User talk:UDScott/2013

Cleanup tag
Hey UDScott,

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I was working on a template for citing inline for quotes, and have left the page I was working on untouched since. I'm mostly done with the template in my userspace, and I was wondering if I can add it to mainspace properly now. I wrote in the Village pump hoping to get some feedback on using the template as an option for citations. What do you think?

Thank you :) - Starcartographer (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell (wikiquote article) Split
Dear UDScott,

After the recent splitting, many important quotes by Russell are now removed from his main Wikiquote page... Is this something we should worry about?

P.S. Of course that having specific pages for "The Problems of Philosophy" and "A History of Western Philosophy" is reasonable (given that they have so many quotes, and are so long).

Maybe your decision to create a page for Russell's "Autobiography" was equably reasonable, for the same reason (size), but I am not sure about the other books...

(Please do not take this as a negative criticism of your earnest work!) I do realize that the "Bertrand Russell" Wikiquote page was (is), indeed, very long. But the same is true of other pages (e.g. "Albert Einstein").

I would like to know your thoughts on this (you can reply here, in this talk page), because I do fear that Russell's main page may be left with only quotes from his (relatively) minor works (or, more importantly, and as I mentioned above, missing important quotes). Thanks.

Kind regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true that many important quotes are no longer on the main Bertrand Russell page, but there are links placed there to these other pages. It was done in an attempt to reduce the size of the main page, as has been done in the past with other such pages (see Charles Dickens or Donald Barthelme). Albert Einstein is also a long page, but there are fewer opportunities for splitting, as there are few single works with many quotes from him. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear UDScott, Thank you for the explanation.

Let me try to be clear. In my opinion, important quotes, such as those from "Marriage and Morals" (cited as being a reason for Russell's award of the Nobel Prize, and which is fundamental to understanding his views on sexuality), and "The Conquest of Happiness" (a best-seller that contains much wisdom), should be kept in the main article of Bertrand Russell, if at all possible.

Therefore, I think that the examples which you gave (Dickens and Barthelme) were not very good, since it is not such a big issue to create new pages for stories (e.g. Oliver Twist), as it is to remove from a main article important quotes that directly express the author's views on society (as was the case with Russell's article).

Finally, I share your concern about the size of the page, but I think that a better way to improve it would be to trim the article, instead of simply moving such important sections of it to other pages. I would like to know if you agree! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, trimming - if warranted based on the quoteworthiness or lack thereof - is welcome. An alternative that some have used is to add key quotes to the author's main page (but also keep them with the book), with a note saying that these and other quotes for the book can be found on its page. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to (try to) trim the article, but could you advise me on how I should go about it? I certainly have no wish to upset anyone, particularly those who worked hard to add the quotes to the Bertrand Russell page. So, should I just delete the excess, or should I copy it to some specific place? And should I go ahead and make such bold edits, or would it be better to first make a proposal in the Talk page about which (parts of) quotes I plan to remove? Thank you. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, being bold is certainly encouraged, but it can't hurt to allow for the feelings of others that may have different vews on what is important to keep. I would encourage you to post a notice on the Talk page, then after a week or so, you could move selected quotes to the Talk page, again asking for comment before finally trimming them altogether. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I will start by making a proposal in the Talk page. Thanks for your help. Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi UDScott. As promised, I suggested a few lines that we could delete (in the Talk page of "Bertrand Russell"), and I would be happy if you could check them to see if they are sensible.

As to the alternative that you mentioned, to add key quotes to the author's main page (but also keep them with the book), with a note saying that these and other quotes for the book can be found on its page, again, I would like to know how to go about it. Should we create a section called "Sourced" (or with some other name?) for that? And could we add the quotes under the section "1970s" there? I actually think that that could be a good solution. Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll continue this discussion on Talk:Bertrand Russell. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Thanks for your contributions. - Daniel Tomé (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again UDScott. I went ahead and added new sections to the Bertrand Russell article, following your suggestion. I think it worked out fine, but I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks for your help in all this. Best wishes, ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Great work! ~ UDScott (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I'm glad you liked it. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please Review Article
Hello UDScott,

