Jeffq

OK, so I shorted the article up, now all the quotes have 5 or less :-) Stormin' Foreman 06:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

JeffQ, it's wally!!! How the heck aren't you, brother, anyhow? look, ok, it's true: I was dead for awhile in federal prison for selling melted lollypops to Lucifer’s cousin but the way I saw it was just another dime... I wanted to drop by and send you a special hello and wish you the best for the previous year and lasting best wishes for the up-coming elections; may the best woman be laid by the second runner down. Anyway, look nothing personal Jeff, you know I do like you and all but get the hell out of this place before it eats your life up!! Look what happened to 0waldo, and personally speaking, I can attest to it all.... I posted the link to the youtube video clip - satisfy your rabid curiosity and watch it because it's just a total hoot! I've been doing some more artwork lately; mostly portraits and don't ask me why? Please go look and give me thumbs up or down as the case may be'nt!. OK, enough said and have a great week/month/year/decade/century, etc., and so on..... Wallace Munchovie, aka and all kinds of derivations thereto... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.214.64.9 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jeff! Thanks for marking me as inactive. I enjoy being here, but unfortunately my RL life has gotten busy (though fun!). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) — posted at 11:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jeff..thank you for your contribution to Mitch Hedberg's Wikiquote page - Lynn Shawcroft —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.26.246 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --C 14:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to ask you one more question: Was I doing anything wrong that Im still doing?--Nijikon 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Will do!--Cato 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll be glad to help close them on time, but I'm not sure how to do it. Obviously I can delete the original. But how do you put the discussion into the archives, and have the nice blue background copy of it in the VFD area for a few days? --Ubiquity 23:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I was going to point you to the documentation for this process. But I notice that we don't seem to have updated Wikiquote:Deletion policy (which doubles as our "deletion process" page) to reflect the new VfD process. And that is because we haven't even officially ratified the new VfD system which is nearly a year old!

I blame myself for this. I've always tried to make sure our documentation reflects our practices, and I've been doing far too little of this lately. While I bump up the priority on dotting these i's and crossing these t's (the "word of the day" two days ago on Wiktionary, an interesting omen), here's the basic process:

1. Close the discussion by editing the whole page (not just the section). Add {{vt|RESULT}} ~ ~~~~ to the top and {{vb}} to the bottom. This turns the discussion blue. (If you forget the vb tag, like I sometimes do, it'll turn the entire remainder of the VfD page blue until it's fixed.)
2. Take the chosen action on the page.
   • For delete, don't forget to delete talk pages and remove references from articles where appropriate (e.g., remove an obvious unnotable from List of people by name, but you can leave truly famous people for future creation).
   • For keep or no-consensus, remove the VFD tag (which I frequently forget!) and add a {{vfd-kept-new|TITLE}} tag to the talk page (TITLE being the name of the discussion, usually but not always the same as the page). There's also a {{vfd-redirect-new|TITLE|REDIRECTED-TO}} template for redirects and merges without deletion.
   • There are other oddities, like "pending action", but don't worry about that. 99% are covered by the two usual classes of results, and someone else can jump in on anything weird.
3. Archive by adding the discussion to the appropriate month page in Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log.
   1. Cut the discussion line from WQ:VFD and paste it into the month page, placing it in reverse chronological order by date of nomination (most recently nominated at the top). Copy over or add the HTML nomination-date comment if necessary to make it easier for folks to keep them in order.
   2. Save the changes with an appropriate edit summary on both pages. (I like to include a list with each closed discussion title, to make it easier to find them in the WQ:VFD and log page histories, but most folks just say something like "archived 3 discussions".)

You don't need to archive the discussion immediately after closing. If there's been some interesting discussion or controversy, I like to leave the discussion in place on WQ:VFD for a day or two. But you can move it there right away also. I'm afraid, too, that some closers still feel uncomfortable about the archive process, which is actually much easier than it use to be. (Those docs really need to get updated!) The nice thing is that we no longer have to do both steps immediately.

Let me know if you have any questions or problems. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that was very clear. As long as you bring it up, most of our pages on deletion are out of date -- which is mainly why I bring so many things to VFD that get reactions like "should have been speedy" or "should have used prod". I think we need to revise the whole thing, and have a new chart that says when to speedy, when to prod, and when to VFD. I don't feel competent to do that myself, but I'll be glad to help. Let me know if you can use any. --Ubiquity 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's your take on pages with a single phrase, obviously intended to be offensive, but which might be a quote from a person or group which might be notable? For instance, User:Ubiquity/Some Obscure Rapper. No intro, no sources, no indication that the text is a quotation. But assume I recognize or get ghits for "Some Obscure Rapper" — enough to convince me he might be notable. Does this qualify for SD/nonsense, SD/vandalism, SD/no quotes, or does it require prod or vfd? Or should I assume good faith and provide an intro and format the article properly? I suppose that if it were intended as vandalism, making it a proper article might take some of the fun out of it for the perpetrator. --Ubiquity 13:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, for musicians, if they have neither an All Music Guide nor a Wikipedia entry, I'm inclined to assume they're non-notable. With an unoriginal quote like in your example, even though it's something that a rapper might find lyrical, I think that combination would justify an SD/unremarkable subject. (It may be vandalism or a hoax, but SD/A4 puts the burden of proof in an appropriate place if someone wants to argue the point.) If they do have some arguable notoriety, and it seems like someone just pasted it in without any intention of building up a decent article, that's where I think {{prod}} is useful (i.e., careless, abandoned article). But if it seems like someone is planning to create an article about an arguably notable person with a bunch of inane "quotes", I tend to send them to WQ:VFD, as I do with wrestlers, obscure fictional characters, and other articles that collect lots of unpithy, unoriginal, and unsourced material, as they could conceivably be made useful (however unlikely). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff. I'm gonna mow your grass to the dirt. --Andrew Monahan 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I don't need a lawnmower. I'm fine. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jeff, I'd like to personally apologize to a certain member of this project, and to express my gratitude for having invited me to the project. Where do I go about doing this, and in which protocol should I address such concerns? -B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X3773 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, in going beyond this, I also would like to address the concerns of all involved. The responsibility for bad-decisions was without a doubt mine, and the shame and disgust have stayed with me to this day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X3773 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about, and your posting of these oddly vague statements into a 2-year-old topic started by an apparent troll only adds to the confusion. Would you care to explain what your specific situation and intentions are? Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is me, Zarbon, letting you know that I received your email confirmation and have responded to you through email and am responding here as well just to make sure you get this response and a complete confirmation tying my ip with my email. - 72.229.48.178 02:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Zarbon. You're one step ahead of me by posting this message. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Jeffq for finally unblocking me. This is my first post under my user name in a long time and I wanted it to be a thanks. In some ways, I would also like for it to be an apology if I may have been annoying at all. You have been very patient. Thanks again. - Zarbon 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rats, I'm not yet bold enough. I saw that one put in and thought a reversion might be in order since it was bordering on transcription. -- Greyed 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year! One of my New Year's resolutions is to finish Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index - but I can't do it alone. There are 234 red links for which articles need to be created, and 275 blue links for which articles need to be checked. Although I've been trying to get one done each day, lately I have not had time to do even that! Please consider making a commitment to help me keep my resolution by creating or checking one entry on this page per week. Help public domain quotes find their home in 2008! Cheers! BD2412 T 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

