one. I honestly do not know whether I had anything in my talk page, but please clarify what is going on. Wpollard (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Page was created by a blocked vandal. Miszatomic (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2015
  • I was informed of what happened and what you had to do to fix this. Thank you for doing this. I just looked through my edits and found that I indeed never created my own talk page. I do not edit in Wikiquote much, but I visit here occasionally. Wpollard (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete vandalized user page

Hi Miszatomic, can you delete my vandalized user page, please? Thanks in advance.--Syum90 (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Y Done, Miszatomic (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Global auto-block

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) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the situation at the moment but this seems to be some sock account that has a history of personal attacks on users. I will look into it further. Miszatomic 10:43, 8 April 2015

71.49.152.158

Hello Miszatomic. Could you block this IP? Every edit they make is vandalism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Y Done, blocked for one month Miszatomic (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

He keeps vandalizing [1], I think you're going to have to block him again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

help

what was my wrong in my page ?

Hi

Hi, can you block this ip? --Matiia (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Y Done, One month should do, thanks for the notice. Miszatomic (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Block vandal

Hi Miszatomic, please block this vandal. Thanks.--Syum90 (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Y Done, thank you, - Miszatomic (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Block 70Jack90

Would you do us all a favor and please block 70Jack90 for its false allegation against me? WikiLubber (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, it has been undoing all my highly-justified edits and constantly failed to comply with Wikiquote's limitations on quotes. WikiLubber (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And now it has become the real sockpuppet, as its other account: 90Jack70, has proven. WikiLubber (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Black Cauldron (film)

IPs are constantly vandalizing The Black Cauldron (film). Could you pls semi-protect it? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pls semi-protect it again, the vandal is back. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Y Done The Black Cauldron (film) semi protected for 6 months IP blocked for 3 months Miszatomic 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

another vandal

Hi Miszatomic. Can you pls block vandal 167.21.142.14 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)? He keeps vandalizing Seth MacFarlane and other pages. Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Y Done Seth MacFarlane semi protected for 3 months IP blocked for 2 weeks Miszatomic 19:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

Block 81.182.112.231, as it is obvious this user's here to cause trouble. Thank you. --Golden_burg111 16:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Y Done IP blocked for 1 Month Miszatomic 6:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hide Revision

1, grossly offensive attack. Thanks. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiquote:WikiProject Weekly Cleanup

Is this going to be active? Are you still participating in this? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• • yes I am still participating -Miszatomic 19:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

vandalism on Mark Zuckerberg

I noticed that you blocked 188.193.199.70 (talk · contributions) for vandalizing the Mark Zuckerberg page. However, I believe this user's edits are actually legitimate. From what I could tell, Zuckerberg did, in fact, refer to Facebook users as "Dumb f**ks." [2] It was actually 98.201.142.178 (talk · contributions) that vandalized the article. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Static Shock

I'm not sure the splitting of this TV show into individual season pages really helps the problems that were on this page. In addition to necessary cleanup, there remain too many quotes - it should be trimmed down to 2 per episode - and spreading it into four pages instead of 1 does not remove this problem. In fact, if it were properly trimmed, having them all on one page should not be an issue. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Village pump

Hello Miszatomic. Thanks again for your great work fighting vandalism. (You already know this, but please always be careful not to protect or semi-protect pages for too long, unless they really are the targets of persistent vandalism.) Some people are objecting to the Wikiquote:Village pump being semi-protected for a week – for other pages that would normally be considered a short time, but the Village pump is a bit special, as newcomers may want to use it to ask questions or get help, so if possible it should be left unprotected. So, can you unprotect it? Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Y Done I have removed the protection so other users can edit Miszatomic 22:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi there. While I am all for your trimming efforts on our many bloated pages, when you leave edit summaries like "formatting" when you trim quotes, it is a bit misleading (e.g. your recent edit to Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons, where you left that edit summary, but trimmed nearly 22,000 characters). For a better accounting of the work, please consider a more descriptive edit summary that actually reflects what you did. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Miszatomic, I notice that you are still doing this, a lot. I would like to reinforce UDScott's request by noting that it is very helpful, when reviewing the recent changes log and article histories, if experienced users like yourself provide informative edit summaries. It's not just about providing an accounting "for the record":

1. It helps other reviewers see at a glance what is actually going on, saving a lot of time and trouble.
2. Summaries like "trimming per limits on quotations" can help the uninitiated (or stubborn) understand the reasons behind your actions.

