User talk:BD2412/Archive 7

{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px"
 * class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #cef2e0; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

MonsterHunter32
Thank you for your comment about MonsterHunter on the noticeboard.

But the problem remains and nothing has been done yet.

Just take a look at MonsterHunter32's massive censorship without any talkpage discussion here:

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

What is this if not vandalism?

If this is not a blockable offence, what has one to do at wikiquote to get blocked?

Other editors have agreed that it is very clear that he should be blocked.

He has been warned enough times already.

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


 * All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.

He just ignores it, and continues with even worse censorship and vandalism than before. --Jedi3 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's masive disprutive editing
Jedi3 has intentionally overloaded this talk page and I can''t even figure pout where to respond. But talking about his disruptive actions and the true reason why his quotes are removed will be reason enough.

Here you can see Jedi3's history of disruptive edit-warring in the past. While he keeps claiming censorship, he deliberately omits I've left many of his quotes untouched as well. This table I tagged earlier, but can come in handy. Some of its content is ouitdated. Theis differfence bvetween his comments and abruptly stopping discussion at It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result.

Also I've given reason for all removals in the edit summary. Also Jedi3 keeps talking about Template:Remove]. but here is actually what 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."

Regardless of it not mandating every time, I still tried to discussed with him despite not being mandatory every time. But he even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.

What "cooperation" and censorship this edit-warring user is talking about? He himself doesn't care to cooperate and "censors" and berates when someone takes action against his disruptive edits. He is the most disruptive person I've ever comer across. The list above isn't complete with many other of his acts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeos calling them.

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles:, , , , , , ,.

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

Here are his reverts,, , , ,.

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

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles:, , , , ,.

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring:, ,.

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

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

Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

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

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

Please block this disruptive edit-warring vandal immediately. If you find the time please also comment not just on Babur, but also on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. As it Jedi3 who refuses to accept responsibility for wrongdoings on these articles and still refers to them as "content dispute" despite being disproved with original sources:,. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments about Jedi3
Jedi3 (again) selectively omits his own criticism This is what other editors have said about Jedi3:


 * Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement - UDScott


 * Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. - UDScott


 * I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. - Kalki


 * * What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
 * He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.


 * Even though another user removed his quote saying the article is about Ambedkar, not Elst, though he presumably made a grammar mistake. The reason used Jedi3 to revert? Falsely call the user a vandal.

Wikiquote certainly isn't a place for disruptors like Jedi3 who make false claims. He should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jedi3's point that removed quotes should be moved to the talk page for discussion, even if they are on a large scale. It's not as if these are hoax quotes that he is making up and trying to pass off as real quotes. BD2412 T 13:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not opposing moving of any quotes or discussion with Jedi3. However, it will be humanely difficult to move everything as there is little time left when Jedi3 keeps on edit-warring and stonewalling at discussions. It will be difficult to discuss everything at once. My only request is that I want discussion one at a time.


 * For example, at Somnath temple, he has edit-warred for months and his latest edit-warring revert. At Talk:Somnath temple the discussion is not yet resolved for many months, so how will I focus on other things?


 * Also Wikiquote is only a place for notable quotes.


 * Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced.
 * WQ:Q - "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."


 * I am only removong them because his quotes are non-notable. Even an admin has said some of his quotes aren't memorable and seem to be only meant for POV-pushing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are removing them because in your opinion they are non-notable. That opinion may well be shared by the community, so move them to the talk page and give Jedi3 an opportunity to build a case for their notability on an individual basis. If he is unable to obtain a consensus to that effect, then the quotes will remain out of the pages. BD2412 T 15:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * he has been told this thousands of times already but refuses to do it. See my previous reply on your talkpage.--Jedi3 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also if he wants to discuss them one by one, which he claims again, he also needs to delete them one by one. He is not acting in good faith. He is censoring massive amounts of quotes on many articles, hoping to get others involved in an edit-war, while claiming that he only wants to discuss them one by one, so that he can justify his refusal to move the censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning. Is this good faith editing? --Jedi3 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I only wanted it to be discussed one-by-one so to save time. I have said this many times to Jedi3. I never had a problem in moving or discussing anything. The problem is in Jedi3's time-consuming edit-warring and stonewalling Somnath temple was our earliest encounter and he still hasn't stop edit-warring.


 * Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them. This is not even my own view, but their basic meaning.


 * If Jedi3 tries to actually discuss, there would be no problem. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

BD2412, MonsterHunter32 is and will be ignoring your comment.

He has been told this thousands of times:


 * All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion.

He just keeps ignoring it.

He was warned enough times. He just ignores the warnings.