Last month I had discussed proposed changes to an article of mine that had been deleted. I just reposted it "Kent Thiry" for your review. I welcome your insight and any changes you can make to help me clean it up and more successful then the first go around. Thanks! Dcomm (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the formatting of the page. The problems before were related to sourcing and the notability of this person. The sourcing is better now, but there may still be a question as to the notability of Thiry. For now, I've at least made the proper formatting for the page. I would suggest trying to find further quotes from this person (perhaps in the listed links). ~ UDScott (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:69.235.131.4
I changed the block from indef to 30 days. It's a dynamic IP so it will not have the same user indefinitely.--Collingwood (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Network (film)
Thanks for restoring the "primal forces of nature" speech that you had removed in an earlier trimming. I think this is an "important film" that is so dense with rich material that our limits on quotations necessitate really hard choices. This speech is one on which I place a high value, though it is not a famous as the "greed is good" speech in Wall Street (film). ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fully agree - and I think I got a bit carried away earlier. There's so much that is good in this film - and that still applies today! ~ UDScott (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (It was required viewing when I took Herbert Schiller's introductory course in communications.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty
I have read the page on length of quotes, and while a valid idea, it's clearly an unfollowed guideline on this project. How about you try to work towards a consensus on which quotes you think are superfluous, rather than insisting upon your way or no way. I think you'll find me a reasonable man if you did that, as opposed to just deleting. 99.169.250.174 21:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about what I think is superfluous - if you feel there are better quotes than what is on the page, feel free to put them in - but only after removing an equal number of other quotes. In fact, the page as it stands is still a bit long. The reason for the limit was that there were a large number of pages that had exploded with content and there was a danger of the site being shut down due to copyright issues. There remain many pages that are tagged that still need trimming, but there's only so much that the small user community can do to try to fix the number of pages that need it. The point is that we try to limit the pages to only the very best quotes, within the defined guidelines based on the length of the work (in this case a film, with one quote per 12 minutes of film time). For further discussion on this issue, please see here, here, here, and here. Please try to work within these guidelines. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin
Hi, could you check this last edit? I am not sure what to make of that. Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the removal of the quotes seems questionable. I restored them and semi-protected the page. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for formatting my reference citation on Nguyen Khanh. Much appreciated. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing - not a problem. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

All the King's Men
Thanks for the reminder about adding a link to the book's page to Robert Penn Warren's page. I probably would have forgotten that. Anyway, I think I understand everything that you're saying and I'll be adding more to the new page today and in the next few days. ~ Gæos16 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Two questions
Hi UDScott,

I have two questions I hope you could help me with:


 * Why don't we use "[...]" instead of just "..." when the ellipses are used by us, the editors, and not by the original author?


 * It seems that the "Selected pages" list that appears in the Main Page hasn't changed since it was created (in March 2009‎). Could it be updated? (Personally I would like to see the Bertrand Russell page there.)

Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I hadn't thought about the first point, but it does makes sense. But I don't know that it's such a big deal that it needs to be used everywhere. As to the second, I would whole-heartedly agree with having Russell in the Selected pages section - and I will do so now. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What about adding Virgil to the list? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? ✅ ~ UDScott (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

One more thing. I've just made a proposal at Talk:Main Page about the articles that currently appear on the People list (see here), but after reading your comment again ("I recommend that you post a notice on the VP to start a discussion...") I now realize that I might have misinterpreted it because of its format (I thought it was directed at Kalki, not me). Anyway, I would be glad to hear your thoughts on my suggestion. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose adding Charles Dickens to the list would be uncontroversial. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And, if you're willing, it would be nice if you could add Flowers to the Themes list as well. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ and ✅ - no problem with the additions - Dickens is actually one of my favorites, so I like that addition anyway. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at Bots
Please take a look at Bots, a 'crat comment would be nice. :) -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 05:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