Please try to provide informative edit summaries, and avoid summaries that are uninformative or even misleading. Thanks, ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

semi-protection request

Could you semi-protect The Black Cauldron (film) again? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Y Done semi-protected for 3 months Miszatomic 5:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I get your opinion as to whether my citation fixes are "subtle vandalism" or if is rather Daniel Toms uncivil and disruptive behavior warrants correction?

[3] I have a very long and sorted history with Daniel Tom, and although they normally have some basis for their reverts, this is a very clear cut matter of whether my recent citation fixes are correct or not, which I believe they are as every single style guide suggests ending citations with a period and my other grammatical fixes such as italicizing titles and using commas between entries (or periods in the case of the APA) are also near universally implemented. I've been copying their language substituting meat back for incompetent as I assume all editors are made out of meat, while incompetence is in fact a legal term.

Sorry for bothering you with this mess, I thought being a wiki gnome was welcomed, but I guess not. I wouldhave at least liked knowing what I did wrong from DT, but I guess I don't deserve that as "the most incompetent editor". CensoredScribe (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Captain America(n)

Hi :) just wanted to report that it should be Category:Captain America films, not "American". Bye ;) --Superchilum (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries - I've fixed it. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Urgent message

Numerous IP addresses continuously make unnecessary edits (and vandalism edits to boot) on the following pages:

Toy Story

Toy Story 2

Toy Story 3

Shrek

Monsters, Inc.

Monsters University

The Incredibles

...to name but a few, and they refuse to cease and desist, nor even explain their edits. I request that all those IP addresses be blocked for the maximum time allowed, and that all pages on which they have edited be protected for at least six months. WikiLubber (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Y Done IP Blocked for 2 months and pages protect for a month. Miszatomic 19:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

protection request

The Black Cauldron (film) and All Dogs Go to Heaven need to be semi-protected again. Thanks in advance. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Y Done, I have semi-protected indefinitely The Black Cauldron (film), and All Dogs Go to Heaven for three months , IP also blocked. Miszatomic 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The Black Cauldron (film) needs to be semi-protected, again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

First words in recordings

Hello! You have deleted this site, and I ask why. Other contributors are welcome. The article is a linguistic and sociologic study of when the words have become allowed or actual in recordings. Can You find this information elsewhere? At least the people should have an opportunity to discuss! --Risto hot sir (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Miszatomic, when deleting pages please remember to provide a reason in the deletion log. (I notice you have usually not been doing this.)

Risto hot sir, I will provide an opportunity to discuss this by nominating the page at Votes for deletion. Please feel free to participate in that discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing {{checkcopyright}}

Hi Miszatomic. When you remove {{checkcopyright}} tags from articles that have been split into episode pages (because there are no quotes left on the "main" page), please consider adding the tags to the individual episode pages. Very often the tagged problem has not gone away, it has been spread around in more problematic articles. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Pyro

A page that you have been involved in editing, Pyro, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Pyro. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Jamie McCrimmon

A page that you have been involved in editing, Jamie McCrimmon, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jamie McCrimmon. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Protect page

You didn't give a reason why did you protect the page "Yūladu jamī'u n-nāsi aḥrāran mutasāwīna fī l-karāmati wa-l-ḥuqūq. Wa-qad wuhibū 'aqlan wa-ḍamīran wa-'alayhim an yu'āmila ba'ḍuhum ba'ḍan bi-rūḥi l-ikhā'.

Vandalism

Hi. Can you please block coyotedomino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He has vandalized my user page by writing that I am a kitten. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Blocked for 1 Month Miszatomic 17:45, 11 December 2017

Thank you very much. I hope this will teach this user a lesson. I myself got blocked from Wikipedia so I know how this feels for him/her. Hopefully, this experiance will shape this user into a helpful editor. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Japanese poets

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) 22:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

JARNY seems to want a lot of edits asking opinions from numerous people. The voting is over, the case is closed.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that their was something wrong with wanting administrators to edit. You seem desperate for any chance to insult me even if it is not logical.

Silence does not mean disagreement. The vote is not closed, 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. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You're just wasting time.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
If you are not interested in helping, than you don't need to. You have my full permission to let me handle this. The only person who is wasting time is the one who interrupts conversations with, "JARNY seems to want a lot of edits asking opinions from numerous people. The voting is over, the case is closed.". Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC) The only person who wants to discuss of these Japanese poets is you.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That’s exactly why I am doing this; to let other users know about this so that they may do something about it, as you requested. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove boldface from most "Last words"

Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on MonsterHunter32

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? You can read more about it at the link above, and at the other discussions linked in that discussion.

What would be most helpful would be if other editors could add comments to the summary table here Talk:India#Summary_table.

Since you are an admin, I would also welcome your view on the following.