See here for the massive list of censored quotes.
 * https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=MonsterHunter32&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=
 * https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:MonsterHunter32s_massive,_unxplained_and_indiscriminate_censorship_of_sourced_quotes

In every other wiki he would have been banned long ago. Other editors have also said, "isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes".... It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.

An admin needs to decide what is to be done about this, as this situation cannot continue. The mass censorship and removal of sourced quotes without any explanation and full reasoning on the talkpage is vandalism. And if one restores the censored quotes, he just keeps edit-warring as here and here.

Of the many quotes he has been trying to censor, he only gave some reasoning for TWO quotes on the talkpage, see.

I also agreed with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard (but I am not sure if he would respect it):


 * "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.) --Jedi3 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, Jedi3, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from starting a discussion on the talk page of each of these articles to argue for the inclusion of each of the quotes over which you are currently in a dispute. Where there is a disagreement, the burden is on you to obtain a consensus for the disputed addition. BD2412 T 16:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I did start the discussion on many of the articles. The problem is also that it is impossible to arrive at an consensus with somebody who as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. It is pointless in such a case when there is no good faith coming from MonsterHunter. Therefore, third party opinions are needed, which I have also asked many times.


 * But the larger issue is that he is censoring a massive amount of quotes from a massive amount of articles, and refusing to even move them to the talkpage with full reasoning. Have you checked the links I gave you? Please take a look, it does not take that long. Another editor has said "I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer."


 * Because of the massive amount of quotes and articles affected, I was even told by another editor I should stop with my attempt about it. --Jedi3 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , the discussion should be started by the one who deletes the quote, and while it is discussed, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept by Applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion. I did start the discussions when there were comparatively few articles affected at once, but it didn't help in getting MonsterHunter to give his full reasoning on the talkpage (except for TWO quotes out of the massive amount of quotes). Now that there are such a massive amount of quotes and articles affected, I was even told to stop my attempt to discuss the issue at the talkpage.
 * Have you read my replies? Have you looked at the links? I am sorry to bother you about this stuff, but as an admin, you also have some responsibility to prevent this kind of blatant censorship campaign, and at least enforce a minimum standard (like that MonsterHunter needs to move all censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning, for a start, which he continues to refuse to do.) --Jedi3 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. You should not link a Wikipedia policy like Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion. Only link Wikiquote policies and pages here.


 * Also I suggest you read the last section of the article. WP:RVW#Exceptions. Its says in clear terms: "Edits that do not contribute to edit warring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule." Your intention is clear-cut edit-warring.


 * Besides your quotes weren't present earlier. So I'll call my edits as "status quo" as I'm partially or competely restoring the articles to their original state. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No the problem is Jedi3's constant edit-warring, so numerous it will take hours to list all his reverts.


 * The problem is Jedi3's many false claims. also showed he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them.


 * Problem is his numerous made-up claims - Eg., He has at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitted 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. This is not all the places he has made up claims.


 * Problem is him abruptly stopping discussion. Look at the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I never said to User:Jedi3 I will not discuss with him or move. All I said is that discussion of everything at once is humanely impossible which is why i advoctae discussion of one quote a time. It is he who instead of discussion and moving quotes nearly impossible by wasting time in edit-warring and stonewalling discussions.


 * Even discussion at Talk:Somnath temple. Instead he has started using their talk pages merely to complain and bash me. He never listens. What problem does Jedi3 have with discussion of one quote a time. He's also back to edit-warring, see his latest revert:.


 * Instead of edit-warring, Jedi3 should himself attempt to discuss. Even another admin has already judged some of his quotes as non-memorable and merely POV-pushing. It is clear Jedi3 only added his "quotes" just to indulge in POV-pushing without bothering whether they are notable. I have no problem with his quotes being added as long as they are notable and memorable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * UDScott, I would normally not bother you about this kind of thing, but MonsterHunter keeps on harping on your comments about me on many pages and discussions, for example in this talkpage. Could you therefore please clarify in more detail what you meant with your comments about my edits that MonsterHunter mentions also on this talkpage? Were the comments about ALL of the quotes that MonsterHunter32 censored and deleted? Is MonsteHunter32 right in using your comment as further justification for his deletions? --Jedi3 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You have yourself said some of his quotes are not memorable. And I have already said to him that I am only removing non-notable quotes. Please tell him to actually discuss and prive notability of his quotes. I have also showed he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them.
 * Also if you get time, please comment on Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim and Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. He has at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitted 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. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Next steps
BD2412, many editors and admins have told MonsterHunter32 this

'''All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo version should be kept and/or restored, by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion.'''

but he kept ignoring it and refusing to observe it. And he was told so much also by admins, but the admins are not enforcing it and therefore MonsterHunter continues to refuse to observe it.