After a spate of vandalism began with a few associated usernames, I have blocked Huard114, Huard115, and Huard116, and am prepared to block the very probably associated username User:Kalki Hunter if it is misused, but it might be good to run a check on the IPs of these accounts when you have the chance. Thanks. ~ Kalki 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've confirmed all of these (and Huard117) as sockpuppets, and blocked Kalki Hunter and their IP per my findings. Thanks for calling attention to this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, what did you need Letter for? Something that requires the book or something I might be able to look up for you from remote? -- Greyed 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I need the book itself. I want to re-read it to see if I might recommend it to someone for a project. Thanks for the offer! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was an apparent dispute which occurred earlier today between User:Johney and User:82.203.139.241; The IP has been used for previous linking to articles on the Finnish Wikiquote, so it's use by the Johney there might be genuine, but there has thus far been no confirmation of this on the Finnish user's talk page. The user "Johney" seems to have been engaged in nothing but disputing on the talk page of the IP and myself, and I blocked this username as a probable troll for 3 days after its request for a block on both itself and the IP. I afterwards deleted its user page which seems to have been created as an attack page by an impersonator. If you or Aphaia have time to check in on this any time soon it might be helpful. ~ Kalki 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'd noticed that and have been doing a little research on the Finnish WP. These two seem to be having a disagreement there as well, although I can't quite decipher Finnish well enough to understand what it is. Finnish "Johney" seems to be a substantial and serious contributor there, so I'm reluctant to do a CU that might tell me his IP (possibly the same across projects) without more background. I've asked him to explain on his Finnish talk page, in English, what he thinks is going on. If I don't get a reply or the explanation doesn't tell us enough, I'll do the CU. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have translated some of Johney's contributions to English on Kalki's talk page. Finlux 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Johney from fi:WP has responded that the IP is his, but the existing "Johney" here is not him. The IP behind that user happens to be from a network operated by a hosting service with a history of compromised servers, so I've blocked the IP for a year as an open proxy/zombie. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for your help. −Finlux 21:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jeff: can we move that VfD out of Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log/Pending action yet?--Cato 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay in responding, Cato. I wanted to review the state before replying, but I'm so preoccupied in meatspace right now that I'm unfairly holding things up by my attempt at preparation. If you feel the merge issues have been dealt with, by all means place it into the regular archive. If not, I'll try to look it over sometime soon (I hope) to see if I can do something about it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks OK to me - moved.--Cato 10:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your edit to Scott Adams that added a list of "quotes" apparently from restaurant menus at Stacey's At Waterford. This looks like a commercial advertisement, and I can't see what it has to do with Scott Adams. Can you explain why you felt this was an appropriate addition to this article? I'm quite puzzled. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Scott Adams is part owner (I think) of the restaurant and he wrote those things for the menu. They are both sourced and funny so I'll revert your blanking. // Liftarn

Thanks for responding on this matter. I re-removed these items because the cited webpage did not indicate that Adams wrote these jokes. Then I thought to dig a little and quickly found such a statement on the website's "About Us" page, so I restored them again. I took a little rejiggering, but I recast the first source to indicate both the quote and the attribution sources (usually not something we have to do separately). Technically this should be repeated for every single quote, but I thought we might get away with just including the sourced attribution for the first quote. Since the other quotes are clearly sourced to the restaurant's online menu, this should suffice. (There may be better ways to do this, but I'm in too much of a hurry right now to make a mini-project of this.)

This doesn't resolve the the question of whether it makes sense to include so many quips from a restaurant menu. They don't strike me as the "very best" of Scott Adams, which is what Wikiquote articles are intended to be. There's also a question of whether quoting nearly half the menu's jokes is a copyright violation. In any case, some of this should probably be trimmed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In reference to your comment on my talk page: I would not normally edit an attribution on Wikiquote without a proper source. In fact, I wouldn't normally edit Wikiquote at all because I consider it a conflict of interest; I run the web's oldest and most popular quotation site and would rather focus my energies there. As for the quote in question, it was attributed to "Laura Moncur" and I know that to be incorrect because Laura is my wife and she complained to me about the attribution. Due to running a popular quotation site we are often mistakenly cited as the authors of quotes. User DJFLAVIN has repeatedly attributed this quote to Laura Moncur and I felt I should correct this. Thanks for adding more detail about the (dubious) sources of this quote. Mmoncur (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, and for your effort to correct DJFLAVIN's misapprehension. I imagine it was caused by Googling the quote to find [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38458.html Quotation #38458 from Laura Moncur's Motivational Quotations] as the most professionally presented citation with a name attached to it, and failing to notice that this was a collection of your wife's personal favorites, not an attempt to claim origin. Google Search is great, but folks tend to confuse popular with accurate, and read far more into the information they find than is meant by the publishers. My hasty research suggests that the quote predates all the sources I could easily find in Google Book Search, so I felt it necessary to cite what I had until another Wikiquotian could tackle this more thoroughly.