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

• 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.

Observing the 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 or opinions or alleged bias, using religious or political smears against me and others.

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 believe MonsterHunter32 is being extremely annoying and disruptive."

• "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."

• "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "

• "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

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.

• While Jedi3 is talking about "comments against me', jedi3 orgets User:Kalki has criticized his behavior as well.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9].

• 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.

• As earlier mentioned after UDScott blocked him for a week, 'he resumed edit-warring right after the block expired. See here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion.

• 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."

• He claims I "refused to discuss". This despite me discussing at Talk:Somnath temple, Talk:Aurangzeb and Talk:India. At all of those talk pages my comment is the latest. You can check 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."

• He says I'm done numerous "personal attacks" against User:DanielTom and User:Kalki. I never committed any personal attacks like Jedi3 who started calling me a vandal and claimed I was censoring baselessly. And Jedi3 doesn't reveal DanieTom needlessly kept on edit-warring with me at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day despite me already inviting him to talk and offering him a compromise. What's more he revealed his reason to be a baseless belief of me attempting to censor even though I already offered to talk right after his first revert.

• After Daniel Tom 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 [10] 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.

• He has no problem in his reverts removing my quotes and later not adding them in "some cases" as he claims, but he only has a problem when I reverted his edits to stop his attempt at edit-warring at Aurangzeb.

• 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.

• He keeps on telling me to follow Template:Remove. But when I asked him to follow WQ:WQ, he indicated he won't and said it wasn't a policy or guideline. template:Remove doesn't claim to be a policy or guideline either. Regardless I've posted several quotes and tried to discuss with him, But Jedi3 keeps making false claims and abruptly stops discussion.

• DanielTom called me "annoying" which is an extremely negative connotation and a real personal attack. I told him about this. Then Jedi3 claims it is not a personal attack and calls my comments annoying. So I told him that annoying means irritating and harassing or making angry. i asked him tocontrol himself if he felt so.

• 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.

• "*"Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). " Jedi3 doesn't explain where it is from. I never made any misleading edit summaries unlike DanielTom's claims. i had plainly explained it was "vandalism" by Jedi3 at Talk:India. I [explained clearly Jedi3's issues were not related to Talk:India and he was not discussing where the quotes were removed from.

• "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) 06:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminship

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions) - J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 22:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki promotion

Hi, can you see this? IMHO is a cross-wiki self-promoter. --Wim b 09:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Zhu Ming

I see you salted this page. May want to have a look at these too:

• ZhuMing (Zhu Zhe)
• Zhu Ming (ZhuZhe)
• Zhu Ming（ZhuZhe）
• ZhuMing (thinker)

GMG^talk 12:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• • Y Done pages deleted and protected

Another ip user User:58.40.216.73 had created the redirect Zhu Min （philosopher） to the deleted page. Matthew hk (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

IP vandals 74.70.79.191 and 67.187.116.140

Continuously add nonsense quotes to articles, such as the Toy Story series, the Shrek series, etc., and not to mention quotes that do not exist from characters that did not even appear in the films! Plus, they send messages on my talk page bragging about their edits just because they think they are funny. But vandalism is not funny. I request these IPs be blocked indefinitely, and all pages they vandalized be protected for at least a year. WikiLubber (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• • 2 week will suffice. Miszatomic 9:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I request an extension. Apparently, these IPs are trying to evade their blocks with IP 96.4.107.9, such as their edit on Toy Story 3. I not only request that their block be extended by another week at least, but that all pages it vandalized be protected for at least an additional month. WikiLubber (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

2 weeks block will do Miszatomic 17:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

My talk page is being vandalized...

...by unrepentant IP vandals posting nonsense quotes without explanation. I tried reporting them and requesting indefinite protection of my talk page, but no action has been taken. Do you think you can help? WikiLubber (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

IP vandals at it again...

Not the same ones who have been vandalizing my talk page, but pages such as 101 Dalmatians (1996 film), Toy Story 2, etc. These two have learned nothing from their prior blocks. I request they be blocked for at least twice as long as they have the last time (two months), and that the pages they vandalized be protected for at least a month. WikiLubber (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I had been sending countless warnings to the former's talk page, but no matter what, it continues to ignore them. WikiLubber (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, protecting my talk page for a month was not going to stop this vandal. I recommend protecting it for no less than twice and that ALL Toy Story-related articles be protected for no less than that same period of time.

I just do not understand why no one bothers to take any action against this blatant vandal. WikiLubber (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Y Done, talk page protected and toy story vandal blocked. Miszatomic 22:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Toy Story IP vandals are at it once again...

