User talk:Zarbon/archive1

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~&#126;) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

The Sopranos
I understand that you have added much of the material on this page, but a couple of comments: I removed the dividers because they didn't belong there without quotes between them - I have no idea when you were planning on adding such quotes. Why not just add the dividers when you add the text? Also, please take a look at the Talk page - I added a checkcopyright tag because there are way too many quotes per episode on this page. The amount of quotes per episode needs to be in single digits, not the 20 or so that some episodes currently have. Thanks. ~ UDScott 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the page right now and adding more. I need the dividers while I am working. I've been doing it like that for years now. Please leave it while I finish adding quotes. And what do you mean about the quotes...the more I add, the better. - Zarbon


 * No, actually, the more you add, the more we are likely to have a copyright issue. The rule of thumb here has been to have less than 10 quotes per episode for a given TV show so as to not represent a copyright violation. Feel free to post any comments you have about that at the Sopranos Talk page, but this has occurred with other shows as well, and there are several trimming efforts underway. I would expect that the quotes shown on The Sopranos will soon be trimmed as well. If you would rather not have someone else do this trimming, perhaps you would like to selectively edit the number of quotes down. ~ UDScott 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoah. I spent hours adding all that. I'll add the copyright if you're too lazy to do so yourself. And what does that matter...the same copyright info is all over wikipedia. Isn't it just a matter of cut and paste? And there is about 10-15 quotes per ep either way. Please don't take out stuff as it would detriment from the overall value. Some episodes have less than ten, to make up for that. Why all of a sudden with this? Nothing was brought up regarding any of this before...and it's been like that for years. - Zarbon


 * OK, now you are trying my patience. There's no need to say that I am lazy about anything - far from it. I'd be happy to do the trimming myself, but I thought I would offer you the opportunity to do so. There is no "copyright" that you can add to the page to make it acceptable to add as many quotes as you like. The point is that The Sopranos is a copyrighted work and as such it is NOT ok to use too much of it on a site such as this. If we allow this kind of behavior, the end result is likely to be that the site is shut down (as the French Wikiquote was once for this same issue). The end result of this is that this page must have its amount of quotes trimmed. See Copyrights for more information, and follow links there to information about Fair Use. I'm not trying to be harsh about this, but it is a legal matter that must be taken seriously. ~ UDScott 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait! I didn't mean you were being lazy about trimming down. I don't want to trim down at all, neither do I want you to do it since I spent a long time gathering. I only meant that you should find the necessary means to somehow help me contain the information without having to get rid of any of it. I looked at the amount I have. Some eps have 8 quotes. Some have 5. Some have 15. It evens out in the end since we are allowed 10 for each episode...if you know what I mean. - Zarbon


 * The point is that there isn't anything I can do to allow more than acceptable fair use of a copyrighted work. There are no "necessary means" to allow all of what is currently on the page to remain. The figure of less than 10 quotes per episode is not an average, but a discreet limit - i.e. you can't have 20 quotes from one episode, and 2 quotes from two other episodes and say that it is an average of 8 for the three episodes. It doesn't work that way. Each episode should contain less than 10 quotes. I'm sure that will be frustrating to you, as you have gathered a lot of material, but I can't change how copyright laws are written. ~ UDScott 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't change the way they are written. However, you can turn the right cheek and not enforce them. If one page doesn't contend to that stature, it won't damage the rest of wikiquote. What I'm trying to say is, do me the favor. It was too much of a grueling process collecting all that and it would kill me to see it done away with just to comply to that set order. You can make this small exception. - Zarbon


 * Allow me to jump in here with four points:
 * Before opposing deletion of Wikiquote material due to potential copyright violations, please read Copyrights and Wikiquote talk:Copyrights to see why this is important. We have an informal guideline of 3-5 quotes per episode, with rare episodes having 8, but even this does not that guarantee we are safe from copyright concerns.
 * Also note that every single episode is a copyrighted work, so we can't simply be parsimonious in several episodes to allow us to quote one episode extensively.
 * There are many more editors who don't care about copyright violations than those who do, which is why so many of our articles (especially for TV shows) are in danger of copyright violation, whether they are tagged or not. Because of this, the community is starting to get serious about arbitrary deletion of material purely for the sake of limiting copyright problems when the regular editors of an article show little inclination to police it themselves.
 * We have, on several occasions, earned the wrath of senior folks like Jimbo Wales, whose has responded to our failure to enforce copyright guidelines by simply blanking articles. This is a warning to the project that it risks being shutdown. Editors who show an active interest in violating copyright guidelines as loose as ours are not helping the community.
 * We can save everyone a lot of pain if we use the 3-5-8 rule of thumb and asking ourselves, when we want to add a quote, whether it is worth deleting an existing quote to make room for it. Wherever this careful consideration appears not to be in effect, editors are welcome to perform even drastic surgery to an article, as long as it is identified (in the edit summaries and/or the talk page) as anti-copyvio reduction. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of info for my brain to process right now. I was just assuming that EVERY single page wouldn't have to conform to that limited guideline. Seriously, wholeheartedly, and honestly, by the removal of all that information, it would detriment from the overall value of the page. By reducing the info, we'd be destroying the overall appeal. Like I said, one page wouldn't hurt if it had a little more than others. - Zarbon


 * All pages should conform to copyright law. Each and every one that doesn't is a potential vulnerable to legal suits, which the Wikimedia Foundation will not tolerate. You have been told in many different ways how this is a problem, and why it won't be tolerated. If you continue to demonstrate a refusal to accept Wikiquote policies when editing The Sopranos or other articles that have been identified as likely copyvios, I will replace the content of the entire article with a copyvio tag, which requires that the entire article be recreated from scratch or deleted.