POV template
Hi UDScott, in relation to the discussion on Talk:Christ myth theory could you tell me if Wikiquote uses any Template:POV or alternative? -- Mdd (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See Template:Npov. (Sorry to jump in.) ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel, this is quite welcome. -- Mdd (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it. BTW, you can find a list of Template messages here. Regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Pac-Man
I also want to commend and thank you for you for your hard work, UDScott; I note your efforts to make the page more acceptable (though I am still not sure what the best course of action is here). Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What I expect to happen is for those that have already entered a got at the VFD page to consider my alternative as something that could be kept. If not, and the vote either ends at delete or at an impasse (meaning the page remains), I would still try to replace the current page with my version, as this fits to the tv template. For now, I plan to wait out the vote. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

St. Elsewhere
Nice job with St. Elsewhere! I was wondering if you'd be interested in creating a page for and/or ? -- Cirt (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I always thought it was an underrated show. I would be happy to see pages for either incarnation of The House of God, but unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book, and it does not appear that the film quotes are available online (I haven't actually seen it, although I would be interested to). I'll keep looking and see if I can find something though. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The book is much better, read it first please, but the film is pretty entertaining as well, heh. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Bots. :) -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 00:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - the flag has been granted. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dejan Stojanovic
Hi UDScott, I just noticed the first chapter [Circling: 1978-1987] seem to offer exactly the same set of (32) quotes as listed in Amazon.com, see here. Can you tell me if this is acceptable? Or what could/should be done? -- Mdd (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that yes, the quotes are the same as in the list, but further sourcing is provided on the Dejan Stojanovic page that is not on the Amazon page (e.g., having the Sequences). To me this distinguishes the WQ page from the Amazon one and does not represent a copyright issue (for presentation reasons). I think it is OK. I think of it like we often have the same set of quotes from a film as that film's page on imdb.com, but since we add additional formatting and presentation style, it does not represent an issue between the two sites. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. If page numbers are provided, I will leave this for what it is. -- Mdd (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata broken in Template:otherwiki
The link to Wikidata has been broken for at least two weeks in Template:otherwiki. I made an additional note in the template's discussion page and then wrote this note on your talk page only. You're the first administrator I found in the list who was active today. --Hoziron (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ UDScott (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rutherford B. Hayes
Hi UDScott, could you tell me if it is standard to delete test edits in stead of overwriting them, as for example here suggested. -- Mdd (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think either way is wrong, but it's become farly customary to overwrite them using the  tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't disagree. I do think that in the long run empty talk pages draw unnecessary attention, and that's why I prefer to keep it simple. -- Mdd (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Messed up
Hi UDScott, I messed up trying to move the page Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to Mahatma Gandhi. Could you do it yourself to preserve its history? Or maybe it's not necessary. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by DanielTom
Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard.

Can something be done about this?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See my response on the AN. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's say I know someone who I think is (for example) considering suicide. What Cirt is saying is that, basically, if I tell that person to contact a mental health professional immediately, that would be a "personal attack". Well, it isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, see my response on the AN, where I would like to carry on this conversation (rather than here). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, UDScott. Sorry for the flood, but, for the record, here are the supposed "personal attacks" I made to User:Cirt: I still stand by these assertions, namely that 1) I think Cirt should be blocked [or better yet, desyopped, to prevent him from continuing to abuse his admin tools and status], and 2) I think Cirt needs mental help. I tell the truth as I see it, and if it gets me blocked, I have no problem with that. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC) last edit: 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * BD2412, here is my advice to you: block Cirt. This guy is an absolute troll.
 * Cirt became an admin here just 3 months after starting out. Given his history — a disturbing enjoyment and predisposition to harass users even if they haven't made any malicious edits here — I cannot, and do not, for my part, trust his judgement — particularly in matters of sock puppetry, for obvious reasons.
 * If you, Cirt, stop blocking accounts that have zero malicious edits here, then we may have a deal. Otherwise, no. Potential contributors to Wikiquote are more important than your primitive desire to deface their harmless accounts and to use the "✓Confirmed" template. I think you are in serious need of psychiatric help. Please seek it.