But this is a bare minimum that should be observed by him, which should then be the basis for further discussion. Otherwise he will just continue his mass censorship and edit warring, with poor excuses like that his edit summaries for the mass censorship of a massive amount of different quotes are already "enough" discussion, or that he can only do this for one quote at one time and must wait until the discussion is finished before he can do it for any of the other deleted quotes.

(The only exceptions should be the removal of vandalism or other uncontroversial matter that is not challenged.)

I think more measures would be necessary, and more than well justified, but this is really the minimum, that should be observed by MonsterHunter and enforced. Can you agree on this?

I also agree with what another editor has proposed 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"

This second proposal goes a bit further, and might be a better solution than the minimum proposal above, however, we can also discuss this second proposal at a later stage, if it would be needed. --Jedi3 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Jedi3 doesn't stop misleading others. He has been even recently blocked for his disruptive edits.


 * How many times I have to tell Jedi3 to stop adding links to Wikipedia policies here? Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion is from Wikipedia. Only add Wikiquote links here.


 * Also User:Jedi3, I suggest you read this. The same Wikipedia policy of STATUSQUO says that if your edit is reverted you should discuss instead of reverting, "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."


 * However, it's not discussion you ever cared about. I have discussed many articles with you. But you only care about what you want, even if at cost of edit-warring or stonewalling and abruptly stopping discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Jedi3 should stop dithering, complaining and edit-warring. If his edit is in good-faith and reverted or removed then he should discuss. That's from the same Wikipedia policy he keeps presenting here, even though Wikipedia policies don't apply. If he can disprove me, then no problem.
 * But if he cannot stop edit-warring and keeps making bad-faith disruptive edits, then I can't do anything anymore about it. It seems he is hell-bent on getting either of us blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * BD2412, please see the discussion here Administrators'_noticeboard.
 * I have a better idea. Why don't the two of you try working this out like adults who both have a desire to improve a reference resource. BD2412 T 21:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * BD2412, please read the discussions pages and talkpages and his contributions. You will see that I started most discussions on the talkpages, after MH even refused to move quotes to talk and give explanations at the talkpage. And now that he started deleting sourced quotes in over 100 articles, how should you discuss mass deletions in over 100 articles at once?
 * What can I do if 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. When someone 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, than opinions from uninvolved editors are needed, for which I have asked many times. It even works like this in wikipedia. In fact, in wikipedia it is easier to get opinions from other editors than here.  Maybe even worse are the constant misrepresentations, misleading or dishonest statements and personal attacks.
 * If MonsterHunter were interested in a good faith discussion, he would discuss the quotes on the talkpage before deleting, or at least move them to the talkpage with full reasoning. As asked to him many times.
 * Instead all that he does on WQ is stalking my edits, and mass reverting different quotes in over 100 articles all with the same edit summary as "explanation", without any talkpage discussion. --Jedi3 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You have also remarked that he is  reverting so quickly to have actually checked his work. He just mass deleted quotes from over 100 articles in an hour or so, and then other editors should asssume he is editing in good faith?
 * You have also agreed with my point that removed quotes should be moved to the talk page for discussion.
 * But an admin needs to tell him more clearly that he needs to do it.
 * Because until now he just refuses to respect any such common sense rule in his edit-warring and massive censorhip of quotes in over 100 articles.
 * You have also said to him move them to the talk page and give Jedi3 an opportunity to build a case for their notability on an individual basis, but he will not move them to the taklpage with his reasoning, unless an admin tells him more clearly that he should be doing it.
 * For example, another editor told him, "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 --Jedi3 (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * First thing is first. I never stopped him from discussion. It is he who abruptly stops it in the middle each time.


 * I only asked Jedi3 let's discuss it one quote at a time. Not everything at once. Is it too much to ask? I think what I said was a sold idea.


 * Jedi3 should also drop the claims of censorship. I've left many of his quotes even those I feel are non-notable untouched just to preserve the articles.


 * Last of all Jedi3 doesn't even follow the basic rule : No dishonesty, no edit-warring.