 * I suggest you stop arguing for special exemptions and try to adhere to Wikiquote policies. The handful of editors who attempt to reduce our exposure cannot spend this much time arguing over each article we run into with recalcitrant editors. Please do not make our attempts to stay legal so difficult. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Zarbon, I have to be frank with you: a refusal to follow our policies and copyright laws is a way to get yourself blocked, possibly indefinitely. Whole projects have gotten closed down because of a lack of respect for copyright laws, we will not let them happen because of individual editors, we will protect the projects and its legal status.  I would also suggest that you not ask an administrator to look the other way or turn his cheek when you break a policy, it gives a bad vibe.  Cbrown1023  talk  03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, I do not want any bad vibes, any problems, or anything else of that nature. I just want to adhere to the rules but somehow find a way to have the quotations not limited to that 10 set rule for each episode. I'm thinking that there must be a way. Maybe contacting Jimbo Wales and discussing this with him, etc. because retracting and deleting, etc. is really a tough solution. What's the point in having a stabilized operation if its going to be limited, at best. Again, I am not making legal offences or anything else like that. I'm just wondering that since this page was like this for two years thanks to me, what made these folk come and argue about its stability with copyvio and whatnot. Why now...all of a sudden. It's as if I posted again and someone just noticed the page. Honestly, I think if I didn't start re-adding to the sixth season, that nobody would have even noticed this and tagged it and what not. I'm just asking for help on this matter since I just learned about it like 2 days ago. If need be, would any of you want to help me take this matter against the guideline, meaning contact Wales or anyone else responsible, in order to increase the allowed amount for each episode to approx. 30 instead of max 10? What steps need be taken, etc. to ensure this. Again, just by dismissing the apparent, we'd only be following and making no changes to the pre-existing guidelines. Maybe we'd actually be doing something worthwhile if we tried to elongate these pages with quotations rather than detract from them. Again, for the last time, let me say that I mean no disrespect, nor do I want to be banned. I only implore you, my friends, to at least consider what I am saying. - Zarbon

Block notice
I have blocked this user account for 1 week for persistent violation of anti-copyright violation practices after several warnings by multiple sysops. The user has demonstrated no awareness of, understanding of, or care about why these practices are in place, even suggesting that we take the issue to Jimbo Wales, the very person who came down on us (correctly!) for not doing a better job policing copyright issues. I hold little hope that we can encourage this user to accept these practices as the minimum necessary, but I invite them to try again to work with the community, acceptably, when the block is lifted. If this behavior persists after that, however, this account will be blocked permanently. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked this account early because Zarbon appears to be working (as an anon editor) to reduce the potential copyvio problem with The Sopranos. I'm happy to be wrong about my "little hope". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I caused confusion prior. I'm working hard cutting down the 30 odd quotes i added with only 10 for each ep. I will work very hard to bring it to the status. Thanks again for the early unblock. I will try my best to comply with guidelines. - Zarbon


 * Also consider when editing that good Wikiquote articles benefit from the contributions of many folks. If you fill up an article with the maximum recommended (and 10 is still probably excessive) with your own favorites, you discourage further additions or at least force others to remove some to make way for theirs. I had that problem myself with Mystery Science Theater 3000, which I created from scratch, then had to prune back because I was as guilty as anyone of excessive quoting. None of us is perfect, but we can hope to encourage each other to try to achieve the project's goals. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ), which adds a timestamp to your signature. This is essential in some contexts, and is highly desirable anywhere signatures are made. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for too heat wording on several talks. Please note Wikiquote is a collection of quotations, not an internet forum or a mere battlefield. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Aphaia 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) My whole point to this, Zarbon who lives in New York, is that YOU will never change, and I shall bring out the demon in you. That is all! Wiki-star
 * Wiki-star: Look, no one's a threat! Zarbond, I mean Zarbon, these pages will continue to be protected this way if you continue to use unofficial versions. Just buy the damn dvd and we can get on with our gay lives! I'm a better person now and i don't resort to sockpuppetry like you did before. Just leave those fixes, so we can stop this bitter brawl. Wiki-star
 * I have all the dvd's. I have the original NTSC versions. I swear to all that is holy, the character says the word "semen", not "men". The reason why I added that quote in particular was because of the word, otherwise, it wouldn't have even been noteworthy. If you don't believe me, you can go back and check it out yourself. I am currently awaiting the release of season 6 part 2 at the time so I can add it to my collection. Also, on another note, it may be relevant to know that most of the material that is printed on the subtitles themselves are incorrect. The subtitles don't come close to the exact quotation range of the verbalization on the show. Most of the subtitles are also incorrect, to note. An example of this would be a character saying the word "you". The word you is pronounced "ya" in the show. So that's the way it will be recorded, not the way the subtitles give it, since the subtitles are for the most part incorrect. This may be irrelevant, but Brendan Filone is my alltime favorite character, just to comment since you added that bit about the show not being the same since his demise. About the dbz article, the correct verbalization is smash because to smash is to break through whereas to crush is to squash under. It doesn't matter what sounds better, it's what fits the correct situation. On another note, I don't want to have an edit war with you. And you should know that I don't want to be cursed at, so that really isn't nice of you to say verbal attacks as you did prior. The reason why I reverted is because I am positive, not because I want to have an edit war. You seem to want to have an edit war and you keep saying you want me to revert so that you can have me banned...which to me makes no sense, since there's absolutely no gain from getting me banned at all. Also, point out to me where you see more than ten quotes and I will delete them. I counted for every single episode that there are ten quotes. Bare in mind that a quote is separated with the page breaks, so even a long segment of conversation is considered one quote. For example, a quote can be three sentences or a huge paragraph long depending on the length of the conversation. I re-checked about a hundred times already to make sure that each episode has ten quotes maximum and total. In no way does it have to be less than this as was already discussed prior and agreed upon in the past. Please provide information in which episode you saw more than ten quotes. Wiki-Star, the reason why I banned you from Frieza Force was because of the catastrophic spam you created prior. I am willing to allow you to come back one last time as long as you don't create spam, vandalise, curse, and open spam topics. Let me know your ip and I will unblock you as long as you promise to be like everyone else and not spam there and not vandalize the pages and revert here. - Zarbon 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki-star: I ain't telling you ip shit!!! My ip, go ask for someone else's ip, not mine. Screw your forum, I bet you pratically created all of the accounts there. You don't even know who I truly am, do you? Two words, Zarbond, two words, and take a good guess on this one. I'm not tellin' you who I am. Do you actually think that I'm the original Wiki-star? Ha ha ha ha! Of course, you know who the original wiki-star was and who I really am! Oh, you are wrong on two other things:
 * 1) Carmela says "men", not "semen", I have the episodes on the DVD box
 * 2) You are not a person of your word, on Wikipedia, you asked to be unblocked and Yamla declined it