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL
Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-Single+User+Login+finalisation+announcement%2FPersonal+announcement&filter=&action=page translate and review the notification] that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages Rename practices and Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Why thank you...while I enjoy all parts of WQ, for sure, I am always drawn first to the film and TV show pages (both the good and the bad), as this is where I first became enamored of quotes. Thanks for the appreciation. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I think that the number of films I've ever seen in my life is much smaller than the total number of film pages you've created on Wikiquote! They are all excellent, too. ;-) DanielTom (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

botflag for carsracBot
Could you take a look a my botflag request here. Carsrac (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledging a comment
Thanks for this comment. I'll save it for future use. ;) DanielTom (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Query for help
UDScott, what do you think of this behavior pattern?

Can anything be done about this?

Should we allow this sort of behavior on Wikiquote?

Or more so, should we encourage this and try to recruit other contributors to Wikiquote who will also comport themselves in this manner?

Is there anything that can be done?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I already commented on the dispute(s) you have had with this user (see Administrators'_noticeboard for example). I can certainly understand why you would be upset, but I also believe that this level was only reached after much arguing and escalation on both sides. I advised at the time for you to have a little thicker skin and not blow small issues up into larger ones. I stand by that. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying it would be perfectly acceptable for me to also engage in similar behavior as this individual and use similar language and images against him? No, I think the repercussions for me would be much greater. (Particularly considering the repercussions for him are zero.) That is a double standard. Why is there such a double standard? -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I think you've already dishonestly attacked me enough for a lifetime. In any case, I should remind you that you are an admin here — I do not know how, or why, but that's the unfortunate reality — so although I do not ask for UDScott to condone my actions, I do agree that you should grow a thicker skin. There are many other things I could criticize you for (hint), so I don't see what's the big problem here. Indeed, I think the picture in question is pretty accurate (to me, it looks just like you). ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also convinced that Cirt is a psychopath, and a criminal. Needless to say, I expect to be blocked for this, but what the hell. Cirt, please get help, and stop harassing people. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course he is not saying that. He said to chill out, not to escalate further. To the extent there is a double standard, it is this: administrators are expected to comport themselves as good examples to newcomers, not to engage them in a race to the bottom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to block the both of them for this incessant and disruptive feuding, baiting, and forum shopping. I am therefore setting forth the following interaction ban in this case. DanielTom, you are quite correct, you could indeed be blocked for incivility at this point. I won't, if you'll cease attempting to interact with Cirt, stop talking to him, stop talking about him, stop contesting his actions. Cirt, I'll ask you to do the same with respect to DanielTom; reacting to baiting is not the trait of an administrator. If you continue to engage with DanielTom, I will move to desysop you on this project. I can assure you that the rest of the community is as fed up with these histrionics as I am. You will be desysopped if you cannot learn to rise above this sort of thing. To the extent that either of you think the other is making improper edits or otherwise misbehaving, the other administrators on this project will see it and will handle it. BD2412 T 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: @, understood. I will take your advice to heart. I will do my best to not react to the baiting. I will do my best to only engage in a polite and constructive manner from here on out. I am sorry for troubling you with this. I will do my best to rise above this matter. Thank you for your advice and your input. -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies
I'm going to try to comport myself better than recent behavior, per advice from.

I am sorry for having bothered you recently with all this.

I hope you are doing well.

Once again, my apologies,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Javad Alizadeh
Hi UDScott. I added sources to some quotations on this page. I don't know if it's Ok as I'm new here. Thank you.--Farhikht (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
Hi I noted that you deleted the page in 30 October 2009. I do not know what was the content of the page but I have got a new quote on him with reference so can you undelete it for now? Thanks. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A new article has subsequently been created today. The deleted version contained only nonsense, and does not need to be restored. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi UDScott. A question: when a character is thinking to himself (i.e., not speaking out loud), how would you indicate that?— using [thinking], or [to himself]? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it would depend on the work being quoted - for me, I would definitely use something like [to himself] for written works, but for films and TV shows, I would use either [to himself] or [voiceover] depending on the situation (for example, in many TV shows, the main character speaks offscreen, either to themselves, or to the audience - these I would classify as voiceovers). Bottom line is that I don't think there is a hard and fast rule. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, understood. There are still some occasions, though, where "[to himself]" does not seem to be very appropriate (to me). For example, say you're in a hurry, but you have to wait for your slow friend. Then you can think (wish that he): "Hurry up!", but indicating that thought as:
 * [to himself] Hurry up!
 * would be rather misleading (i.e., it would look as if you were telling yourself to hurry). Maybe just "[thinking]" would be more appropriate in such cases? (Thanks again) ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't trim quotes
Quotes should not be trimmed because this increases the chances of quote mining out of context. For that reason I always provide the entire paragraph and bold the part I think is especially interesting.