 * Also User:Jedi3, here's my answer why users need to justify their quotes as notable:

WQ:Q - "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." Also it clearly says, "It is the quote itself that must be notable". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Which discussion did I stop? I said that in some of the discussions outside opinions from other editors are needed to progress, and I have asked for them. That is not the same as ending a discussion, in which you as a rule refuse to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion.
 * If you want to discuss one at a time, you also need to delete one at a time. Simple as that.--Jedi3 (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Here. Look at the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days).
 * Besides are your quotes going to run away that you can't discuss them at once? And it was because your stonewalling on even one quote like at Talk:Somnath temple that prompted me to remove your quotes since you never cared about anything else but what you want at all costs even edit-warring at Somnath temple. If you're not going to discuss, then don't waste my time. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You just admitted that you were using a dispute on one quote (the Wilkie Collins quote) to mass delete other unrelated quotes. That is not good faith editing. --Jedi3 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your example of Somnath. You were also not editing the talkpage during this time. We stopped discussing at almost the same time, the discussion was going nowhere, because you as a rule refuse 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.
 * That is why I asked others for opinions from other editors. Unfortunately, at WQ it is not as easy to get opinions from other editors as it is in wikipedia, which i learned now. --Jedi3 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No I said your behaviour like stonewalling and edit-warring on it prompted me to. I only started out with select articles, expanded to few articles. It took me months to finally decide I had enough of you and delete all your non-notable quotes. Good faith editing? It was your stonewalling and disruptive edits at many articles. You showed bad-faith to me long ago by calling me a vandal and another user as well.


 * Besides give me a break. You didn't talk at Somnath for 24 days. And when you came back, you started edit-warring again. Someone should have blocked you long ago. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We both didn't talk at Somnath during this time. You were also not editing the talkpage during this time. We stopped discussing at almost the same time, the discussion was going nowhere, because you as a rule refuse 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. For a while I also ignored the deleted quote, only when you started mass deleting quotes on other articles again, I came back to it. --Jedi3 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That means you were doing your mass removals of sourced quotes out of revenge. This is not a good motivation to be editing wikiquote. --Jedi3 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope, I removed non-notable and non-memorable quotes that are meant for nothing else but what you want. And it's not just me saying it so. Even Wikiquote and its policies itself don't consider ordinary quotes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Also as for not talking, I did talk. It is you who took a 24 day "vacation" at Talk:Somnath temple. See here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? There are no discussions from anybody between those dates see here

Absolutely. Look at it again. On 5 March, I made the comment and you took a "vacation". There are no discussions on the issue because you didn't bother with them. You also falsely accused me of censorship on quotes including the original one by Wilkie Collins. Try reading your own comments. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You made your last comment 10 minutes after my last comment. You didn't say anything new, you were repeating yourself. because you as a rule refuse to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that others have a different opinion, or that other people than he might find a quote notable, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. therefore opinons from third parties are needed, and I asked for them. --Jedi3 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not saying anything new? Why don't you just look above and stop deflecting from your wrongdoings. I correct my mistakes. I even compromise even when I don't feel I'm wrong. Not just opinions from third parties, but action from third parties is needed as well. Ofcourse it's a different thing that you don't listen to others even when blocked. They need to put an end to your disrupton once and for all and I hope all agree on blocking you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

DanielTom's edit-warring and accusations
It is easy to see why DanielTom is making comments against me. He has displayed the same behavior of edit-warring and bad-faith accusations in the past. He has been complained in the past by User:Prinsgezinde, at Administrators' noticeboard and by me too. I will like to invite him to address his behavior.

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.

Nobody will consider the quote "Yeah, I want to water down the targets..." as worth censoring. Not to mention his baseless accusations of me censoring quotes critical of Islam when most of my edits are not about Islam and even about other religions like Christianity and Hinduism. These actions are quite similar to that of Jedi3. Most articles are about Muslims or Christians, rather than their religions.

As to the other charges levelled by him of me "turning the tables", I'll like to ask whether any of this is made-up:-

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at, , , ,  and. Jedi3 resumed edit-warring after his week-long block expired. These are only a few examples: here, a here, here. Jedi3 again resumed edit-warring today. Already three reverts made recently by him:, ,

I already warned Jedi3 against his constant edit-warring stating it will result in a block for us. He still doesn't listen. Have I made it up?

Also here's what I didn't do like Jedi3: Use a false reason to remove quotes, add made-up quotes copied from Wikipedia as admitted by Jedi3, add quotes not about topic at articles like Muhammad bin Qasim or Alauddin Khalji. And Jedi3 deliberately refuses to accept this wrongdoing by calling it a "content dispute":, despite being shown the original sources in last part of my comment here.

Nor I insult others by calling them annoying. It was Jedi3 who baselessly started calling my edit vandalism. He had made similar accusations of vandalism against another editor too.

After all this evidence of Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, can it not be said with confidence that Jedi3 has no interest in discussion or honesty or good faith assumption? I asked DanielTom to not make baseless accusations but he doesn't listen. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Geez. You already posted this nonsense at Admins' Noticeboard. See Kalki's assessment: "Your [MonsterHunter32's attitude, very often, seems to be, for the most part, that anything you see fit to remove should stay removed, and anything other than acceptance of your own decisions on such matters amounts to "edit-warring" or "violations".]" ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You had no problem when Jedi3 kept repeating the same accusations against me. I am only posting it here so the admins personally notice it.


