User talk:Iddo999

MASSIVE-ATTACK?
Your Request, well it looks like you have it under control, why did you call me over? Markie 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the hell are you such a jerk?

RE: it wasent me
Then why do you keep writing rude messages to me on Wikinews? Markie 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is that supossed to mean? And how can you explain this? Markie 21:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not me, I don't have a wikinews account. It's the vandal... See my response on your usertalk page here. The explaination is that this vandal created a wikinews account with my username, and he uses it to annoy you on wikinews. I guess we'll have to talk to the wikinews admins and delete that account. I think wikimedia admins can see IP addresses and verify this stuff? I also recall wikimedia had some automated feature to detect sockpuppets using IPs? iddo999 21:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Markie and Iddo999 account
Hi Iddo is Markie from Wikinews. We have an account on Wikinews that is using your name to create trouble and it looks like you have one here that is creating trouble. I would appriciate it if you could block the user using my name here and i will do the same for the user using your name on Wikinews. Thanks N:User:Markie
 * Cheers for the block but copuld you make it indef please until i have time to sort the whole mess out. Thansk --81.129.44.180 22:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hehe, he fooled me, I thought I was talking to the real you... OK, but before I change the block status, please verify again by responding that you want the Markie account here to be on a permanent block (and should I delete the Markie userpage and usertalk pages here?), or if you want to take over the wikiquote account here with your name, instead of blocking it. Regarding my fake account on wikinews: I don't wish to do editing on wikinews, therefore if it's ok then I request that you delete the fake (and duplicated) userpage on wikinews (and also the usertalk page), and do a permanent block for my usename on wikinews. Thank you. iddo999 22:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you also block User:IDENTITYCONFIRM. I am an admin on Wikinews and I happened to see an alert about this on Wikinews' admin alerts page. Just thought I would notify you of this account also. FWN 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please extend User:IDENTITYCONFIRM's and Markie's block to indef. Thanks. FWN 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, done. If possible, please delete my fake/duplicated userpage on wikinews. Thanks. iddo999 22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

About Ron Paul
I notice that few of the entries in the "Quotes about Ron Paul" section name the sources. In the case of a quote from Andrew Sullivan which I had added, you deleted the source. It's useful, certainly, to have links provided; but what happens when links go bad? You can see an example of this with the Michael Moore quote on the Rudy Giuliani page. A link was provided, but the link is now dead. Links are useful to allow the reader to verify and read more, but are they a substitute for naming sources in an article? - InvisibleSun 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong position on whether or not to name the sources in 'about' quotes. Because I consider the 'about' section to be less important than the other sections, I find it reasonable to keep it compact on the expense of being descriptive. Also, in most cases the source name actually exist inside the link (in your case "daily dish" is part of the link so if someone hovers over the link he can see it), so the damage isn't that great. The reason that made me modify your source was that the template didn't fit the date format ("nnnn-nn-nn" where different countries use different order for month/day, so some people aren't sure which is which, as opposed to something like "January 1, 1999" which is unambitious, and also sometimes the precise day is unclear so e.g. "February 1998" is useful). Maybe we should change the template, or bring up the issue in village pump? Anyway, if you'd like to restore the source names, then maybe you better do it for all the quotes, for the sake of uniformity? But if you do, please try to keep it as compact as possible. In the case of 'about' quotes, I personally prefer to add source names or other descriptive info only in particular places where it actually clarifies something. iddo999 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky
I just wanted to pop in here and say that Noam Chomsky is an excellent resource, and let you know that I have replied to s:Wikisource:Scriptorium

p.s. on Wikisource, you can set your preferences to be emailed as soon as a watched page is modified. Jayvdb 00:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

links
41

Ulrich Drepper
An article that you created, Ulrich Drepper, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please comment at Votes for deletion/Ulrich Drepper. Thank you. ~ Ningauble 14:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote interlanguage communication
Hi, I'm Nemo from the Italian language Wikiquote and I'm writing you (via a bot) because you're an administrator of Wikiquote in this language; please excuse me if you've received this message more than once. The simple thing that I want you to know is that Wikiquote has an official mailing list, Wikiquote-l, which can be used to communicate and discuss matters which interest all Wikiquotes. This mailing list was last "advertised" about three or four years ago, before many of us joined Wikiquote, and is currently almost not participated at all by Wikiquote users and very low-traffic. I ask you to subscribe, to participate in discussions and to write about your Wikiquote. I love Wikiquote, as you probably do, and I think that we should be proud of what we do here, share our experiences and good practices to make Wikiquote better and raise awareness of it. I remind you that Meta-Wiki is the best place for Wikimedia projects coordination, and it contains several pages about Wikiquote, and specifically this talk page which can be used to discuss about Wikiquote if you don't like mailing lists. I hope that this message has been useful for you. Cheers, Nemo (write me) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Inactive?
Hi, I noticed you have not edited here in quite a long time, and are listed as an inactive administrator. Do you think there is any chance you will be back? Cheers! BD2412 T 04:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sams. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sams~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on MonsterHunter32
I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by  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.

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

Other editors and me have previously told 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:


 *  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.
 *  has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
 *  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 :


 * "I believe MonsterHunter32 is being extremely annoying and disruptive."


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


 * " I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. "


 * "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...."


 * "Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ "


 * "I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote." (in response to MonsterHunter32)


 * "No more of this time-wasting dispute here. I don't want my talk page to be used to call people vandals, liars, etc..... "


 * "Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). "


 * "and IF you revert this again you WILL be BLOCKED."


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


 * "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. "


 * "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 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 who by his own admission is "constantly monitoring" me, attacking me for alleged religious bias or my alleged religious beliefs, and reverting all my additions with poor excuses that in most cases he refuses even to discuss. It cannot be in Wikiquotes interest when such editors can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with censoring and blanking quotes. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's disruptive edits
What does User:Jedi3 hopes to achieve by repeatedly complaining instead of any actual cooperation? When I discuss he either abruptly leaves or keeps on repeating the same things. He keeps on edit-warring over and over and even started edit-warring right after User:UDScott block on him expired.

All of the "complains" of his based on poor fact- reading and hiding the truth again. Oh he doesn't mention some of the comments made by other users about him:


 * User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claiming Template:Remove doesn't allow for removal of quotes and mandates moving and discussion. But I found out he hasn't read it properly. Templat:Remove itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. It says: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.
 * Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked.


 * While Jedi3 is talking about "comments against me', jedi3 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, , , ,  and.


 * 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 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 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, 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 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." 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)

Your advanced permissions on en.wikiquote
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 inactivity policy, 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 from you 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, --MarcoAurelio (questions) 09:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)