This is in response to your otherwise good work on the Arthur R. Jensen article which I started earlier today (weird no one else had done so, since he is so quoteable). --Deleet (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While I understand that concern, actually this is not our practice here due to copyright concerns. Per WQ:LOQ, "Length of quotes - Inappropriately lengthy quotes will be trimmed or discarded, with a maximum of 250 words per quote, absent a consensus that exceptional circumstances exist (such as Abraham Lincoln's 272 word Gettysburg Address)." If good citations are given, readers can always read the original in its proper context, but in this site, we avoid large passages. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a bad reason based on alleged law, not reason. The page you link to is only proposed policy, not actual policy as far as I can tell. It also does not cite any source about the limit, which seems arbitrary to me. Is there any actual law that says that fair use only applies to quotes of <250 words in normal circumstances? A quick google reveals that this is not the case. I only quoted one paragraph, which seems fine. It is less than a page long, and less than 1000 words which is also suggested as a limit. See: http://danm.ucsc.edu/~abtollef/Physical_Poetry/fair%20use.pdf
 * Also, your edit mixes things up, as the first two 'quotes' are actually the same quote cut in half with some parts removed. You can download the original here: http://libgen.info/view.php?id=394524
 * It is manifestly wrong that everybody can look up the original. These books are rare and often cost quite a lot of money, making them quite a hassle if at all possible to look up for the interested party. I strongly urge you to reconsider and add the entire quote back, and not split in weird parts. This is clearly fair use (and the author is dead, so he won't be complaining). --Deleet (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not in the public domain: copyright extends for 75 years from the author's death. Bear in mind that the best quotations are brief and pithy. If it really takes a long passage to convey the point that one is trying to cite, then it probably isn't very quotable. This is Wikiquote, not Wikitreatise. (I also have to wonder, since you say these are rare books, whether any of this is actually widely quoted.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take a long paragraph, but the paragraph provides the context, which makes it easy to avoid selective quote mining. --Deleet (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bold Text
Perhaps you could explain why certain words need to be in bold text http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Beast_Wars%3A_Transformers&diff=1608798&oldid=1608789. Is it because someone is shouting or said something that's really, really cool or important??? I'm at a lost with this... 99.159.254.212 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would not be my preference - I usually use italics to show when words are emphasized by the speaker (which matches the templates), but some use bold to do the same. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Beast Wars
Maybe you or someone should remind IP address user 5.68.221.50 about putting in to much lines and dialog in the Beast Wars page.
 * ✅ I've trimmed the quotes again and posted a warning on that user's talk page. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Vedas
Kindly check the page Vedas again. Thanks. Justicejayant (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good - I added a category for the page as well and removed the cleanup tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Justicejayant (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars
Would it be possible to get some arbitration regarding AdamDeanHall (talk) and his constant changes to quotes in all 6 Star Wars film articles? He insists on making additions to a number of quotes that I, and several other users have never seen in the films. His changes on Episode I, in particular, I know to be based on the novellization. I and several other users have attempted to remove these additions, with clear reasons why, but he simply keeps reverting back to his versions with edit summaries along the lines of "reverted to my version" or "don't remove the quote again". I don't want to perpetuate an edit war, but my posts on talk pages have gone unanswered, and I don't see any other way to address what I firmly believe are incorrect edits. Thanks. Wolfson (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw the edits and posts you made. Thanks for the help. Wolfson (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
Hi UDScott. I removed your tag, but feel free to place it again. (Maybe it's just me, but these tags are visually unappealing... in this case, the article looks fine already.) Okay, ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I restored the cleanup tag - there is still cleanup needed. The wrong size dividers are used and individual quotes should be given sections for that individual. I know these are minor issues, but I've been trying to get the user that created the page to create articles in the right way for over a year (and this user refuses). I have done the cleanup many times for this user's articles, but when I do not have the time (or am frustrated), I simply add the cleanup tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. (Sorry, only noticed your reply now.) Something completely unrelated: what do you think of adding Breaking Bad to the Main Page "TV shows" list? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me - I think it's one of the best shows on TV right now. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy wales quotes
My Edit was intended to be an edit of the grammar i looked over everything and it doesn't seem like i've gotten anything wrong :\ Quuuuuuu (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT MY EDIT WAS CORRECTING GRAMMAR YOU ARE THE KIND OF ASSHATS WHO RUIN WIKIMEDIA :( Quuuuuuu (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. And the so-called "grammar changes" just so happened to change content into juvenile misrepresentations of what Jimmy Wales actually said. OK. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Point Break Quote
Hello UDScott, in the movie "Point Break", when did Johnny Utah say that "Wars of religion always make me laugh..."? I have watched (and re-watched) the movie, but I don't recall that quote. Thanks.