 * I have blocked Wiki-star for 3 days after his resumption of editing involved the above rant, having failed to heed Aphaia's advice to both of you to calm down. I ask that you try not to follow his example, and appreciate that your own return-to-editing involved specific content issues and no name calling (although I hope you two don't plan to use WQ to get into a long non-WQ discussion about Frieza Force administrative issues). I would personally prefer not to get involved in an accuracy dispute in The Sopranos, as I have no interest in it except to avoid copyvio problems. But if you two cannot resolve these issues amicably on its talk page, you can ask for help at Village pump (for general community help) or Administrators' noticeboard (for admin help) and I or someone else will try to assist. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand you concerns on your own website, but I expect you realize it an off topic here. Also I appreciate your effort to trim the articles, but "up to 10" doesn't mean necessarily you can put always 10 quotes for every episode. This issue was brought up on WQ:VP around what is "pithy", and experienced editors show their disfavor toward too long dialogues. It implies a dialogue itself may have a limit of length, not depending how many dialogues are picked up from an episode. If you are interested in this issue, please give a look to the related discourses. Cheers, --Aphaia 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I am following wiki consensus here and I will never stop following the rules. However, I am forewarning about this person because as you can see, his sole purpose is to follow me around (hound me in other words) and revert my contributions. This should be handled with caution as this person just doesn't follow guideline. He even admits that he only wants to bring my downfall, etc. - Zarbon 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki-star: I'm so sorry about before! please, i'll be good. so I fixed a spelling error or two on Sopranos. its not protected! yay! and hey, Zarbond, when do i ever "hound" you up? please provide a link so the whole Wikiquote world can see! Zarbond (sry, almost ev'ry time i try to type yo name it mostly comes up Zarbond, there you see?! there it goes again!! arhhh! i need $$$ for betterkeyboard) i'm apologizin, etc., about our bitch fighting on wikipedia. as i told you, my friends can be real assholes, copying me and all creating sockpupet accounts. Well then buds! i shall go, go, go and fix, fix, fix those artikles, artikles, artikles. Wiki-star
 * You are still vandalising the articles. Please do not change the words. Even the subtitles do not say what you are doing. You are forcing me to take action again. Please do not abuse my name or any of the articles by vandalising them. If you were sorry, you wouldn't continue to vandalise. - Zarbon 19:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation
Hello welcome back to editing. I'd recommend you to have a break, boil coffee and find something yummy, and read one of our guideline draft for a while. You may find there accepted wisdom of the community how you can resist when someone who annoys you. Also, it would be helpful for you to make the sight a bit more broader; since the user in question caused a trouble on the other article you are not involved into editing, it would be a bit simple view he has been around there *only* to embarrass you. I expect it was not what you meant, but it sounds like you just thought so, I'm afraid. Take it easy. --Aphaia 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aphaia, this may be hard for you to believe. I swear to you that this vandaliser has been following me around and practically ruining all the contributions. There is absolutely no difference from what he was doing on wikipedia. As I stated earlier, this is one of his minimum of ten user names he has abused under. I am warning again because I can fully bet that he will continue to revert the additions and contributions I have made. I don't need to take a break, I know full well that I am not breaking any rules. The only rule I may be breaking in this process is the 3RR, of which I am being forced to break because of this vandaliser's incessant vandalism. I can't put continued effort into keeping an article safe from vandalism if some administrators won't help me. I am trying my best to spread the word about this vandaliser. He is not only a vandaliser, but also a heavy sockpuppeteer, a liar, and a spammer. By spam I am definitively referring to his posts of pornography. If you don't believe me, just check out his user contribs and you will see that just recently, he posted another link to a porn site as he has been doing on wikipedia for well over a long time. For further evidence, please inquire me for proof. However, please don't tell me to calm down when I know for a fact that I have done absolutely nothing wrong but prevented the pages from vandalism. Just recently, he has come back and vandalised the page forcing me to revert again. He is completely vandalising and you may not know any of the shows to sustain proof of his vandalism. However, I can provide you with any necessary proof from any of these shows to prove to you that he is vandalising the quoations, which I might add, I have added exactly word for word. Now, don't get me wrong, I too am well aware that it's important to maintain a good community, etc. But please bare in mind that this is impossible if a vandaliser such as this person goes around edit warring and vandalising articles. - Zarbon 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Job
You're doing a great job on the DBZ Wikiquote pages. Those pages are looking good. I used to watch that show, but I guess I have stopped for good. Well anyways, just wanted to let you know how good of a job you are doing. Cheers, H*bad 18:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi wiki-star. It's nice to see you using more sockpuppets. (sarcasm) Thanks again for your encouragement and I hope you don't plan on vandalising the pages. - Zarbon 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh right the star in my name. Yeah that derives from: (H)ome(star(*)) Runner and Strong (Bad) from the Homestar Runner website.--H*bad 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure it does. And I'm a monkey's uncle. (sarcasm again) I already know you have another sockpuppet name as well. The one you keep pretending to be at the same time so you can prepare to revert using two different names in two different ip addresses. It's sad really, considering you will eventually be banned for creating ten user names. - Zarbon 18:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I have now lost interest in this.... so yeah. Since you can just ask people at like Wikia, Wikipedia, etc. Yeah, ask any of them there, and they will tell you who I am. If you really feel that I am sockpuppet put in a complaint about me to a sysop.--H*bad 18:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Can you do me a favor. Please leave my talk page alone and stop abusing and vandalizing my contributions. You keep going to different computers and creating accounts. I know way too well. And your join date is almost immediately after wiki-star's banning. The fact that you even come to my user page is a dead giveaway. Please, do not respond here. I do not want to hear it, especially from sockpuppets. - Zarbon 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't appreciate being called a liar. I came to your page because I noticed your work on the DBZ pages. I am sorry if my name causes confusion. I will offer you a cop out, I will ask one of the admins to check my IP.--H*bad 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your ip is obviously different, taking into consideration you are using a completely different computer. I already know all of your ip addresses and I can more than easily give them away. At this point, you have well over twenty ip addresses under your name. Please just leave my page alone. Please stop coming to my talk page. Please. - Zarbon 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Not got time now but will find a minute tomorrow - regards -- Herby talk thyme 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks in advance Herbythyme. - Zarbon 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet alert
''there's another wiki-star sockpuppet running around again. It's YogaKing34. All the same types of vandalisms done by wiki-star, completely vandalising pages with curse words and nonsense. - Zarbon 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)''