I've enjoyed reading quotes from [http://www.quotationspage.com/ The Quotations Page], and admire the work you and your wife have put into your immensely popular site. I always tell people that we can't consider such websites as reliable sources, given Wikimedia's needs and goals, but many (including yours) are nevertheless quite useful (and often more relevant for a surfer's inquiries, I must admit). I only wish we all had an easier job nailing down original sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at the last quote on the Rush Limbaugh page. There is an edit war going on about this quote. Two camps, one insists on having it, one refuses to have it. Greyed (talk · contributions) (in the "remove" camp) asked in Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Protection of Rush Limbaugh that the page be protected. You can see my answer there; no other admin expressed interest. But the two camps are still having revert-wars over the quote. Got any advice? Is it possible (or desirable) to have a VFD on a single quote? Are there other decisive ways to determine something like this when both sides are implacable? --Ubiquity 01:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your intervention on this. Now I know how to handle it next time. --Ubiquity 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff,

First, thank you for allowing me to edit here. I didn't arrange anything with Huard. He heard about me on Wikipedia and was just curious about me. He wanted to know what the situation was there, nothing more. I don't think he's a bad guy. I asked him to e-mail me because, as you wrote, our conversation looked bad. I am also trying to be on good terms with the community here. I tried to remain on good terms with people at Wikipedia, too, but someone from Wiktionary started complaining to them about me.

I plan to add more quotes to Wikiquote. I have a bunch of really good ones lying around. I hope you don't mind my user page, by the way. It has a sad tone, so if you like, I can blank it. I'm trying to leave Wikipedia behind me, anyway.

Sincerely,

Primetime 02:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Don't put too much faith into that page on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your quick response. Huard was a proven serial sockpuppeteer who insisted on creating patently junk articles, then created a username clearly meant as an attack on the admin trying to stop his junk creation. Junk articles are forgiveable if a new editor chooses to learn Wikiquote goals; repeated creation of junk articles is considered vandalism; and serial sockpuppetry is a fast track for a permanent ban. The last username was gratuitous; it's hard to credit anyone with the wiki knowledge and energy to be persistently disruptive with good faith, and his post about teaming up with you clearly indicated that he not only wanted to appear to be a vandal, but knew enough about Wikimedia events to seek you out for collaboration. He may be a real nice guy in real life, but he's a proven disrupter here.

As long as you do not violate policies here and are not using Wikiquote resources to cause problems for other projects, I think your fellow Wikiquotians would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. Unless I'm told otherwise by the Foundation, or other events force a re-evaluation, I'll take no further action on this.

I don't want you to feel that I expect you to blank your anti-Wikipedia statement. I do recall some of my own writings that, while expressing heartfelt anger at difficult situations, in retrospect said more about me than it did about the situations (and not particularly flattering things, either). You seize on the idea of your opponents calling themselves "janitors", but don't seem to realize that this is intentional humility used as a means of respecting the custodial nature of doing necessary maintenance on a project that only works because the contributors vastly outnumber the admins. (Jimmy Wales & co. tried using only credentialled people (see Nupedia), but that proved unworkable. I think just about everyone has been surprised how useful Wikipedia has proven to be, despite its many and obvious flaws. In the end, it's the utility that matters, and we must learn how to work together knowing that not everyone has the same skill set.)

We don't require that people edit, although I certainly hope you will resume your contributions. I only ask that you be very careful about copyright issues. Copyvio is a far more serious problem here than at Wikipedia. Nearly all of our content is copyrighted, so we must work hard to avoid using any more than an insignificant portion of any creative work in each and every article (and in many cases, even in each and every section of an article). In case you weren't aware of this, French Wikiquote was shut down for nearly a year, and had to start completely from scratch because their copyvio problems became unacceptable to the government and infringed parties there. We ourselves continue to struggle with this problem. In fact, the most useful work anyone could do here is to weed out lesser quotes, as well as source the better ones, so that we are both compliant and accurate. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. My main concern with the name janitor is that it makes it look like administrators on Wikipedia do not take their jobs seriously. "Jimbo" encourages this type of thinking, both by his writing on the matter and by his example. Consequently, the bar is set too low for promotion, and many administrators act carelessly. Many think that it's not a big deal if they block someone or delete an entry. In my managerial studies, I learned that respect and reasoning are pivotal in getting people to do what you want of them. Administrators on Wikipedia seem to rely on blocking people because users don't respect them. Users should do what administrators ask simply because they like and admire them. Many of the users on Wikipedia are also computer people, so they tend to think of conflict as a problem requiring a technical solution. The statements on my user page about my qualifications and block are arguments against the validity of my ban and against certain negative statements made about me.

I agree that Wikipedia can be useful, although I only use it after I've consulted published sources. (I think that the Nature study overstated the reliability of the site.) I also use Wikipedia for its external links to reliable sources. My greatest concern about the site, though, is its hostile atmosphere. In addition to my concerns above, editors are not recognized for their contributions, and civility rules are not enforced. Other things, like bans, are over enforced. "Jimbo" should really visit his sites more often and give users a sense of direction.--Primetime 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I assumed you wanted it used! For my next trick, I have to make an article on Robert Service. [1]--Poetlister 22:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message. I have wondered whether imported pages with their edit history should be prefixed "Transwiki". Mike.lifeguard has said yes. I have not heard of other comments. How about you?--Jusjih 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is the kind of question I don't feel competent to consider until I've had a chance to study exactly what the results of an import look like, including every detail of the results. I haven't looked at any suggested examples recently because I know they'll generate questions, requiring more study, requiring more testing, etc., to satisfy me that I understand all the implications. This is what I've been hoping to do since December and have failed to accomplish.

That said, my basic feeling would be that if I were satisfied that the edit history of an imported page somehow gave credit to the original project's editors for each editor (e.g., had links akin to what I used at Talk:Big Brother (UK)#Transwiki merge), I would probably find direct importing to the resulting article title fine. Anything less and I'd be concerned about misleading edit histories. But I understand this may be highly impractical. I just don't know enough yet to give my own opinion on the trade-off between proper crediting and making material transfer easy enough to ensure it gets done. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you check my log here, you will see American history quotes, American history quotes New Deal, and American history quotes Roaring 20s. When I imported them with temporary undeletion on English Wikipedia, they ended up in article namespace without "Transwiki". As Mike.lifeguard is so far the only one for "transwiki" prefixing while no one else has said anything, I merged these three articles into their corresponding pages prefixed "Transwiki" for now. All edit history is preserved here even though deleted from English Wikipedia. If the majority of users here favor prefixing "Transwiki", I will follow it while I will know the better procedure than the above three pages, but our Village pump has not got better opinions.--Jusjih 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the info, and when I can finally get to it, I'm sure I'll find it useful in seeing how things have developed. But one of the most important things I've learned in Wikimedia is that many processes proceed and succeed as they do not because lots of people have contributed robust, comprehensive analyses of well-researched situations, but because individual, responsible, energetic editors like yourself are bold and simply get things done in the absence of broad community input.