Dundalkdonnie (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea - the quote is not familiar to me as well. Feel free to remove it, based on your repeated viewing of the film. I could not find it in any versions of the script I found online either. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:New pages
Hi UDScott

I have been wanting to ask you about this intervention last week. I still do get it. It's inevitable, that that listing of new pages is more or less out of date. Experienced users can look at updated list. So the listing at the main page is mainly for the general audience, and for the new articles (and their creators) to draw some attention.

For me it is more important, that the article's listed are checked and cleaned, and this can sometimes take some more time. For me it is more important that every new article get's some attention on the main page, then that the listing is completely up to date. Can you give me your point of view? -- Mdd (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I didn't really give it a lot of thought - I saw that you had updated the list (as many people often do). But when I looked at the titles, I recalled that I had seen some of them a few days before and knew there were other more recent additions. I realize that when there is an influx of new pages, some will never even be highlighted in this section, but in general, I just try to have it reflect the newest pages (with the exception that I usually do not add pages that do not reflect the level of expected quality or that have been PROD'ed or VFD'ed). I agree that fixing problem pages is more important than this list, but when I see that it could use an update, I do so. I also usually update it whenever I add a new page as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if we have some mutual understanding about that listing. Personally, I would appreciate that new updates would stay a day or so (as service to all involved), but I keep having my doubt about upholding that backlog (as I did). Now I must admit that for a while, I have been improving articles the moment they were created (and updated the list), but I stopped after (one or more) of them were made AfD and deleted anyway. Since then I have waiting a week or so to start improving articles. Clearly this isn't perfect either...!? -- Mdd (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected the page
Guess again, UDScott. You attacking me! You protected the page!! YOU RUINED MY LIFE!!! Don't you get it? You're out of Wikiquote! ~ 199.96.246.132 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, then. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucretius Wikiquote Page-First Edit
I noticed that your edit for Lucretius' page (especially where the majority of excerpts from his "De Natura Rerum" came from) was the first in the viewing history page.

I refer specifically to a few quotations--such as "The vivid force of his mind prevailed, and he fared forth far beyond the flaming ramparts of the heavens and traversed the boundless universe in thought and mind" and "Only religion could lead to such evil" which I happen to find better articulated than some of the corresponding verses in presumably more modern translations of Lucretius' work.

Do you know which translation both excerpts can be found? I'm interested in reading "De Rerum Natura" but am having some trouble finding a good translation of it.