''I have to point out that the puppet master is Wiki-star and these sockpuppet attempts are becoming very annoying already. - Zarbon 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)''


 * Thanks for the notice, but I had already blocked this vandal. I would also like to assert that there is really no need to presume that any vandalism spree is being caused by any particular vandal. Their activities identify them as very small-minded and foolish nuisances, and there is usually no need to identify them or attempt to identify them much beyond that, whatever usernames they might choose to abuse. ~ Kalki 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently posted this message to Poetic Decay‎'s user page


 * I would like to point out that this Taracka is a major vandalizer and has many other names. He was banned simultaneously on wikipedia numerous, countless times and is doing the same gibberish here on wikiquote. More of his banned sockpuppets include H*Bad12345, Taracka, YogaKing34, Frieza-Bomber, Taracka #2, General Cui, Count Raznagul, Krinzad, Myer Link, 63.215.29.129, 24.3.28.181, Wiki-star #1, 209.2.4.94, and 207.210.105.194. At the time, I know of three of his sockpuppets that still haven't been banned yet, along with the other bunch of names that have been permanently banned. Three of his currently used sockpuppets are Wiki-star, Frieza, and Master Batour. The administrators are being very careless for not banning the rest of his sockpuppets along with banning his numerous ip's. - Zarbon 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Though it might be an entirely false impression, you have sometimes seemed to be working as more of a time-wasting publicity agent for these time-wasting idiots than as a sincerely concerned user. Aside from the name Master Batour, which has too little history here to clearly have reason to block, and no history at all that I found on Wikipedia, the only one of these names that was registered here that had not been blocked was Wiki-star. I have now blocked this username, as the edit history, and blocked account elsewhere is sufficient to make a fairly reliable assessment that the account was created primarily to engage in or participate in vandal activity. The vandal was careful to make some useful edits and to usually conform to most of the rules sufficiently to avoid previously being permanently blocked here; as you have also done, as well. But I must point out that your username is one that has been blocked at Wikipedia as disruptive or disregarding of normal wiki procedures, and by the criteria that you have been invoking against the non-activity of these as yet largely non-existent accounts, you too should be blocked. Though this might be taken as evidence that a general suspicion regarding your lack of sincerity might be justified, it could also mean that you are simply overzealous in some other ways that shouldn't yet matter much here, and I won't jump to conclusions or take any as yet unnecessary actions. ~ Kalki 05:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

even more sockpuppets
''Hello again Jeffq. You mentioned in the wolf3d chat that these sockpuppets are best left to deal with by sysops. The problem is that I'm not seeing them dealt with thoroughly. For this many administrators not to be able to handle some simple sockpuppets is becoming excessively annoying. For one, it's more than obvious that they are all sockpuppets since the same user is using the same sockpuppet names from wikipedia. You can go ahead and run an ip check to confirm the validity of my accusations. I know it may not be in my place to make these accusations, but for one thing, please don't tell me not to make accusations when I know full well a sockpuppet when I see one. All you have to do is look at his user pages. They're a dead giveaway and it's completely irritating me knowing for a fact that the same person is going around with over ten names right now and nothing is being done to stop him. - Zarbon 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)''


 * What I realize is that you are causing more traffic that any of these supposed sockpuppets, to the extent that I imagine some of my fellow sysops are beginning to wonder if you're not one of these sockpuppets yourself. (We frequently get vandal sockpuppetry in which someone carries on heated arguments with himself to provoke other editors into rash actions.) I still believe that you are an earnest video-game enthusiast who appears to have a problem with a tag-along editor who enjoys provoking you, a troll whom you continue to feed by allowing yourself to be provoked. I understand your frustration, but repeated posts to multiple editors' talk pages for every incident that occurs tends to have the opposite effect that you apparently expect.