 * Also as for the claim of me thinking "anything you see fit to remove should stay removed", I have already replied to it.


 * https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=2393731&oldid=2393701 Here's the reality: I stated] I added quotes that criticised Aurangzeb -, . So no I don't remove quotes because I "don't like them". I only remove them simply because they are non-notable. The cause of addition of these quotes and the edit-warring was clear : POV-pushing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

BD2412, User:Jedi3's sole purpose in his edits has been POV-pushing to spread hatred against non-Hindu religions even if his quotes are not memorable. This is why nearly all of his quotes are crtical against Muslims, Christians, and their religions. Please be careful of his intentions and edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please let me comment
I promise I won't comment on Jedi3 and his reasons on AN regarding Template:Remove. I will only given my reason why it is unwise to make the change. I hope you agree and allow me. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are commenting on Jedi3 right now, and I am blocking you for another 24 hours because you do not seem to know how to let up. BD2412 T 19:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be back
I've moved quotes on some articles. I'll be back later to move the remaining. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I will also continue to work on some. BD2412 T 02:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on your and mine moving at 20+ articles each, I think near half maybe done. Based on this, I think at most it will take 3 days if I alone edit 2 times a day. So I don't think you'll need to move them. I'll be back in probably 12 hours and resume moving. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Corrected one word
FYI, I corrected a small oversight here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Those are perils of being stretched across so many projects. BD2412 T 14:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even Homer nods. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Take action
I have been moving the quotes and reached a compromise with DanielTom, but he still doesn't stop attacking me. He insults me as johnny-come-lately by making a baseless claim that the discussion about notability already [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanielTom&oldid=2335690#Disputed_or_misattributed took place on his talk page. The discussion in question is actually about whether the quote is of the subject "Tipu Sultan", not notability. He again attacked me as annoying. I'm not the only user he has abused:. Please don't allow his behaviour with others to continue and at least warn him. He is trying to incite me and others and I cannot focus on the job of moving and discussing quotes like this. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Johnny-come-lately" is not a phrase that is generally taken as an insult. It merely means someone who has come relatively late to a process. It is, in my opinion, a quite mild response to being called a liar and a troll. In any case, if you were more focused on the task of moving the removed quotes to their respective talk pages, you wouldn't have time to be bothered by what anyone else is doing. BD2412 T 18:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't you see he's trying to incite. Besides he's been attacking me and making baseless claims of censorships about Islam, even though the topic is not that, to make me look like a bad guy. He's been attacking me for long. He started abusing me by calling me annoying, troll, Muslim apologist, whatnot. Even when I try a homest compromise, he still casts doubt on me. This is not normal. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The only thing remotely problematic in those diffs was me (accurately) calling CensoredScribe a troll. But as BD2412 pointed out, you, MonsterHunter32, have called me a troll as recently as today! Should BD2412 block you? (The answer is yes, but I digress.) Now let's see whether CensoredScribe actually was being a troll. From Wiktionary: a troll is someone who "attempt[s] to lure others into combative argument for purposes of personal entertainment and/or gratuitous disruption, especially in an online community or discussion" (I'd say this also captures your modus operandi perfectly, as evidenced in this discussion). What could the context be for me calling CensoredScribe a troll? Oh, right. I called him a troll in that edit summary immediately after he had provocatively described me as a "cold blooded unfeeling pompous bishonen anime villain[] the fans love who never breaks a sweat or makes a mistake"! Q.E.D. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I called you troll today User:DanielTom? You called me a troll last month when I tried to make you apologize for your bad-faith accusations and warned to report you. You did the same on 22 April. And actually you called CensoredScribe a troll after he said he'll as a reminder Likewise, I will delete whatever your next whiny complaint is on my talk page and post a discussion calling for you to be banned for a single day as a reminder you aren't allowed to diagnose other editors, part of the same comment. It's about your disruption. So who's being a troll here? You're deliberately inciting people. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As for "attempt[s] to lure others into combative argument" I never even tried to lure you into an argument. It's you who keeps on disparaging me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you even paying attention? Maybe you missed that BD2412 saw you called me a "liar" and a "troll" today out of the blue. Hello? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The insults of yours above are before even today. Out of the blue? When you get called the same things for your behaviour, only then you have a problem. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is my "insults" are fair and accurate—yours are unfair and inaccurate. For example, you called me a "right-wing troll" for restoring a quote added by another editor years ago, which I had researched and adequately sourced at the request of yet another editor, when I'm not even right wing (such a characterization would still be completely unacceptable even if I were, needless to say). And you started this section, not me. I've actually accepted long ago that the price I pay for standing in the way of vandals and trolls is being occasionally (by you, persistently) defamed in public and portrayed in the worst possible light; it "comes with the territory". ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Now I'm a vandal. Yes of course Tom, only those who are tired of your behaviour you are wrong. You called me a Muslim apologist, censoring quotes critical of Islam, even though the topic was not about that and my reasons were quite justified. You keep on characterizing needlessly even the most unimportant quotes as "censorship". All the things I have called you, I have done so rightly because of your behaviour.
 * This self-righteous act of yours is not going to work. It's me who will stand up to you Tom. BD2412, how can you allow this person to get away with this. Is he untouchable? I get blocked just for mentioning a name, but you take no action against this person whose been attacking me for a long time. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A long time? Lol. Keep a sense of perspective. You've been adding removing quotes here for less than 5 months. BD2412 has been here since 2005. Now that's a long time. Me, I've been an editor here since 2012, which truth be told is not that long ago, but is still much longer than just a few short months. Oh, and I'm of course terrified you'll "stand up" to me, really terrified. Good luck not getting blocked with that attitude. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah like I didn't notice the 2016 complaint against you by another user? As for adding, I certainly have been adding quotes. And will add more if I my time wasn't regularly wasted. Besides I'm talking about your attacks on me. You're needlessly stretching this issue way back. Of course only others deserve to get blocked, when you do the same and actually far worse things, you did nothing wrong. I'm just wasting my time in arguing with you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is not the first time that I'm proven right. That complaint from 2 years ago which you keep citing despite the protest of the user who originally made it ended with the conclusion that said user was "in the wrong." You have been wasting my time for days now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The complaint ended with CensoredScribe agreeing with Prinsgezinde. Nor it's like I know the only admin comment was a reprimand to you by BD2412. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, BD2412 was not the only admin who commented in that discussion, but that's okay—as I said there, I was using headlines from news websites in some of my edit summaries, and have since stopped doing that. Ningauble is also an admin and he concluded that: "regarding the edits in dispute, Prinsgezinde is in the wrong". It's not really surprising that CensoredScribe agreed with the complaint, he was vandalizing Wikiquote at the time and was facing my opposition (he has since apologized for his behavior). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I didn't realize Ningauble was an admin. Of course you omitted the reprimand by BD2412 but still. Regardless, But Prinsgezinde explained it clearly, it was about User:DanielTom's behaviour and not his edits. It seems clearly that behaviour hasn't improved yet. Also recently CensoredScribe is still complaining of your old behaviour of POV-pushing. But yeah whatever, you're "right". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was "right" in reverting him, just as I was right in reverting you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Except the complaint wasn't about his reverts but your behaviour which wasn't "right". And I was right the quote wasn't really notable, or a part of it anyway. Everyone can be wrong, even I admitted edit-warring even if you never accepted it. Problem is you're acting like you haven't done any wrong. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're attacking a straw man again. Didn't I just say that I took BD2412's comment seriously? I often admit that I could be and am many times wrong, that I'm no expert, &c., &c.. But that still doesn't change the fact that I was right to revert them (Prinsgezinde and CensoredScribe) and you. And you seem to agree with me, because after I reverted your removals, you always ended up adding back the quotes that you had removed and that I tried to restore. And even if you hadn't compromised (which I commend you for doing), they would still be added back, only it would take a while longer. Needless to say, I don't hold it against you that in the end you come to agree with me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah come on, not even once you've accepted your mistakes, all you did was blame me. It still doesn't change that your behaviour is still POV-pushing as Prinsgezinde and CensoredScribe had claimed. Whatever I said was justified. As for me agreeing, I will only say partial agreement. You added the non-notable part as well and it would have been much quicker if you removed it or simply pointed out earlier which one was notable instead edit-warring like usual. Non-notable quotes shouldn't be here. Simple. You're no expert. Nor you are fit to be here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * End this discussion now. BD2412 T 21:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeing my block over a name, I hoped he would be restrained. But anyway I'm sorry. I will be back in half a day to continue moving others. Likely will be done in 2 or 3 days. Have a good day. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