Thanks. -
 * Well, I actually do not recall even creating this page (it was 7 years ago after all), but I am sure when I did that I was using something like Bartlet's for the quotes. As you see, other editors came along and made the page much better, including original text. I am sorry, but I'm not sure what to recommend for you. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No actual original text exists, which is not unusual for ancient works. I have a copy (Penguin Classics edition) of Ronald E. Latham's prose translation (©1951), but I have not cracked it open in many years. In his introduction, he notes that available Latin manuscripts themselves exhibit a considerable amount and variety of rewriting and emending of what many consider the unfinished manuscript of an author whose life was cut short. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, fair point. After all, I'm sure that there might be some slight differences even between translations of the same work, especially when it was left incomplete at the time of the author's death (and thus subject to emendations and considerably rewriting to provide a sense of closure). I wonder if there's an "official" edition of Lucretius' work that may not be the original but a composite of its many editions as completed throughout and after the time of its composition.

@ UDScott. Hmm, it seems then that the page might have a more extensive history than can be currently shown. Is there a way to track down the first edit that was made on the page then? I would very much like to get my hands on the translations used for the few excerpts mentioned above.

Category:Post-apocalyptic films

 * Category:Post-apocalyptic films

Nice!

I like this category!

Thanks for creating it,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem - one of my favorite sub-genres of film. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too! ;) I think one of the more intriguing and thought-provoking ones I've seen of late was The Book of Eli... -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard Griffiths
I added quotes and de-prodded; hope this is OK.--Abramsky (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Underworld articles
Hi UDScott, are non-admins allowed to post the "Quotation limit" and "checkcopyright" tags on article talk pages? I noticed most of the Underworld pages already have them, but a couple still need them. One user has posted literally hundreds of quotes on every single one of the Underworld articles, to where it reads like a script. There's even quotes from the novelizations to highlight when one or two words are different from in the movie, and explanations of what the characters are doing while they're saying the quotes. I think each page may actually contain every single piece of dialogue in the films. It would be awesome if you could check those pages out. AlessaGillespie (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to take a look when I get a chance, but in answer to your first question - it is absolutely allowed (and encouraged) that anyone post the quote limit or copyright tags on pages. In fact, it is greatly appreciated when others take notice of problem pages and tag them for further review. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very very much
Thank you for saying you love the page 60 Minutes, much appreciated!!!!!!!!!! -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Love the page."
Unfortunately, your perspective on this has been challenged already.

Please see Talk:60 Minutes.

Thanks again for your earlier polite and helpful suggestions there,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned you at 60 Minutes
UDScott, I mentioned you at Talk:60_Minutes.

I said you and I would love to hear suggestions from about additional quotes to add to the page 60 Minutes.

I hope I wasn't too presumptuous on your part.

Cheers,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Shannon Sharpe
Thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
I have clarified the sources of the text from Sarvajna and Madhvacharya to the resepctive talk pages. Please see for any suitable restoration to the main articles.--Nvvchar (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, now I understand what you were trying to do. I've moved he quotes back and formatted the pages. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent removal
Hello. Yes the reason to remove references from JW sources is that they are flooding wikiquote with references to their publications. Do you think that you have to use Awake! to get the source of a quote of Pierre de Coubertain? It doesn't make any sense. Just check how many times Awake! or Watchtower are used as reference. Please, undo the reversion. Regards.--Fjsalguero (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If these are not valid sources for the quotes, then one of two things should happen: (1) Remove the source and move the quote to the Talk page of the article pending proper sourcing or (2) Remove the source and replace it with a proper source. I was not aware that these were not proper sources, but if so, they should be replaced. What should not happen is to just strip them and leave the quotes without a source (if this is done, the quotes will likely be deleted). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that.--Fjsalguero (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Page lock
Thanks for locking that page, but you must know that this IP is trolling for over weeks not only here but also on other wikipedia pages for the promotion of his spam links. Might be better if this page has been locked for months, and allow only established users to edit. Justicejayant (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will watch to see how the page edits continue - my intent for that short lock was to halt the immediate edit war and allow time to put the page into a better state. Should the edit warring continue, I will impose a longer block. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It can be seen already. That this obsessional edit warrior is actually ready to edit war every single second/minute, by the history of the page Bhagavad Gita, you must impose a block for non-registered users, for about 5 months. Thanks . Justicejayant (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)