 * I believe Wikiquote is currently experiencing a crisis of community confidence in its methods for analyzing problems, as evidenced by the signficant drop in the regular editors' participation in most administrative issues. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to focus purely on urgent project-wide problems (like blocking vandals that are truly obvious because of the actual content of their edits, not just conjecture, however suggestive) and general article editing. I can assure you that all active sysops watch Administrators' noticeboard. This is the single best place to raise such issues. I apologize if we are not dealing with your problem in a more timely and thorough fashion, but everyone here is a volunteer, and we're doing what we can at the moment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks again for the response and moreso for the advice. I will bring this up at the administrators' noticeboard from now on so as to allow numerous admins to come see it instead of replying to separate admins. Again, I want to maintain the best community, without any sockpuppets and vandals running around and disrupting our contributions. Thanks again. - Zarbon 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrogating sysop actions
Zarbon, I want to make clear to you why your actions to strike votes on VfD are arrogating sysop actions. In general, no users should ever edit others' posts. Even sysops should avoid this whenever possible. It is the height of rudeness on a wiki, at least within Wikimedia-dom. People often get blocked for being this rude.

The only reason we even allow sysops to strike posts on VfD is when we can prove, through the page's edit history, that a vote was forged, or that someone voted twice. The community expects sysops, who are trusted to take extreme actions, to take the heat for any potential problems with this violence to another person's post. You are not a sysop. Furthermore, you seem to be unable or unwilling to recognize the difference between proof and circumstantial evidence. It is not possible to know if a person is a sockpuppet. But it is possible, because of MediaWiki software features, to know that editor XYZ made such-and-such an edit. Only in these cases do the sysops feel justified in striking votes. Having only sysops do this reduces the possibility of passionate editors (like yourself) engaging in striking wars over unprovable assertions.

You may think that editing patterns, timing, and even editor statements "prove" that two or more editors are sockpuppets of each other. You would be wrong. Many of the more sophisticated wiki vandals actively probe the limits of our ability to accumulate circumstantial evidence to assert beyond a reasonable doubt that editors are sockpuppets. These people regularly work to get sysops to overreact on such evidence by adopting the writing styles of other known vandals, timing their edits to make innocent users look like sockpuppets, and performing other kinds of mayhem. There have been angry battles on Wikipedia over friends, family, and roommates sharing IP addresses that get some of them unfairly blocked, not to mention the huge problem of ISPs like AOL who indiscriminately assign IPs, making blocking of disrupters extremely problematic. There are many other ways the "bad guys" take advantage of the limitations of our ability to know whose on the other end of the connection, and of our firm principle to protect the privacy of every editor, even the unfriendly ones.

In the face of all this, the simple tactic of limited response is by far the preferred approach to handling difficult editors. Thus we strike provable forgeries, but only discount (NOT strike) votes from ballot stuffers and others not really involved with Wikiquote. Like many things in Wikiquote, not all of these practices are well-documented, but sysops are expected to learn these things. When you take it upon yourself to go beyond our practices, you become more of a problem to us than the editors trying to do harm.

Speaking of documentation, all editors participating in Votes for deletion are expected to read Deletion policy, as it says in bold at the top of the page. Many people ignore this basic requirement, so if they fail to follow the process or interfere with it, they should not be surprised if we come down hard on them. In your case, I should not have had to explain to you the information given under "Decision policy", especially in how to deal with suspected sockpuppets. (Notice that I, a sysop, still added explicit comments under the votes I struck in Votes for deletion/Wolfenstein 3D. This is what I meant in the edit summary of my reversion of your strikes by "striking is never acceptable w/o explicit justifications in text". Non-sysops are expected to post such comments — with evidence, not just assertions — not strike votes themselves.)

It is a cardinal rule of wiki etiquette that if you're going to push an issue, especially with experienced wikians, you'd better read the policies and practices behind the issue before taking bold action. And you absolutely need to learn to stop extrapolating your own views of what these policies imply, as you did by suggesting that my statement that sysops implicitly discounting votes upon VfD closure somehow justifies you explicitly striking other editors votes. I hope my above explanation makes clear why this is not the case. These are more than just nuances; they speak to basic respect for one's fellow editors and an assumption of good faith, even in the face of questionable edits.

Finally, I must tell you that I have neither the time nor the desire to keep writing these long explanations about your misinterpretations. You have shown yourself to be a conscientious editor when you focus on the material and follow the guidelines we have. Please consider how to engage editors instead of criticizing them, ask questions of seasoned editors instead of being dismissive of them, and above all, stop trying to follow up every single post with an explanation of why you said or did this, and what everyone should be doing. Wikiquotians tend to do a lot more article editing that discussion posting (my own current behavior notwithstanding), so folks that simply must have the last word often get it — because people stop listening to them, let alone responding. Just let your work show who you are and what you bring to Wikiquote, and you'll find people will take you more seriously and thoughtfully. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about any sysop actions earlier. I promise not to do any more. Thanks again for telling me in advance because I didn't personally know about sysop myself. I do have the longstanding desire to continue being a conscientious editor and I will try to focus on the work itself and let that speak for itself without having to get into insubordination of sysop policy. Admittedly, it was one of the reasons that I was banned on wikipedia originally. As you can see, I am of strong conviction when it comes to bringing the pages to their zenith with the proper material. I will continue to be this reliable editor without interference with sysop issues. Much thanks again for your time to explain this to me. - Zarbon 05:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If i may just say that i came here because I cliked on the wikiquote link at Wikipedia. And I saw that there are too much quotes all over here and unless they get deleted to prevent copyright lawsuits i must encourage deletion. User:Link started all this in the first there, so there. Sk8terhata

Stop unsupported accusations or be blocked
Zarbon, I believe your constant accusations of socketpuppetry without cited evidence have become much more of a problem for the Wikiquote community than any actual problems coming from the accused users. This latest supposed sockpuppet, Sk8terhata, may not be operating within some Wikiquote guidelines, but this is not unusual for new users. We assume good faith unless and until they clearly demonstrate it is not warranted, and you have established yourself as a person who definitely should avoid making this determination. I found no obvious evidence of a WP user name "Sk8terhata", either from a user page, contributions or in the logs, and you have provided no actual evidence, merely accusations.