I trust you to do good things. I may or may not agree with them eventually, but I also know that most good work goes on here and elsewhere without my input. (I mean that completely without hidden implications. It's just that I am so overcommitted that just about the only time I have anymore to contribute to Wikimedia is to do stuff related to checkusers, and explain to people why I am not participating in their areas of interest. I wish I could do more, but it's just not possible right now.) Please don't worry about explaining things to me now. Just do your good work for the project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

hi therefriend! Why did you do that to my saikano artical(or did you)?--Lolicon 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

First of all, it's not your article, even if you created it. It's Wikiquote's article. None of us owns the articles we create. The article's edit history provides the legal list of contributors (which is much more detailed than required by law, as it's usually possible to see every single character added or deleted by each contributor), but the overall copyright for the composition belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, which releases the material under GFDL.

Second, if you're going to ask someone, especially an editor that works on thousands of pages, "why did you do that", it's a very good idea to be specific about what "that" is. The more work you make someone go through to figure out what you're talking about, the less likely they are to respond, or at least to respond favorably. Furthermore, this is essential when you are editing with one username ("Nijikon"), representing it as something else ("Lolicon"), and (inappropriately) claiming ownership under two others ("Saikano" and "Saikano II"). Two basic ways to be more specific would be:

• Say "why did you delete most of Saikano 2 days ago and write an insulting edit summary?". You don't need to be this detailed, but just saying "my saikano artical" isn't as clear as you might think. For one thing, since you adopted the name "Saikano", the phrase "my saikano artical" could refer to anything you've worked on. You must learn to realize that other people, whose concerns and experiences are different from yours, may not understand the same points from your posts that you are trying to make. (It doesn't help that you don't seem to know the basic spelling of common words here like "article", and don't seem to know how to use capital letters or spaces properly. This kind of txtspk implies a general lack of interest in being literate, in a project that is devoted to a literary purpose. You could hardly do more harm to your cause than if you were to regularly "shout" at your fellow editors.)
• Use links. Wikiquote has an easy way to point people to an edit:
  1. Look at the edit history of the article. Each edit in the list has two round "buttons" to its left.
  2. Select the left button of the version before an edit (or edits), and the right button of the edit (or the last edit, if there were several in a row).
  3. Click on the "compare selected versions" button to see a page that displays the exact edit(s) listed.
  4. Copy the URL (the web address in the "address" window of your browser).
  5. In your posted comment, paste the URL you copied into something like the following:

     Why did you do [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Saikano&diff=671352&oldid=592208 this] to my article?</nowiki>

     When you save your post, it will look like this:

     Why did you do this to my article?

     Now whoever reads this can click on the link to see what you mean by "this".

Finally, as the edit history shows, I did not do "that". An anonymous (and incredibly rude) one-time editor removed much of your boilerplate text, leaving only a single quote. Any editor could have reverted the edit on the basis that it was a mass removal without explanation (tossing out an insult is not an explanation for a content change). If no one did, it is perhaps because much of the material that was removed didn't follow Wikiquote style guidelines (like inserting pointless and inaccurate comments like "*UNDERCONSTRUCTION!!!", failing to identify episodes by number to make ordering easier) and/or were not very good examples of quotes memorable for their words instead of their visual or aural elements, which aren't usefully communicated in a text medium like Wikiquote. We must recognize that Wikiquote's purpose is not to be a collection place for all quotes of anything, and especially not a place for fans to post their favorite scenes or moments that must be seen to be appreciated. There are many fan websites that do this, and it's easy these days to create your own as well. Wikiquote's purpose is to collect a subset of the very best, most memorable words from different works.

All of this does not excuse the rudeness of the anon's edit. If I were more active right now, I might have posted a note to his/her talk page and restored some of the quotes and maybe even the headings. You are welcome to do so, but please consider what I've said above in making your future edits. (And please leave out the "*UNDERCONSTRUCTION!!!" comments!) Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Uh-oh, generally agreed with Jeff, but a major-minor-picking. I am totally happy to agree on that there is no article mine or yours, since when we are releasing our submission under GFDL, then we agree it will be mercilessly edits and consequently possible collaborative edits, so we have no right to claim to keep it in a shape we prefer, but copyright is never transferred to any others, including the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WMF has a plain and strong attitude about it, and has never acted as a publisher (= the entity which is responsible for its content and also one of its copyright holder vice versa), but as a Internet service provider which hosts users' submissions eventually and without any pre-review before publishing. But again, since all editors are assumed to accept their submissions will be able to edit, it is totally unacceptable to claim to keep it fitting your preferences only because it is "your" article. --Aphaia 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops. I'd forgotten that bit about the Foundation's careful drawing of the line of copyright holding so that the rights are retained by the actual contributors. Sorry for the confusion. I think I let my contemplation of "compilation copyright" issues confuse me. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nit-nitpick, publishers of written work often are not the copyright holders, either. Unlike the recording and film/tv industries most authors retain copyright over their work and publishers are given exclusive publishing rights for a set amount of time. -- Greyed 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greyed is right about written works in general. And I might be confused it with the right to publish (based on a certain printing muster). On the other hand, as far as I understand, it is rather common for encyclopedias or dictionaries or other types of complations that the publisher is credited as the copyright holder. Anyway unless it is explicitly said like logos, Wikimediua Foundation is generally no copyright holder of the content on the website which they host, but people who are traceable from "history" page. --Aphaia 01:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The (postponed) close of the current request is coming within a day. Since you reserved your vote, it is a reminder for you to review your vote before its closure. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you Jeff Beck? Because I know Jeff Beck was one of the guitar gods. --Cosby 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm not Jeff Beck. (And I believe he is still considered a guitar god by many.) I'm afraid that I don't believe you are Bill Cosby, the famous comedian, either. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello JeffQ, I was just wondering if its the same vice versa?--McNoddy 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC) P.S Thanks for the heads up, i'll have to remember that one.Reply

Not sure what you mean:

Do you need to include a link back to Wikiquote for material moved to Wikipedia? Most certainly. The idea is that without an imported or cut-and-pasted edit history, the destination project is no different from any other website that must credit the originating Wikimedia page and include a link back to that page. Technically, one might argue that the link shouldn't be in the edit summary but in the article itself, although that is not appropriate content for our articles. We're really just trying to use this shortcut to a full transwiki or cumbersome history-copy to stem the flood of GFDL violations, and we're hoping this is better than nothing.