This edit proves that the IP vandals have learned nothing. I request that all Toy Story and Shrek articles be protected indefinitely (lest this happen again, because one month is not going to stop the vandals) and the IP vandals be blocked for no less than two months. Also, increase IP protection on my talk page by no less than a year, just in case. WikiLubber (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Y Done,toy story vandal blocked. Miszatomic 23:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

One week of vandal blocking and page protection is not going to stop the vandals. I recommend no less than a month. WikiLubber (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

IP addresses change all the time. There IP address would have changed by now. So blocking them indefinitely will not help.:Miszatomic 17:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

But protecting the pages they vandalized indefinitely might. WikiLubber (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Another Toy Story IP vandal...

[...with the same MO], but had been using that same IP for four months and counting. I recommend it be blocked for no less than a year. WikiLubber (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

One week of protecting the page won't stop the vandalism. I recommend no less than six months. WikiLubber (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please restore and edit protect Ferris Bueller's Day Off

On December 1 I added ellipses to "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?" @WikiLubber: reverted that edit and a discussion ensued. During the discussion WikiLubber continued to edit the article. On December 6 I restored the article to its pre-December 1 condition but WikiLubber continued to edit the page without consensus. The most recent such edit took place earlier today. Would you please consider (1) restoring the page to its pre-December 1 condition and (2) imposing an edit protection? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The ellipses were unnecessary and redundant. And I had to remove a lot of those quotes, because it far exceeded the quote limit for a film that long. And there was no consensus. WikiLubber (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no consensus. So we should re-set to before the most recent round of changes (including mine) took place. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If we did that, the number of quotes would exceed the limit of eight. Forgive me, but we should leave the article as it is now and move on. WikiLubber (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Miszatomic:, I'm hoping you'll find a moment to consider my request. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Having gone a whole month without a single change (quote-wise), there is no grounds for protection. WikiLubber (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You were the person doing most of the editing. I'm thinking the only reason you've stopped is that I haven't yet resumed the discussion on the talk page (which I plan to do once the article is protected). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I stopped because there was no reason to continue. And there is no grounds for protection, because there is nothing worth changing. End of discussion. WikiLubber (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Miszatomic:, I'm concluding from your silence that you have elected to take no action on my request. Please let me know if I'm wrong. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

IP vandals...

A bunch of IP addresses constantly bully admins such as Kalki, UDScott, and Tegel, and vandalize the Administrators' noticeboard‎ without explanation or remorse. No matter how many we block, another IP with the same MO continues where it left off. I request permanent protection of all pages they vandalized, including all talk pages. But something has to be done to stop that vandal permanently. WikiLubber (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Assistance requested

It concerns one Pratap Pandit (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

It constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup, დამოკიდებულება, and myself, and refuses to admit defeat.

Plus, it has a history of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. We cannot take any chances that it may take its frustration out on Wikiquote.

And in this edit, it claims დამოკიდებულება has a "weird name", and it demanded დამოკიდებულება add an English name in his signature, just because it claimed it would be "easier to communicate". I request action be taken against this user immediately. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am responding here as I was pinged from this page by DawgDeputy. You might want to see this report at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Harassment and Edit warring by User:DawgDeputy.
• DawgDeputy has created same blockshopping threads on 7 different Administrator's talk page, [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] even though a report is already posted on WQ:AN.
• Weird name has already been explained in detail--Pratap Pandit (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Poop" Wikiquote page

Hello Miszatomic. I was -humorously- considering to create a Wikipedia page for poop, after having stumbled upon some quotes on the subject (example), having noticed that it is absent on Wikiquote, and that there is nevertheless the potential for a nice page. I also noticed that there is a Wikipedia page on shit, and then I saw that you are protecting the corresponding Wikiquote page. Do you think it would be a bad idea to create such a page, or could I work on a draft and then let you check the quality? --Natematic (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Village pump#Inactive admins for vote of confidence review

Greetings! Your name has come up in the discussion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Inactive admins for vote of confidence review, in case you would like to comment there. Cheers! BD2412 T 07:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Your advanced permissions on enwikiquote

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, interface administrator, etc.) was adopted by community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no logged actions for 2 years) on this wiki. Since this wiki, to the best of our knowledge, does not have its own rights review process, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your advanced permissions, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. A community notice about this process has been also posted on the local Village Pump of this wiki. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at the m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights.

If you wish to resign your rights, please request removal of your rights on Meta.

If there is no response at all after one month, stewards will proceed to remove your administrator and/or bureaucrat rights. In ambiguous cases, stewards will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact the stewards.

Yours faithfully.

Stanglavine (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)