Logically, there are five possibilities for any new WQ users with banned WP names:
 * 1) Their arrival here is complete coincidence. This is usually very unlikely, but it happens.
 * 2) They are trying to rehabilitate their account name with good work on another wiki. This is somewhat more common. Wikiquote is prepared to allow this if they are careful to learn and follow all policies and practices.
 * 3) They intend to cause problems on Wikiquote. This is very common, and we watch for this activity. These users are almost always blocked here because of what they do here. In the occasional situations where they cause more subtle harm, we investigate and cite evidence when blocking them. We do not simply react to unsupported accusations.
 * 4) They come here to provoke a Wikiquote user who provides them great entertainment over how angry they get. This only works if their target blows up easily. I have warned you about this in the past.
 * 5) They are actually sockpuppets of the supposed victim, trying to provoke sysops. We frequently see this problem. I've thought this to be unlikely in your case, but the longer this goes on and the more you continue to overreact after many warnings, the more I suspect this could true.

The next time you accuse someone on any page of being a sockpuppet of a banned user without assembling and citing specific evidence in that accusation, I am prepared to block you for 1 week for disruptive editing. By evidence, I mean: This is the kind of evidence we need to justify blocking users that have not made edits that are specifically in violation of WQ policies. Ordinarily sysops assemble this information ourselves, but your frequent accusations and my diminishing trust in your judgment and ability to learn from advice lead me to insist that you do your homework on these accusations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki-links to the banned username(s)
 * Links to sysop actions that explain why the user was banned (e.g., external link to WP block log entry; external link to specific talk-page sysop post announcing the ban)
 * Detailed description of why user X is likely to be a sockpuppet of user Y (e.g., suspicious interleaved timing of users' edits; similar writing styles; etc. — be specific about what times and what is similar)


 * The fact that he just tried to create a vote for deletion to the dbz page and say not to do 3rr. It's like the only thing he did. vandals share the same characteristics over and over. you are giving him firepower by telling me that. I'm in the middle of editing right now, that's why I don't want to get into a debate about this. I emailed you personally so as not to create more confusion here. - Zarbon 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Another block notice
Zarbon, I have blocked your account for 1 week because you replaced Votes for deletion/Dragon Ball Z with a claim that the nominator, Sk8terhata, did this as "vandalism". First, this is not vandalism, which has a very specific meaning within Wikimedia. Second, no one — not even sysops — is permitted to simply blank or otherwise invalidate a VfD nomination. These must run their full period unless a sysop determines that the nomination was in bad faith, or should otherwise be closed early, and even they must provide specific evidence of how they determined this. I had already warned you about arrogating sysop actions, and had just registered a block warning based on your other activities, so this was the last straw. As before, I hope that when the block is lifted, you will actually demonstrate your stated desire not to engage in these excessive actions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel sorry for you Zarbon about before and i wanna make it up to you. Friends from now on after you are not blocked? Better to be friends than bad guys against each other. lol. i'll be seeing you. Sk8terhata 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock notice & some recommendations
I'm sure you'll be pleased to see that I have (finally!) unblocked your account.

I would caution you, however, to please try be more civil with your fellow editors. I know you had serious problems with the sockpuppets of IDENTITYCONFIRM and Wiki-star, but we ask all editors to assume good faith with each apparently different user. This not only avoids angering perfectly innocent people who merely disagree with you, but it also tends to slow the escalation of sockpuppets, as the talk pages provide ample evidence that they, not you, are engaged in trollish behaviors. (One of the reasons you were suspected of being a malicious sockpuppet yourself was that you seemed to be just as anxious to escalate the problems as the others were. Veteran wiki editors are more easily recognized as those who keep their cool and avoid giving trolls the satisfaction of "getting their goat".)

I also ask that you try to be more careful about what people are telling you, and what you have told them. You have a history of interpreting others' posts as malicious, while refusing to acknowledge the accusatory nature of your own posts. (One example: your exchange with UDScott above, in which you clearly suggested he was lazy because he did not do the work he suggested you, as a regular editor of the article, do, and then tried to backtrack after he took understandable offense. This is hardly an isolated example.) I highly recommend that you consider, when you post to another person, how you would feel if someone wrote those words to you.

Finally, I must insist that you stop refusing to follow the Wikiquote policies and practices that we have frequently advised you of. For example, some issues like copyright-violation avoidance are non-negotiable. The fact that we don't have enough anti-copyvio editors working to fix these problems is not only not an excuse to ignore this policy, it is a call for regular editors of all articles to take personal responsibility for avoiding these copyvio problems. When article editors don't do this, as you have refused to do in the past, it obligates others like UDScott and myself to ruthlessly slash down the articles. (And when outside editors do it, the results are unavoidably far worse for the subjects' fans than if they had done the work themselves.) If we do not, the Wikimedia Foundation can (and has in the past) come in and deleted the articles, and we can't complain because we are in obvious violation of Foundation policy. This problem is so serious that we can and will block editors who routinely fail to follow recommendations to avoid copyvios.