Do you need to point to the Wikiquote article you moved the material to? I don't think so, since the action is merely a deletion of material on WP. But it's a good idea to do so, especially as a courtesy to the editors whose material has been moved. The formal transwiki process requires a link to the target page on the project one is moving material to.

Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I get it now. I was misled by the source at the bottom of the page into thinking the page had come directly from the other site, and didn't realize what Sceptre was trying to do. Thanks, Jeff, for explaining the process. --Ubiquity 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW, the history of the page was actually copied, here. Will ^{talk) 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's a copy of the subject of these responses, for my own records:

[Posted to both User talk:Sceptre and User talk:Ubiquity] … FYI, the process to transwiki into Wikiquote is described in detail at Help:Transwiki. It is completely appropriate for a transwikier to copy quote material from a Wikipedia article into a page called "Transwiki:name of article". (I probably would have used "Transwiki:Pablo Picasso" instead of Transwiki:Quotations by Pablo Picasso based on the likely destination page, but using the WP article title also makes perfect sense. It's a temporary page anyway and is in the Transwiki: space primarily so that the transfer process does not have to be completed by someone who may not know the policies and guidelines of the target project.) While Will did log its transfer from WP, he did not log its transfer to WQ in Transwiki per our policy (which follows Wikimedia-wide practice per m:Help:Transwiki). This informs people from both projects where articles are coming from and going to. (Some projects delete their logs after the transwiki is completed; we leave ours for future reference, as one never knows when someone might wonder what happened to their pet article.)

What is supposed to happen on the destination end is that a Wikiquotian will notice either the log entry or the new addition to Category:Move into Wikiquote. (That assumes the WP "Copy to Wikiquote" template is changed to {{Move to Wikiquote}}, which was not done here. I notice that our help page doesn't specify this step. Either I forgot to add that requirement, or WP's practice changed from using the template we still specify to using something that no longer works here. A redirect should fix that problem.) Anyway, the receiving Wikiquotian then decides whether to move, merge, or delete the incoming transwiki. Will did nothing wrong in leaving the merge to another editor.

Many editors bypass all the formalities and simply copy the material from WP to WQ. This is very bad and should be discouraged vehemently. It violates GFDL by providing no clear credit, link, or even association with the originating article. In the past year or so, we've tried to cut corners by at least mandating the inclusion of an unlabeled link back to the WP article (e.g., "w:Quotations by Pablo Picasso") in the edit summary (or on the discussion page if the copying editor forgets this step). Will did not do this, either, so there is no record on Wikiquote of where this page came from. We must have either the log or the edit-summary link as a very minimum record. NOTE, however, that if the transwikied material is an article that may be deleted, as this one was, this shortcut link is not appropriate, because the edit history will be lost to the general public when the source article is deleted. In these cases, one must provide a copy of the source article's edit history on the discussion page of the Transwiki page, which will then need to be transferred to the discussion pages of any articles that receive merged information. (If the Transwiki: page is simply deleted — and logged as deleted at Transwiki! — this is not necessary, just as it is not necessary to have a public record of contributions to any ordinary deleted article.)

It's now possible for some editors to export and import material between projects, which provides proper links and/or credits without much of the hassle of transwiki. I'm afraid I've been too distracted to investigate and document this, but Jusjih has been working on this recently.

Ubiquity says this material came from another website. That's good WQ detective work, but the misunderstading might have been avoided or lessened if he'd had the log to see that it was from WP and not this other website that Will transferred the material. However, it is not the responsibility of the transwikier to determine whether the transwikied material is acceptable to the project. We have the two-step process precisely to allow the destination project to make that determination, as Ubiquity did by finding that the WP material appears to be merely a copy of another website. (Even when the transwikier is a Wikiquotian, too, as Will is, one should consider that the transwiki process is enough of a bear not to expect them to do the full process at once. Of course, we have a serious backlog of material to finish transwikiing, but that's just one of our many backlogs.)

Ubiquity, in completing the transwiki, also failed either to log the transwiki completion or to credit the originating WP article in any edit summary, instead noting the apparent origin of the WP material. Technically, even this violates GFDL, as it fails to credit the WP editor(s) even if their work is borrowed. (One might ultimately determine they have no right to a copyright of their contributions, but it's a lot harder to work that out than just to add the article pointer or log the darn transfer and let others worry about the legal issues.)

I don't want to sound too critical about this. Most transwiki work that I've seen on Wikimedia projects, at least that done by non-bots, is horrendously improper. It's so bad that it could be used as an argument by Wikimedia copyright violators that we don't take our own licensing policies seriously, so why should they? But that won't change unless we read the instructions, improve them where needed, and follow them whenever possible.