BD, if the quotes are too much, you can let me handle them. It's not impossible to move, though will consume time. Simply open the older version of the page before removal, find the quotes from the current version and remove them. Then simply move all the quotes that are left to the talk page. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have continued to pick up a few. There is no way to do this that is not time consuming. I'll leave the rest to you. BD2412 T 22:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Daniel Tom's reversions have seldom been uncalled for in my view, I could contest the deletion of maybe one or two about sections, but few if any theme pages having fiction added to them, that said, very recently they have started making an error of judgement in the regards to descriptive texts, common to novels, when applied to video games; they often offer single word justifications rather than elaborate such as recently saying a one sentence description for The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past looks "ugly" and this "isn't an encyclopedia", which are descriptions some editors may consider "lazy" instead of explaining your views to others. If you have fifteen minutes to go through their edit history just search for the words incompetent and troll and compare this to the fact I was blocked for a day for accusing them of having failing eyesight by Kalki once, which Kalki construed as age discrimination; (I imagine using racist or sexist sexual language would also get a block, but I've no examples of blocks for that to cite). Being "accurate" in describing the health physical or mental of another editor doesn't prevent you from being blocked for incivility, (that doesn't make calling someone a fat ass acceptable if they are technically overweight, nor would be listing their ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation every time you use their name), unless you are Daniel Tom and too big to block in which case you can make up nick names for other editors. Defending the accuracy that I have the reading comprehension of a five year old and accusing the dozens of professional educators who let me pass their classes past kindergarten through higher education and who failed to diagnose a very serious learning disability kind of sounds like it runs afoul of Occam's razor, the simpler explanation is that Daniel Tom suggests people they've never met before shouldn't have their jobs do to their professional incompetence, knowing they won't be believed and exaggerates because there's no punishment other than looking like a foolish alarmist who makes ridiculous statements. Defamation as I understand it basically only applies to crimes and communicable diseases, most everything else is a non falsifiable opinion. It would be hard for me to argue about the idea of an appropriate reading level for a five year old, which in Daniel Tom's view with what I read as a barometer seems to include a number of quotes about rape, and speeches from religious leaders and politicians who they seem to be indirectly belittling as well by saying they are stupid enough to be read by me, unless you are accusing me of not reading these quotes and making all my contributions by chance like a room filled with an infinite number of monkeys producing Shakespeare, which sounds an awful lot like an assessment of health and me accusing you of having failing eyesight that makes you a slow editor, (the term rotting roadblock elicited a block.) I am not familiar with the behavior of the editors primarily being discussed here and as such will not comment, other than to say I am an example of someone who made far too many mistakes as well, but that for better or worse people can change. I would like to request a much broader discussion about updating the rules regarding blocks for civility as I do feel this is a longstanding problem here that makes it seem like we can use whatever offensive language we want in addressing each other. I've just come to expect this sort of diva like bullying at wikiquote. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have learned that sometimes collaborative editing takes a thick skin. BD2412 T 01:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Protection request
Wikiquote should be restored to its over a decade old established version and fully protected to stop the edit war currently raging, initiated by "editors" with suspicious motives and with very little edits/contributions here. They should be allowed, and are in fact welcome, to start a discussion on the talk page and try to gain consensus for their wrong-headed changes at any time, if they so wish, but not change the wording unilaterally. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Protected, as requested. BD2412 T 12:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I was here for another issues but BD2412, DanielTom has omitted he has edit-warred with three users including me, User:Butwhatdoiknow and User:Beefybufoon on Wikiquote. Are you going to let him get away with his wish and do nothing? He is also making bad-faith suspicions against them? Even User:CensoredScribe has complained of his behaviour. When I told you about his attacks you still did nothing. You blocked me for mentioning of a name. Are you going to stand by and let him do what he wants. He can edit war and insult others. At least give him a punishment. What are you doing? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Where a proposed change is disputed, absent consensus for the change, the status quo ante must be restored. That is how a consensus-based process works. The request was appropriate irrespective of who was making it. BD2412 T 17:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment is about his edit-warring and attacks. Is status quo an excuse for edit-warring? That's what I'm saying. The "dispute" actually started with another editor accused of being my sock. Consensus doesn't allow edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this a joke? As usual you do nothing. For edit-warring and attacking, you warned me. For mere mentioning a name in another context, you blocked me. But when DanielTom who has been edit-warring and attacking for long, you do nothing instead of focusing on edit-warring you shift to dispute. What I complained about was edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The status quo ante means the state of the page before any dispute arose. In this case, I have enforced that, which is far from doing "nothing". How is your progress coming along with porting deleted quotes to the talk pages? I unblocked you pursuant to your agreement to complete that task. I assume that you are on track to fulfill that obligation? BD2412 T 18:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no justification for edit-warring and statusquo shouldn't be used to edit-war. Besides you only blocked me over mentioning of a name in another context. As for progress, you can see my contributions. I didn't have to volunteer to move, I could have stopped anytime as it takes time. The block period is already over. But I continue out of good-faith even though the block wasn't related. However, when others do far worse things, you don't take action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether it is standard practice to block editors without any notice to those editors. Had another editor not told me abut this page I would still be in the dark that charges had been made against me by DanielTom or that I had been convicted by you. By the way, I dispute DanielTom's charges and would be happy to respond should you decide to reopen the case. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my comment wasn't referring to Butwhatdoiknow, whom I believe was (and is) acting in good faith, as I said here. That edit summary and the fact that Butwhatdoiknow has been editing Wikiquote since 2015 (unlike the other two accounts engaged in the edit war) made me think it was self-evident that my comment didn't apply to him. Discussion about policy/guideline changes should be held on the talk page of said policy/guideline or on the Village pump. ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Wikiquote a policy/guideline? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:DanielTom has been edit-warring with many. First the one who accused Beefybufoon of being my sock reverted User:Butwhatdoiknow saying he needed to be reverted first, then DanielTom came in when Butwhatdoiknow reverted. Then when Beefybufoon reverted them both, he revrted him and locked the artcile down. It is strange DanielTom is lecturing others even though he has made many reverts himself on the article of two users, three actually. He uses excuses for edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Also I never reverted DanielTom even once on Wikiquote. It is clear DanielTom is casting aspersions on good-faith of others with this comment: Wikiquote should be restored to its over a decade old established version and fully protected to stop the edit war currently raging, initiated by "editors" with suspicious motives and with very little edits/contributions here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote doesn't call itself a policy or guideline. The one who called Beefybufoon my sock also claimed it is not a policy or guideline earlier. But I guess since it is talking about what Wikiquote basically is, it might be a policy. That's the best I can answer. An admin will know better. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If Wikiquote is not a policy page, it is certainly one that readers will think holds some official status due to its placement. Changes should be community-based. BD2412 T 18:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean you don't know it is a policy page or not? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nearing completion - maybe
I think I'm nearing completion. Maybe not, but then again I have finished a lot. I regret ever having to volunteered because you are not fair. Your severe action against me over a name in another context and blaming me of edit-war and attack, but you said none who started it all and didn't even actually discuss until much later on. Personally I should have let the block remain or let you finish it by yourself. But regardless, I have come so far so no point in turning back now because of it. I'll try to finish it tomorrow. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You would be required to do this whether you had been blocked or not. This is the correct procedure for contesting the inclusion of quotes on a page. BD2412 T 23:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If I was required then why did you do it? Template:Remove doesn't mandate it in all circumstances including when faced with disruptions and attacks, nor mandates moving everything all at once. I still think it would have been better to move only on the article where the discussion was happening. I'm only doing it in good-faith so I suggest you stop showing me up. What's done is done. I can't make moderators deal with attackers and edit-warriors, but what is near completion should be finished. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean, why did I help? Because I'm helpful, and it is for the good of the project that disputed quotes be put somewhere so that the community can resolve the dispute. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 00:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Help? You never relegated it to me, I accepted it myself out to make you believe in my good faith. Which was regrettable considering the pointless block. There is going to be little resolution, because of the intentions they were put here. Your unfair actions are inadvertently harming. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Completed and a request
I think I've completed moving all. Some articles where I was reverted. or my removal of quotes wasn't correct, I've let go of them and won't be contesting those disputes.