Please remember that Wikiquote is not, and cannot be, the primary place for fans of a subject to find every quote they want, any more than Wikipedia can serve as a fan website for all subject information. Wikiquote's goal is to collect a very limited, special set of original, pithy, well-sourced quotations from its subjects. The fact that many of our articles do not meet these expectations is, again, not an excuse to make the problem worse, but a call to encourage everyone to make it better. Of all the Wikimedia projects, Wikiquote is most vulnerable to closure by Foundation action because its material is by definition almost always copyrighted, and must therefore be very, very selective. We simply must follow basic rules about inclusion and selection, and anyone who refuses to do so endangers the entire project.

If you have any questions about this, or further advice about any issues, feel free to ask them on my talk page. Thank you for your attention. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like your input at Village pump
Greetings Zarbon,

Since you commented in the VfD debates that got me thinking about the need for such guidelines, I'd like your thoughts on the goal for which they should be crafted and the shape that they should take to reach that goal. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, you raised some important points. Cheers again! BD2412 T 03:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Last-name-first redirects.
Hey Zarbon, I have started created last-name-first redirects for entries (e.g. Johnson, Andrew), as people may look them up that way. Since you make a lot of new biographical entries, you may want to do that to (although if you don't, I'll try to get to them eventually). Cheers! BD2412 T 07:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Armenia
Hi! I deleted your category. It's quite superfluous; everyone in it was in the category for Armenians, and of course there are also categories for political leaders and military leaders. If you wish to disagree, please give me a shout. And of course, well done on all your articles.-- Poetlister 15:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'll post this to WQ:VP for further discussion if that's OK.-- Poetlister 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to create a hassle, I just want to have a category to work with. Is "Armenian Military" a better clarification? I need a separate category if I am to add more people, because I was working on adding more and if I am to add more from each government, I need a specific clarification for each one, not a racial clarification or an occupational clarification, but a timeline clarification. The only way I can clarify this further is by using this term. I mean, it's the term that is being used on wikipedia to describe all the people under the category, hence why I need it. But, I'd appreciate if you'd let me know if I can use the category or not, I really don't want to wait for an answer or further deliberation. - Zarbon 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cato's CU bid.
I think you should consider voting on Cato's CU nomination - Jeff Q has noted in his own vote there that Cato's intervention is part of the reason you are able to edit under your username today. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and done bro. Thanks again for letting me know. - Zarbon 23:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

QOTD suggestions
While it has never yet been proposed as an absolute requirement, ever since the ranking procedures were begun as a means of selecting "Quotes of the day" in 2005, it has been a strongly recommended standard of practice that suggestions should normally have some clear relation to the date (or to recent notable events such as the death of someone famous). This impels some level of necessary discipline in their selection and helps to prevent a continual flood of casually chosen, random or repetitious suggestions for each day of the year, as has apparently begun to occur with some of yours, where quotes unrelated to date were suggested by you for several of the recent days, some of them identical to suggestions made for the previous days. While there is never any guarantee that any quote will be used, there is far more likelihood of them being preferred and eventually selected if there is some strong relation to the date which is made clear, such as, most commonly, the date of birth of the author. ~ Kalki 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and thanks for the heads up in general. Well, I will submit all the quotes for further dates and you can deliberate which to add when you feel that they be proper and in accordance at any time. Also, any of the quotes I list there, you can reference for further dates and use them later on, I assume that works out well for you since you can keep track of my submissions better that way. And if I do add a quote, I would either rank it a "3" or a "4" only. Thanks again for letting me know about the ranking procedures, when the system started, and furthermore, for the actual selective process. I'll let you handle which should be noted and when. Thanks again. - Zarbon 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotes of the Day and your POV
You seem to want QotD just to push your POV and vote 1 or 2 to all others' nominations just to feature your nominations. It is strongly annoying and disruptive. If you continue it, I foresee you are again considered as a persona non grata by this community.

Thank you for your consideration. --Aphaia 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about...? If you follow my votes well, you will see many 3's and 4's as well. Please look into it. I have only voted for January thus far. Wait until I finish the rest of the year, and you'll see that I vote 3 very frequently, amongst other things. The only place where your accusation holds any truth whatsoever is one day in September, one day in October, and one day in November. Aside from that, I am voting with personal preference and very careful thought, watch carefully for if you feel you need to accuse me of going towards "non grata from this community", then you will find what you say to hold absolutely no validity. Please look into my response furthermore, especially the response I gave to Kalki. If you can presume to commend people for their explanations, you should also use the same amount of enthusiasm to understand as to why I am trying to surface the number of quotes of recent. - Zarbon 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Formalisticly saying, your edits overwhelmed RC (without minor edit sign) and hinders the other editors do RC patrol, like a massive edit from bot account. Your editing way is being now very disruptive and worthy to place blocking in my opinion.