My lack of participation in this work in the past 2 years has certainly contributed to these ongoing problems, which is one of many reasons I'm hoping to hand over some responsibilities that I think others would like to do. Meanwhile, I'd be happy to answer questions about this. Despite this critical review, I would like to thank you both for trying to get this right, which is more than most editors do. ~ Jeff Q (talk), originally at 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I finished the formal transwiki by copying the edit history from Talk:Transwiki:Quotations by Pablo Picasso to Talk:Pablo Picasso#Wikipedia transwiki (in a slightly different format that adds WP links to the users to avoid confusion w/ possibly different WQ users), deleted the transwiki talk page, and logged the 3-part transfer (well, 2 steps with 3 pages involved) at Transwiki#Articles moved into Wikiquote. I'm afraid it's not hard to see why so many folks prefer to avoid this process. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for managing it! We got it :)--Aphaia 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hope this note catches you. Thanks for your comments about the excessive number of quotes by JRRT. Please check out the page I started on Eric Rücker Eddison‎ (Tolkien's evil twin. ;-) ) I included just 4 quotes and picked ones that I thought could stand on their own. Steve Dufour 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jeffq I'll keep that in mind--McNoddy 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yea thats no problem, have to file off the rough edges some day--McNoddy 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's rather annoying, actually, because now the page move vandals now have a foothold - me :( Will ^{talk) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding me to the AWB checkpage. I apologize for my lack of understanding of the local policy. Regarding the diff you provided, I was merely removing what I considered to be vandalism. I was not aware of the user who made the comment, and I certainly was not attempting to assume bad faith of him/her in any way. In any case, it was probably an isolated incidence and I will be careful not to use any potentially offensive edit summaries. Thanks again. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's hard to understand a policy that doesn't exist. I had no idea we even had a checkpage set up. (I assume that some time after I got AWB-enabled, it became useful and/or necessary to create one in order for AWB to work here. I don't recall any discussion on the matter.) Wikiquote still does quite a bit of stuff informally, but that becomes a problem when no one responds to requests like yours in a reasonable time. (You did, after all, post your request to WQ:AN, just as WQ:AWB/CP said to do.) I'm afraid we're still working on how much formalism we need to ensure that the editors we have can get the required tasks done as they're needed. Like most things in this world, there are no obvious "right" answers. Thanks again for your patience on this matter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've moved and merged the interwiki links this bot (AnankeBot) recently added to Wikiquote:Village pump (WQ:VP) into the proper page, Wikiquote:Village pump/Header, which we use because WQ:VP is designed to automatically add all new topics to the bottom of the page. Several maintenance and community pages follow this mechanism. I ask the owner of this bot to consider tweaking its operation, if possible, to accomodate this system, so that we don't have to keep moving and merging any changes that it makes to such pages. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --Nemo 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, can you check on User:Arbok? He keeps restoring the excessive copyvios. Not to mention other people are doing it on the Portal page... :/ Will ^(talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because you're not explaining why! Look at what Jeff told you on your talk page. - Arbok 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, stop it. You know what you're doing is wrong. Will ^(talk) 22:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, you're the one at fault here. - Arbok 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Read Wikiquote:Vandalism and Wikiquote:Copyrights. Will ^(talk) 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No! You read what Jeff clearly told you! Quit being dumb. - Arbok 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Arbok has more than worn out several admins' attempts to assume good faith through his many failures to follow advice and then warnings, and now his obviously deliberately one-sided interpretation of my advice to both him and Will (Sceptre). I endorse (A) his block (which should be extended if he resumes any disruption after it expires); (B) the cancellation of his clearly retaliatory WQ:VIP post against 98.220.177.162; and (C) a permanent opposition to his pointless request for adminship. I'm afraid I don't see any way in which Wikiquote will benefit from his further activity here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I said copyright vandalism in the sense of the policy: "Copyrighted material vandalism: Knowingly adding copyrighted material to Wikiquote articles in violation of Wikiquote policy is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikiquote policy in this regard, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the relevant policy and copyrighted nature of the material have been established." Will ^(talk) 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ouch! I hadn't noticed the poor state of Wikiquote:Vandalism. This is yet another Essjay-copied WP policy that we haven't really adapted for Wikiquote. But I can hardly blame you for using it to cite problems. My apologies.

I've posted a bit of a diatribe at Wikiquote talk:Vandalism expressing my displeasure at the absurd number of unproductive actions that have been labelled "vandalism" by Wikipedia, no doubt out of their own frustration with uncooperative editors. I hope I can convince our community that there are better ways to deal with problem editors than treating them all like virtual graffiti artists. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your detailed comments on the administrator's noticeboard regarding my blocking of the Crum account. Thanks especially for trying to diffuse tensions and improve budding ill-feelings. I still disagree with you on whether my block was in line with the letter and spirit of our WQ blocking policy, but you have more experience than I do in how WQ policies are actually applied. I have read everything you've said regarding my actions and my grasp (or lack thereof) of Wikiquote policy, and I take it seriously.

My goal in bringing this to AN was to get more eyes on the situation, to see if my actions (and, I suppose, Poetlister's) were in line with policy, and to make sure this situation was handled by community consensus and not any one or two admins. I think that's worked. There seems to be sharp disagreement about whether the Crum account is prima facie evidence of impersonation, but I'm confident the community will work this out.

Although you might not guess it, I'm really not fond of drama, and I certainly didn't mean to trigger something that would cause this much controversy between admins. So far as what happens to the Crum account(s), I'm quite happy, even relieved, to stay out of it and allow those with more experience to hash out the issues. All the best, Quadell 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hereby confirm that I am requesting removal of my checkuser access for English Wikiquote, per my earlier announcement at WQ:RFA ([2]). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was recently looking over the Twin Peaks page, which is one of the articles tagged for copyvio review. Under the new guidelines we've been working on, a TV series would be nominated for deletion (on the grounds of possible copyvio) if none of the quotes were identified by episode. Since Twin Peaks had 30 episodes, however, it seems to me that this page might not be in violation (i.e., five quotes maximum for an hour-long show) if only the quotes were identified by episodes. As you had created the article and supplied many of its quotes, I was wondering if you would like to work on it as a part of the copyright project. - InvisibleSun 18:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would be karmic punishment, eh? Yes, I'll do it. But I'll have to steel myself before I tackle Mystery Science Theater 3000, my true debt to the project. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jeff, I was getting bug-eyed as I read that article and thinking what a load of crap, and hoping that it was a random poorly written article. After continuing my random reads, I indeed came upon some very well written content, but sadly there remains a LOT of out of scope stuff when taking into account the linked guidelines and policies you provided. That 2 Stupid Dogs article is so far out of my interest scope that I wouldn't even attempt to wikiquote it. My idea of a quotable is something that makes you go hmm after reading it and seeing how it could apply in a real world context, not just a random selection of meaningless dialogue out of context which can not qualify it's applicability as notable. I shall press on, if it doesn't all overwhelm my senses :) I'm try my luck at the Richard J. Daley aticle at the moment, trying to add sources and work on format. If you have a chance, let me know if I'm working within guidelines. I'm a wikipedian, and after over 6000 edits there, I'm trying not to impose my WP bias while editing too much here. Cheers and thanks again.--JavierMC 04:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can I get your help on the Matt Sanchez quotes? The Alan Colmes show quotes are 1. incomplete 2. Not sourced