However, I have to verify all are done and if any remain missing. I'll be back tomorro to verify all articles.

I'll also make a request if you're not going to take action against DanielTom, simply close the complaints at Administrator noticeboard. It's nothing but repetitve useless arguments. Also if you can, archive my past complaints and the ones against me as they're no longer required and completed, except the one with interaction ban. Much of the content in them is repetitve anyway. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32's provocations
I'm not sure how to respond to the countless defamatory attacks and distortions by MonsterHunter32 against me in so many public spaces, which now extend to bringing up old and irrelevant disputes all in an effort to provoke me and ultimately getting me blocked. Maybe ignoring his provocations and not feeding the troll (as an admin told me privately) is the best strategy. Still, I'd like to know what you think. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that ignoring personalities and focusing on the project is the most productive thing to do here. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 01:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What if you try to protect the project from bad actors who then start provoking and attacking you relentlessly? They want to make people less willing to oppose them, or even block them from being able to do so altogether through an interaction ban, for example. Wikiquote seems to be very vulnerable to this sort of poisonous tactics because we don't have that many editors engaged in fighting vandalism or who actively patrol the recent changes. There is very little "resistance", and the little there is can easily be overtaken. But maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to provoke you DanielTom. As I said I'm always willing to cooperate if there's a will to cooperate on the other side. I can see you'll never admit to any wrong. I asked BD2412 to shut my complaints against you as nothing has come out of them except arguments. I could keep blaming you too. But it will be useless, let's drop it. MonsterHunter32 (talk)
 * I am considering it dropped, and archiving everything. <font style="background:#F2E6CE">BD2412 T 02:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)