This is my last warning, if you don't change your way, you'll be blocked from editing temporally. Cheers, --Aphaia 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing unsourced quotes
On the April 28 page, you made the following note about an unsourced quotation you had suggested: "I can provide sources for all the quotes if they are necessary." Why, then, haven't you been doing so? Are you saying that you have been adding unsourced quotations to articles in spite of actually knowing the sources? - InvisibleSun 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it takes far too much hassle to write in every single source on every single quote which I have gathered, but I rest assured everyone that all the quotes are very accurate. I can add sources, but it's far too much of a hassle, still. I will provide exact sources for the quotes which I am proposing for QOTD because I didn't know that it was required in order for you to rate them properly. My mistake, of course. There are three quotes I really care more for than any out of all the quotes I have contributed to QOTD and I am seriously hoping that those three make it as QOTD, they are on September 22, October 4, and November 30. I am willing to take all prerequisite qualifications now in order to maintain the sources, especially for those three, so that they have a chance of making it and being rated properly by my dear fellow contributors, such as yourself, and Kalki alike. Thanks again for bringing this up InvisibleSun. Zarbon 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of this project is to provide sourced quotes! Anybody can come up with a bunch of quotes and post them on the internet, what makes this project worthwhile is that we provide a deep resource - dates and appearances of origin - for our quotes. BD2412 T 02:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the most part, MOST of the quotes are from The Nuremberg Interviews by Leon Goldensohn, Robert Gellately - History - 2004. That should be sufficient for now since I noted under each quote who they were being said to and when. If later each page number needs to be noted, I can go back and do that...but it would take a great deal of time so right now, I will provide the pages for the specific quotes I am giving in for QOTD. On another note, I would like to see your votes for QOTD as well BD2412. There should be many more members voting there instead of the pages dominated by a few votes. I'd like your input for some of the quotes I have brought for consideration. Zarbon 03:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more thoroughly with BD2412: providing sources for quotations is the very soul of this particular enterprise. It's an equivalent to the Wikipedia goal of factuality. If you were reading a Wikipedia article that did nothing to furnish evidence for its statements, would you say that it didn't matter because the editors were probably trustworthy?  Why should a reader of these articles be told to trust you or me or anyone else?  We provide them with the sources that will allow them to confirm what we have done.  These sources will also allow them, if they want to learn more, to know where to look for it. I see now that you are adding sources to the QOTD pages. What you are not doing is adding them to the articles themselves, which is where the sources belong.  This is the opposite of what needs to be done. If the sources are in the articles, they won't need to be on the QOTD pages. You have said that you find it a "hassle" to add sources.  You don't seem to find it a hassle to add them to the QOTD pages; if you can do the one, you can surely do the other.  As for finding it a chore to source quotations: well, those are the breaks. At least you already know your sources; it's just a matter of adding them. As far as sourcing goes, that's fairly easy work. Most Wikiquote contributors come here to add things; relatively few of them source what they add.  To my mind, that is the hassle.  - InvisibleSun 05:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken your words into strong consideration and I've sourced about half of the quotes already. I know that it's an essential and important factor to deciphering the derivations of the quotations. Zarbon 05:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add source citations where they belong
Please add source citations on the appropriate quote pages, where they belong, not on the quote of the day suggestion pages, where they are not directly needed. ~ Kalki 05:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know why you opened another topic for this...InvisibleSun and BD had already mentioned it...but I already stated that I will eventually get to it...AFTER I add the sources to the very few instances on the QOTD submissions. And I can't do that right now since it's like 2 in the morning where I am, so I am just going to finish the few quotes I have recently added to for the QOTD and I will eventually fixate and source all the quotes on their pages. But not right this instant. Zarbon 05:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My comment was only a brief one, but I began it before Invisible Sun posted his previous comment, and we seemed to have been reacting to the same observations: that of your energetically posting citations where they are not immediately necessary, rather than where you have previously been requested to post them if you had them, long before this recent spate of activity on the QOTD suggestion pages. I merely thought a request in reference to the new activity merited a new section, whereas the last section, when I began to type it, had been on the lack of citations, rather than the unnecessary misplacement of citations. ~ Kalki 05:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand what you meant...and I know that the sources belong on the pages. That much is obvious. But as a temporary vice, in order to prove the sourcing, just for QOTD, just for now...for the time being. I will eventually source all the quotes on the pages though. Thanks again for letting me know. Zarbon 05:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Zarbon! I apologize profusely for misunderstanding and believe that you are doing a great job on those DBZ Season articles.! Cheers! -- Ogma-Estanvo 15:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right! That's why you decided to vandalize the subpages right. Disgusting. Zarbon 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert War and obvious sockpuppets
''I don't know how to go about dealing with this problem. I pointed out to the vandalism section about this person. Frankly, I am disgusted and annoyed at this same person's behavior. Please see to it that the rest of his sockpuppet user names I stated there are blocked, along with his ip addresses, in order to prevent him from vandalizing the pages as well as abusing me as he has continued to do, and as I have complained about for a very long time. Zarbon 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)''
 * Though I have temporarily blocked 2 accounts which seem to be obviously engaged in multiple account abuse, I very likely won't have time to sort through all the edits of the editors you have suggested as sockpuppets today, and not all of the edits I've looked at are obvious vandalism or harrassment. I will be leaving for at least a brief period soon, and won't have time to get back to examine things immediately. ~ Kalki 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked the most clearly abusive accounts permanently and will probably do the same on the other 2 before their block expires.~ Kalki 17:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kalki. If he further creates more sockpuppets, I will be sure to bring them up. He has recently been doing the exact same on wikipedia right now. In the duration of this last two hours, he has created at least eight sockpuppets and wildly reverted many of the pages, the same way he has been showing this moronic activity here. Thanks again for dealing with this problem. I greatly appreciate your help. Zarbon 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Two other names associated with his vandalism are Hedorphian and Lord Wilkes. He has used both these names simultaneously and consecutively to repeatedly vandalize my user page and user talk page. I had mentioned both of these names earlier in the vandalism board. If there's any more suspicious activity by this same vandal, I will be certain to bring it up. It appears he has used my name prior here as well to try and frame me. I was unaware of this. Frankly, I don't know how we should deal with this person. Even if we stay alert 24/7, he will continue to create more and more abusive accounts through dozens of ip addresses. The few I referenced above are but a small mention. I believe the pages themselves need to be protected along with the blocking of his obvious sockpuppets. Zarbon 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)