Hi, can you protect those pages which were vandalised 4 hours ago by User:GreenBalls. that person is actually a cross-wiki vandal who has been doing that for over 2 years now and since admins don't protect those pages after deleting, its recreated, he did a similar thing on wikipecies a few days ago, which I took care off, and he may hit this wiki again, recreating those pages, SALTing them will be a good idea...--Cometstyles 10:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can we get some help on the Matt Sanchez article. There's someone, Silvowitz, who keeps putting in unsourced quotes on the page.Bluemarine 22:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The quote in question is sourced to the Alan Colmes show. The subject of the article -- Matt Sanchez -- is trying, for the umpteenth time, to delete it from the page. Matt Sanchez was banned from Wikipedia for similar activity. --Slivowitz 11:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm having considerable problems right now devoting any time to Wikiquote. You both will probably get quicker action by posting to WQ:AN and gaining the attention of the more active admins. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Jeff. By the way, if you check the Sanchez article, you'll find the only user advocating for Sanchez was the Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi sock, that has now been de-sysopped and banned. We went around in circles with this sock a few months ago, and it's good to know we can dismiss its lies out of hand. --Slivowitz 02:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I try not to dismiss anything someone says unless they are obvious vandals. I think it's important to separate the message from the messenger. Despite the policy violations that led to the aforementioned bans, Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi contributed quite a bit of good work to Wikiquote which remains. Frankly, Slivowitz, I wish you (and others) would work on being more civil, which gets more, not less, important when things get heated. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jeff, I take your note on civility. But Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi, et al. actually engaged in terrorizing and stalking Wiki editors offline, and that far outweighs any efforts on WQ. Any purported "good work" done here was used to get himself into positions of bureaucratic power, which he then abused to no end, until he was caught. Nothing about his contributions has been valuable, in the full context of his disgraceful actions. --Slivowitz 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, there was a VFD on Sanchez's page a while ago that was hijacked by the Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi sock. The page would most likely have been deleted if that idiot hadn't weighed in. Would you recommend I run another VFD? --Slivowitz 03:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jeff, I know you are not as active lately, but I was wondering if you could provide some historical perspective on a question posed on my talk page (see User_talk:UDScott#Boilerplates). I'm not sure if there would be any objection to this template. Do you have any thoughts? Thanks. ~ UDScott 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Will reply on your talk page shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

And by "shortly", I mean soon (probably within 12 hours), not briefly. I expect my answer to be fairly long, but hopefully useful toward accomplishing your intent. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Uh… did I mention that I meant "12" in base-46 (i.e., 48₁₀ hours)? ☺ Sorry for the delay. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Put in its most general form, I don't like {{cite web}} and the other Wikipedia citation templates because they use what I learned as "bibliography style" rather than "footnote style", and I believe the latter is more appropriate for the Web. (Plus, if you're not doing the vile APA-style in-line citations, there's no reason to front the date of publication; indeed, it's much easier to read if it's at the end.) Bibliography style is particularly bad at dealing with the case (common here) where the author is already fixed and does not need to be restated at every citation. 121a0012 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I haven't done much editing to wikiquote (though I have worked with it for a while, my favorite [and only] major addition being Edward Ravenscroft), but I'm just starting to try to get involved. I have been trying to clean some things up, and I ended up at Dragon Ball Z (which I never watch or have any interest in, but I thought I could do some objective tidying). I was reading the talk page before doing anything, and read your lengthy and informative entry. The article (which is now articles) has gotten slightly out of hand again it appears--with gems such as:

Frog Face: For you, Lord Frieza. (Zarbon and Dodoria step forward as Frog Face hands a dragonball to Dodoria)

Frieza: Very good. Just three more to go now. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Dodoria: Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Zarbon: (softly) Hmm Heh Heh...

Now my real question is how do I appropriately go about attempting to trim an article. I have versed myself pretty well in policies such as Wikiquote:Quotability, and Wikiquote:Limits on Quotations, but I still feel as if I start trying to objectively and appropriately trim down an article such as this (and Eminem's article, which is questionable, especially with regards to Limits on Quotation for Records), due to the nature of its subject (as well as Eminem's), it will probably just end up reverted without even comments on the talk page. As I'd like to be a responsible editor, do you have any advice about how I can begin such a task and how such a cleanup is normally done? What usually happens when someone tries to clean up an article with what one would predict would be a rather rabid fan-base? Is it usually taken well, or is it rather a useless attempt?

Please reply here, as my IP does strange things (and I edit from multiple locations). Chris 66.183.69.201 22:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. If I can ever remember my old password, I may sign in again as Chris S.

Wow, I just really started reading through the Dragon Ball Z Season One, and it's just whole scenes, not quotes. It's full of material inappropriate for inclusion, including descriptions of what the characters are doing. This isn't Wikiscript! Chris 66.183.69.201 22:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Chris, if you're still reading this, I apologize for not responding to your questions and points. I remember reading your first post and deferring it for a day or so because I always try to respond to newer editors with comprehensive answers that include plenty of links for further information, but I was in a hurry at the time. Then life happened and I all but disappeared for a while.

I'm happy to see that you did quite well without my assistance. I hope that the end of edits under your above IP two months later only means that you changed IPs, and that you continue to enjoy contributing to Wikiquote. If you're back (or still here), I'll try to answer any new questions much more quickly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I read an entry of yours way back when which very nicely elucidated some points with respect to Wikiquote. I was looking for it to reference it, and had no idea where it was, so I thought I'd do a site-specific Google search (as I knew it had one specific word I could remember: pithy). So I tried: (Search: JeffQ pithy site:en.wikiquote.org). 39 results! I thought I'd had a specific enough word--guess not! After reading through the 39 results I couldn't even tell which one I was looking for as I had read too much! Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 00:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Belated thanks, Peace – I certainly do find this amusing. Every time I write the word "pithy", I cringe a little because I don't like to repeat myself unnecessarily. But pithy is so... pithy. It succinctly expresses the concept of being succinctly significant, which is quite significant at Wikiquote. But I am surprised that Google found only 39 pages in which I'd used it. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't look like User Wikipedia|Username works if the username there is different? That will work on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why it won't here. Шизомби 20:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

English Wikiquote's templates are often simpler than English Wikipedia's, mostly because they've got far more people to develop and maintain them. We tend to avoid overly sophisticated templates unless they have an experienced editor committed to maintaining them. Furthermore, with the unified login now available, the need for different names is significantly less than it used to be.

However, this change is pretty simple and doesn't interfere with existing use of the template, so I went ahead and added the current w:en:Template:User Wikipedia's two parameters – en:WP username and alternative phrase for "a page" – to our Template:User Wikipedia. Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jiff Q. You may have noticed me on User talk:Шизомби having helped him with the UBX on his user page as part of his being renamed on ENWP. You're an admin here on Wikiquote so i am coming to you with this. As the rename has been competed i went to remove the pasted code and allow for the simple transclusion of the UBX. (I am a bit of a "full service" CHU clerk.) Anyways, it seems that i was prohibited from doing so, accumulating a nice sized abuse filter log for it (it tells you to click save again if this is a false positive). I have also been denied autoconfirmed user because of this, something which according to Meta i was supposed to already have. I was chatting with gurch a little while ago and he tried too; see his abuse filter log. The abuse filter really needs to be edited. Punitive measures for false positives with an encouragement to try again and thus get another log entry is very unbecoming any project and their abuse filter. Just to test the scope of the filter i blanked my own user page of it's interwiki redirects and gave the edit summary "test". That it allows! I was not actually blanking Шизомби's user page. Having come to this project initially because of the rename on ENWP i was impressed and with my love of quotes thought i might participate here. Being permanently relegated to unconfirmed user status is a huge turn-off, especially considering my rather impeccable record elsewhere. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that Ningauble has already replied to your request on your talk page. I hope that helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

See my talk page for a longer response re the abuse filter. As to the autoconfirmed user status, any explanation as to why Meta says i should have it but clearly i never did have it? My enwq account was automatically created on 19 September 2009 and i had 7 edits before i first was introduced to the abuse filter here. If there is some difference in getting autoconfirmed here then it should be noted on the page on Meta or/and the ENWQ page should not be redirecting to Meta. For ENWP it is four days and ten edits to be autoconfirmed; perchance is it likewise so here? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not very active on Wikiquote right now. I highly recommend you take this to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard so that someone who is up-to-speed on abuse filters can help you with this. I would make one point: Wikiquote, like many non-WP projects, tends to have only a tiny fraction of the participation of the main project. This tends to lead to simpler processes and somewhat longer resolution times. I'm really not familiar with abuse filters at the moment, and Ningauble's post suggests to me that our admins might still be getting used to them. Post to WQ:AN and please be patient with us. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok so the same post telling me the same thing is a bit of a hint you are not too active. However i had a different question here on your talk page, which is why i wrote here. I get the hint. Bye. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You link towards http://www.harrisonline.com/links/2007/05/color-changing-card-trick.htm but this url doesn't seem to work anymore? After some googling I found it here: http://paulharrisonline.blogspot.com/2007/05/color-changing-card-trick.htm -- GideonKlok 16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the head-up on this broken link! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since you commented at Talk:Rumor in African American culture, you may be interested in discussing Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Rumor in African American culture. ~ Ningauble 18:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

For some reason, I get an error message when I try to post on the Admin noticeboard. In any case, User:GunLobbyist, User:BornInTheUSA, and User:TexasTown all seem to be the same person, going through subject pages alphabetically and posting "quotes" from Wickedictionary, which is sort of a joke version of Wiktionary (although one version has been published in print). Here are a few diffs: [3], [4], [5]. I am inclined to revert all of these additions, but would value a second look. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the Wikimedia servers had a brief problem that has now passed. I'll take a look shortly, but you might want to try to repost to WQ:AN as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I have. BD2412 T 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added a few quotes to the page, and I thought you might be interested in Wikiquote:Transwiki/American History Primary Sources Cold War, which has about a dozen more quotes about this topic (although they are in need of better sourcing). Cheers! BD2412 T 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, a juicy sourcing project ­– and a transwiki at that! I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll take a look at it sometime in the next week. Thanks for the suggestion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you are noted as inactive on the list of administrators, but you seem to be around from time to time. Do you want to remove that note? BD2412 T 04:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I haven't been especially active as a user, but I feel the WQ:ADMIN tag of "inactive" is merited because I haven't done any admin work for quite a while. I don't really feel I should do anything unless & until I re-read relevant policies and practices, for the same reason I always cautioned many admin candidates in their hurry to get admin powers. In fact, several times a year I consider requesting a de-listing as admin. I guess I hang onto it for the possibility I might become active again, but I'd probably agree to a de-listing if folks don't feel comfortable with my absence and rusty skills. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather have you back as an editor/admin! :-) BD2412 T 13:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 04:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you have conducted research on a quote attributed to an ancient Greek, the one about exercising vital powers along lines of excellence. I thought you might be interested to know that the same quote appears in a 1991 episode of "Murder, She Wrote" called "Lines of Excellence". It is attributed to an unnamed ancient Greek over 2000 years ago. Deepdeepocean (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Deepdeepocean (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

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) 01:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

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."

• "I am sick of you trying to drag me into it. Never bother me again, about this or anything else. If you persist, I will take this to administrators and you can explain it to them. Leave me alone. "

• "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)Reply

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 about Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked.

• While Jedi3 is talking about "comments against me', jedi3 forgets 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.

• 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 [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11].

• 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 [12] 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) 06:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please share your support at https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions). Thanks. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 21:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Currently, one of your edits to the page Amitabh Bachchan shows the wrong size diff number because rev_parent_id is wrong.

• 03:48, 11 April 2005 shows (-11,899) when it should instead be showing (-15).

The linked proposal on Meta will fix rev_parent_id for the above edit to make the size diff number correct.

Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I just joined wikiquote yesterday and I am still trying to figure it out.

There were two pages I saw "Hinduism and Sikhism" and "Islam and Sikhism" which had absolutely incorrect and misleading information. So I thought I would edit those based on the correct information I have. I made the changes but they were reverted back by GreenMeansGo, which is absolutely fine and I understood that since I didn't originally write the article, I have no right.

So I created a new page "Hinduism Vs Sikhism" with all information what is true to the core. But this morning, I see that all the content of my page was removed and it was redirected to "Hinduism and Sikhism" page. My instant reaction was, Why? Seems like GreenMeansGo is the original author of pages like "HInduism and Sikhism" and "Islam and Sikhism" and doesn't want my page to be promoted on wikiquote and that is why he is playing bully with me.

So once I reverted back the changes, the page had prompt by GreenMeansGo that the page has been voted for deletion.

I am finding this admin, just a bully who is using his admin right power to harass and bully individuals who mean no disrespect but just want to put out information that is valid.

So my request to you is if you can be of any help by having the admin GreenMeansGo, leave the content of my page alone and do not harass me anymore?

Thanks.

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, 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 log 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.--علاء (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Today I removed your permission. Thank you for your work, Einsbor (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

A page that you have been involved in editing, Template:Vfd-template-new, 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/Template:Vfd-template-new. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 17:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply