Jump to content

Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress: Difference between revisions

From Wikiquote
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jedi3 (talk | contribs)
2,620 edits
No edit summary
Jedi3 (talk | contribs)
2,620 edits
retaliatory subsection was created by the vandal discussed just above
Line 237: Line 237:


:Can something please be done about MonsterHunter32 massive and repeated vandalism and blankings and censorship which he refuses to discuss on the talkpage? I have tried to discuss the matter with him repeatedely, but he continues with his massive vandalism and refuses to find a consensus or collaborate. He also refuses to move the censored and blanked quotes to the talkpage as required by Template:Remove. I would also welcome comments on the Wilkie Collins quote which is quoted in the section below and on [[Talk:Somnath temple]] from other editors. --[[User:Jedi3|Jedi3]] ([[User talk:Jedi3|talk]]) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
:Can something please be done about MonsterHunter32 massive and repeated vandalism and blankings and censorship which he refuses to discuss on the talkpage? I have tried to discuss the matter with him repeatedely, but he continues with his massive vandalism and refuses to find a consensus or collaborate. He also refuses to move the censored and blanked quotes to the talkpage as required by Template:Remove. I would also welcome comments on the Wilkie Collins quote which is quoted in the section below and on [[Talk:Somnath temple]] from other editors. --[[User:Jedi3|Jedi3]] ([[User talk:Jedi3|talk]]) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

===[[User:Jedi3]]===


{{Userlinks|Jedi3}} I've been trying to improve the articles this user has edited by but he has been making disruptive edits while adding non-notable quotes just to push his agenda of Hindutva. He has also been consistently edit-warring with me. While he is complaining of me vandalising, I have only removed non-notable quotes and left any notable quotes in place. He has done so on many numerous pages including [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb&offset=20171022105044&action=history Aurangzeb], [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Somnath_temple&action=history Somnath temple] and [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wilkie_Collins&action=history Wilkie Collins] are places where he does what he wants, makes non-notable additions and edit-wars continously.
{{Userlinks|Jedi3}} I've been trying to improve the articles this user has edited by but he has been making disruptive edits while adding non-notable quotes just to push his agenda of Hindutva. He has also been consistently edit-warring with me. While he is complaining of me vandalising, I have only removed non-notable quotes and left any notable quotes in place. He has done so on many numerous pages including [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb&offset=20171022105044&action=history Aurangzeb], [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Somnath_temple&action=history Somnath temple] and [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wilkie_Collins&action=history Wilkie Collins] are places where he does what he wants, makes non-notable additions and edit-wars continously.

Revision as of 11:36, 16 March 2018

Shortcut
  • [[:]]
On other English Wikimedia wiki's

Specific wikis

Archive
Archives

This page exists to post alerts about any incidents of vandalism that are occurring, so that other users and administrators can more promptly respond to them. Wikiquote's definition of vandalism is the same as Wikipedia's and can be seen at w:Wikipedia:Vandalism.

Care should be taken before assuming an initial contribution is vandalism unless it's blatantly obvious the user knows what they're doing.

If the vandal is known to attack more then one language, or more then one Wikimedia wiki, it is recommended they also be noted on Vandalism reports in Meta or a global block be requested on Steward requests/Global.

Adding reports

It is recommended the following be done when adding a new report. Start a new section, give it a unique title (Usually the name of the offender), then list the accounts/IPs used, and their MO. The templates {{vandal}} or {{IPvandal}} can be used to give a number of links handy for dealing with vandals. Its use is {{vandal|NameOrIPOfTheVandal}}, where the text after the | is the IP/name, without the "User:" prefix. Also, for vandalic usernames that get blocked indefinitely, there exists a template {{indefblockeduser}}.

If you are reporting spam (commercial links posted to multiple pages), post about them in the section on spam.

Add a new report

Reports

Spammers

As spammers are one of the most common vandalisers, they have a separate section here.

Y Blocked. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Blocked. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General / Misc

Report 19-Sep-2017

This user has only made unconstructive edits, posting personal essays at the top of pages.

Report 23-May-2017

This user keeps vandalizing the The Empire Strikes Back and Monsters, Inc. pages by extending the dialogues. Please block this user indefinitely as soon as possible. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but this user does the same for the Toy Story trilogy and Home (2015 film). Not only do I request this user be blocked indefinitely, but that all pages this user vandalized be protected for no less than a year, lest IPs attempt to vandalize them. WikiLubber (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user has just vandalized the The Empire Strikes Back page again! This time, I want him blocked indefinitely. And I mean now!! AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That used just vandalized The Empire Strikes Back again!! I therefore request that you protect that page and all the other pages for a year. AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave that user another warning about vandalizing The Empire Strikes Back again. This is the umpteenth time that I am requesting that you block that user...indefinitely. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alabaster

Request permablocking practically vandalized dozens, if not hundreds of articles by now. Illegitimate Barrister 05:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, by Miszatomic. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Illegitimate Barrister 15:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Illegitimate Barrister, -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report 16-Feb-2017

This user keeps vandalizing the Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith page by removing the dialogue between Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't qualify as Vandalism in progress. There seem to be an ongoing dispute about a quote, which significantly exceeds Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. -- Mdd (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both points. I also encourage AdamDeanHall to review the Quotability guideline on Length of dialogues. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report 04-Feb-2015

Abusive usernames. Sockpuppetry. MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Blocked. ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny names, made me chuckle. But, I'm glad he's blocked. The Wikiquote better for it. Illegitimate Barrister 03:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. Sockpuppetry. MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report 05-May-2015

Vandalism & test edits. Tiptoety talk 21:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report 09-May-2015

Removing content. Matiia (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report 12-July-2015

etc, etc. Unregistered user at above IP addresses continuously and repeatedly vandalizes The Legend of Korra by adding pages and pages of weird stuff and reverting edits any time it's fixed

Report 25-July-2015

Unregistered user from the July 12 report appears to be up to their old tricks. On further examination, it looks like they're still going with the IP addresses that were reported on the 12th as well.

Report 14-August-2015

He vandalized all the "Star Wars" pages by removing the lines, including the line from the 2004 DVD version of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report 22 August 2015

2601:80:4103:1675:7032:1B57:8068:FA61 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • GUC • stalktoy • RBLs • block user • block log): vandalism after final warning. --Rubbish computer (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

69.178.195.167

This IP is flooding Wikiquote's Recent changes with vandalism and creating numerous fake user pages with sock templates. I just asked stewards at IRC to temporarily block him, but it might take a while. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Blocked. IP is blocked infinite, Mass deletion of pages added by 69.178.195.167. -- Mdd (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report 10-May-2015

Y Done, blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report 07-Jul-2015

Y Done, blocked. – Illegitimate Barrister 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Beds

Hi,

Cross-wiki vandalism : advertising → [1]. --Do not follow (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this has been Y Done. The IP address is now locally blocked also, but a global lock would be better, I guess. -- Mdd (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Global lock done on Meta for three months by MF-Warburg. Thank you as well. --Do not follow (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report 08-Sep-2015

208.108.164.242 (talk · contributions)

Ralph Layton

I tried, and the sources do in fact exist! I have checked to see if they really do exist, and they do. The sources showed up, and I'm a bit confused as to why you did not find them. This is a friendly IP, who hates hoaxes, but this seems legit, folks. This seems to be a case of obscure sources, not vandalism, or a hoaxer. PS, could there be a auto-sign feature for IP addresses, or something? --71.15.213.186 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.25.203.176 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2015[reply]

What is going on? Why do you all think I'm a hoaxer or vandal, since I'm neither? If you can explain to me why you think that, I might understand, but as of now, I am confused. Ralph Layton (talk)

IP vandal 74.129.169.119

74.129.169.119 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) For its continuous vandalism (prior to its one-hour blocking, which should have been infinite), creating phony user pages with gobbledygook, insulting users on their talk pages (see this link for proof), etc. I request that its block be extended to infinite, lest this continues. WikiLubber (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote policy doesn't support an infinite block on IP addresses. Thank you for your understanding. --Aphaia (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can settle for 6 months. WikiLubber (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Y Done - Blocked by Miszatomic 07:56, November 15, 2015

86.1.54.226

86.1.54.226 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) Persistent vandalism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Blocked for one month. (Second block for this IP, which has been doing this for a month.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wally in a Wicket

Vandalism only account. Seems to be that Willy on wheels guy... ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/173.68.182.5

Continued vandalism. Needs a long block (say 1 week?) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y Blocked for one year. This persistent long-term vandal known as the "Broadway Hoaxer" should be blocked on sight. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/NIGHTMAREB4

Vandalism only account. Obviously you can tell from contribs. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NIGHTMAREB4[reply]

And probably associated: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fartboy718 ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Kalki, thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/88.109.127.179

Vandalism. Temporary block should fit. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/HJKJHLHJ

Vandalism only account. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/206.78.154.250

Vandalism. Temporary block should fit. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done by Kalki. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

71.49.153.46

71.49.153.46 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) persistent vandalism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y blocked. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/67.83.60.230

67.83.60.230 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) This user vandalized The Empire Strikes Back by reverting back to the 1980 version of the scene between Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine. - AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a 1980 film. I do not believe this is vandalism: the user has shown good faith by including both the original 1980 film and a later reedited DVD version in the article, which you reverted[2].

My own opinion is that I can see no good reason, in an article about the notable 1980 film, to pay any attention to tweaks in re-releases at all. This should be discussed in a civil manner without crying "vandalism". ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

71.49.153.121

71.49.153.121 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) keeps vandalizing The Black Cauldron (film)‎‎. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boi13414413

Boi13414413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has repeatedly vandalized articles. He clearly has no intention to contribute. His vandalism has been particularly vile on The Civil War (documentary) Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MonsterHunter32

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user account has repeatedly mass blanked quotes from many articles, out of apparent censorship of quotes and using very poor excuses, recently at Somnath temple (where he repeatedly removed a quote by Wilkie Collins), and more recently at Aurangzeb (where he removed quotes from Will Durant, Jadunath Sarkar, Elliot and Dowson, Arnold J. Toynbee, R. C. Majumdar, Arun Shourie, S.R. Goel, Wilkie Collins and many others). They seem to be the same user as User: 157.39.200.248 and other IPs. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can something please be done about MonsterHunter32 massive and repeated vandalism and blankings and censorship? I have tried to discuss the matter with him repeatedely, but he continues with his massive vandalism and refuses to find a consensus or collaborate. I would also welcome comments on the Wilkie Collins quote which is quoted in the section below and on Talk:Somnath temple from other editors. --Jedi3 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This guy keeps on claiming I'm vandalising and blanking but I'm only removing non-notable quotes which I said a thousand times. At the same time, I am adding notable quotes. I am not going to empty the article nor remove any notable quote. I will like it if he was warned not to edit war and commented about his non-relevance of all his many quotes on Talk:Aurangzeb. A very similar disruptive editor DanielTom too backed his edits once, DanielTom's behaviour too has been flagged for POV-pushing and disruptiveness on Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can something please be done about MonsterHunter32 massive and repeated vandalism and blankings and censorship which he refuses to discuss on the talkpage? I have tried to discuss the matter with him repeatedely, but he continues with his massive vandalism and refuses to find a consensus or collaborate. I would also welcome comments on the Wilkie Collins quote which is quoted in the section below and on Talk:Somnath temple from other editors. Also, every user who reverts his vandalism, like just above @DanielTom:, is called by him flagged for POV-pushing and disruptiveness. --Jedi3 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny you are talking about DanielTom when he has himself been conplained on Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom. But that shows what kind of user are. You are blaming me, but you keep reverting and don't even let me edit without disrupting. That is true vandalism. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling your edits vandalism because the mass blanking and mass censorship of quotes from articles, which you have explained as quotes that you believe are pov (alledgely as you claim "against Islam", but in fact only against a controversial ruler, and in "favour of Hinduism", and in "favour of Hindus"), is vandalism. Aurangzeb is probably the most controversial ruler of India, this is a fact, so it is natural that not all quotes are neutral, and indeed these quotes are also quoted in sources critical about Aurangzeb, of which there are plenty. The proper way to resolve this is to add quotes with an alternate pov. There are also critical quotes about other controversial rulers and kings on wikiquote, who were not Muslims, but who were Hindus, Christians, Communists or atheists. So this not even about Islam at all, but simply about what was said about a highly controversial and infamous ruler. But the mass censorship of such quotes which you don't want to discuss on the talkpage is censorship and will be reverted as vandalism. I have asked MonsterHunter many times to please add subsections and explantions for the quotes he wants to delete, so it can be discussed and we can find a consensus. His vandalism and edit warring seems to show a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views. --Jedi3 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you are calling it because you have failed to prove in any way they are notable and are only adding them because you want to add Muslims and other non-Hindus doing "bad things". You can add quotes as long as they are notable. I haven't said don't add any critical quotes. But anyway you haven't added any critical quotes of Hindus, not unless the Muslim is a doing a "contoversial thing". Also you yourself stated that notability is impossible on Talk:Aurangzeb. Wikiquote also requires not disrupting it. I haven't stopped any notable edits which "criticse" anyone. Also DanielTom has been recommended for a topic ban in future. I guess in you case, there should be a total ban. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously complaining because "critical" quotes are present about Aurangzeb who is probably the most controversial and most criticized ruler of ancient or medieval India? You are complaining because some quotes are present that say that he destroyed temples, but this is one of the main things that he is known (and infamous) for. This also not about Muslims "doing bad things" as you claim, there are also critical quotes about other controversial rulers and kings on wikiquote, who were not Muslims, but who were Hindus, Christians, Communists or atheists. I don't remember where I have added critical quotes, but I do remember that I did not censor, delete and blank critical sourced quotes from any article. In any case, I expect an explanation for each deleted quote on the talkpage, otherwise your edits are just blatant vandalism and censorship. --Jedi3 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have I removed any "criticising" edit which I found notable? None. It's simply you "lying" as you have done many times in past. There are also many "good" quotes about Aurangzeb as well and they can easily be found. There is then also "criticism". I have added "criticism" quotes myself. That's because I don't add only positive or negative side. I add all. But in your edits there's no "criticism," only just read in a medieval text he destroyed a temple, did this etc and add it to only give an overall negative image. This is about you only adding Muslim doing "bad things". There is no "censorship" in removing edits which are not notable and are only made to further an agenda. It's "not doing what I want on a website." MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem in you adding "positive" about Aurangzeb to the article. After all, the article is not that large compared to some other articles and can still grow, and other controversial rulers like Pol Pot also have some positive quotes about them. It is only the mass blanking of sourced quotes you didn't like with poor excuses that was the problem. And it is not about "Muslim doing "bad things" as you claim, it is a fact that Aurangzeb is one of the most controversial rulers, so there are proportionally a lot of "critical" quotes about him compared to other Muslim rulers like Akbar (who by the way is a Muslim about whom I added some positive quotes, so your personal attack from above is wrong). --Jedi3 (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem in you adding a 'negative" except when it is added despite being non-notable because your edits have an agenda. Removing non-notable \clutter which you didn't even properly copied is not blanking, especially when one is trying to improve the article unlike you.youir claims of adding on a few subjects like Akbar (not an orthodox Muslim), which some Hindutva ideologues still see as tolerant as compared to other Muslim rulers, though some do not, it only proves my point of you editing with Hindutva intent. Aurangzeb was at some times tolerant too. It could easily be found. If you don't make neutral edits, I will. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So a moderate Muslim like Akbar is not a real Muslim for you, but only a fundamentalist like Aurangzeb counts for you? Will Durant writes about Aurangzeb that "A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster", so he was clearly one of the most controversial rulers, probably the most controversial ruler of India, so there are proportionally a lot of "critical" quotes about him compared to other Muslim rulers like Akbar. I added positive quotes about Muslims like Akbar, but I also came across memorable 'negative' ones, (for example about his younger years when he also engaged in jihad), that I could have added but I didn't add them, to keep the proportion (the article was still small, if it was larger maybe I would have added it). I was also going to add more positive quotes about other moderate Muslims too, but lately have not edited in that topic area. Also please stop your personal attacks. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jedi3 I've seen your claims about Akbar. But it's the same problem, excpt this time instead of Akbar, it's other non-Hindus who are negatively mentioned. In one, it is about slavery under Muslim rule of India and "intolerant Jesuit" Christians mentioned in the same breadth. You talk about personal attacks, but refer me as a vandal. Look at your own actions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After the article was protected, I initiated the discussion on the deleted quotes, but MonsterHunter still continues to refuse to discuss the deleted quotes on the talkpage. Instead he continues editwarring in the exactly same manner in other articles. By refusing to start to discuss the deleted quotes and instead starting to edit war in the same manner in other articles he is showing a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views. --Jedi3 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What discussion? I already shifted the quotes and mentioned the reasons in my edit summary and summarised it in talk. If you still have a problem as I said, take a look. Consensus isn't an excuse for vandalism and edit-warring. Wikiquote requires editors to contribute, not to make it about themselves. This is not a website about "views" and it matters little unless the only view is POV-pushing without giving a hoot about notability or relevance and in some cases poor copying or joining or up your own quotes. Wikiquote requires notable quotes. If you want to collaborate, first follow the spirit of Wikiquote, don't run this website as your property. There is no scope for the massive vandalism and disruption you did. You have been given a lot of chances. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion (as you know very well) is at Talk:Aurangzeb#MonsterHunter32's deletion of quotes: Explanation Quote 1 (Will Durant quote). You still continue to refuse to discuss the deleted quotes there. I had to initiate the discussion but you are still refusing to discuss. Instead he continues editwarring in the exactly same manner in other articles. By refusing to start to discuss the deleted quotes and instead starting to edit war in the same manner in other articles he is showing a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views.--Jedi3 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The talk as you know very well at Talk:Aurangzeb started long before your creation of "your" separate section, it was me who created the talk page. See the first comment on the page. I already told you to look at edit summary as I don't have so much time, what's your problem? You do not want to do anything except have your edits there at every cost and are continuously being disruptive. It is ironic you are talking about cooperation. You have yourself refused cooperation with you incessant deceptive claims, bad faith editing and refused to acknowledge your mistakes.
At several places when I tried to talk to you, not just many times you didn't budge from your stand, but you started making up your own rule. What's moire you even made up false claims, like you did with the title of Moonstone, making up a quote at Sikandar Butshikan and still claiming Ferishta mentions destruction of Martand temple when he didn't, falsely accusing me of "censoring" when all I said is that your edits were biased and that is why you were adding non-notable ones.
Not to mention the continuous edit-warring started by you. You complained me because you couldn't get what you want and you talk about "censoring". I could have complained you much earlier. There is a reason why edit summaries exist. No point in your deflective statements. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are done at the discussion page, not over edit summaries. There is a good reason that wikiquote has discussion pages! You now admit your refusal to discuss at the talkpage, with the poor excuse that you are using edit summaries. There is nothing wrong with the title of the moonstone, the origin of the moonstone by Wilkie Collins is Somnath, so there is a strong connection to Somnath even with the moonstone. This discussion is already elsewhere. Elliot and Dowson write that "Firishta' attributes to Sikandar the demolition of all the Kashmirian temples save one, which was dedicated to Mahadeva, and which only escaped ' in consequence of its foundation being below the surface of the neighbouring water". So whom should I believe, an outstanding scholar like Elliot or ... you? This discussion is also already elsewhere. --Jedi3 (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are not done through edit-warring and vandalism, please remember that. As for Martanda, even if Elliot and Dowson claimed he destroyed all temples, did Ferishta mention Martand? Does talking about Ellipt & Dowson you any licence to add a made up quote? You didn't copy it from Elliot & Dowson, you copied it from Wikipedia where it was purpoted it was from Ferishta. This is not Wikipedia, but a collection of quotes. What I asked is whether Ferishta mentions Martand. Whom should you believe? The original author ie Ferishta. Discussion maybe wherever, but that you made up a quote and then made up a claim that you still believe Ferishta mentions it. That is called "lying". And those who deliberatley lie can't be allowed here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterHunter32 is continuing his edit warring and censoring of sourced quotes on various articles, and still refusing to move deleted quotes to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, as required by Template:Remove. His vandalism and edit warring seems to show a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi3 like a typical bad-intentioned editor is falsely claiming victimsation under the guise of censorship even though I have only removed non-notable quotes or made-up ones, not quotes that are notable. Please do not use such false claims of victimisation. Also you are reverting constantly as well, so you are "edit-watring". Besides who is opposed to consensus? Is it not someone who lied about blanking, quotes, rules, false claims of "crnsorship", called me annoying, claimed I was talking about your religious beliefs etc? You are not interested in any collaboration or contribution, but only imposing your ideology here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can something please be done about MonsterHunter32 massive and repeated vandalism and blankings and censorship which he refuses to discuss on the talkpage? I have tried to discuss the matter with him repeatedely, but he continues with his massive vandalism and refuses to find a consensus or collaborate. He also refuses to move the censored and blanked quotes to the talkpage as required by Template:Remove. I would also welcome comments on the Wilkie Collins quote which is quoted in the section below and on Talk:Somnath temple from other editors. --Jedi3 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I've been trying to improve the articles this user has edited by but he has been making disruptive edits while adding non-notable quotes just to push his agenda of Hindutva. He has also been consistently edit-warring with me. While he is complaining of me vandalising, I have only removed non-notable quotes and left any notable quotes in place. He has done so on many numerous pages including Aurangzeb, Somnath temple and Wilkie Collins are places where he does what he wants, makes non-notable additions and edit-wars continously.

At Sikandar Butshikan, he even even indirectly admitted to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source.

I've tried to correct his mistakes and quote what is truly relevant. But he keeps on making his own rules and doesn't listen. He uses discussion to impose what he wants and doesn't agree to the rules despite being told several times including at Talk:Somnath temple and his own talk page including here, here and [3]. He doesn't listen and has removed my advice several times from his talk page.

I've tried to improve the articles by adding non-notable quotes but he keeps reverting and doesn't let me add quotes without being disrupted. This is vandalism. Please block him. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your personal attacks. You have been censoring quotes on a huge scale from wikiquote on very poor excuses. I have discussed at Talk:Somnath temple about your repeated removal of this quote:
  • At that date, the Mohammedan conqueror, Mahmoud of Ghizni, crossed India; seized on the holy city of Somnauth; and stripped of its treasures the famous temple, which had stood for centuries--the shrine of Hindoo pilgrimage, and the wonder of the Eastern world. Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares.
but you fail to show any convincing reason why the quote is not relevant to the article on Somnnath (and since the quote calls Somnath the "wonder of the Eastern World" it is highly memorable). Now he is repeating his tendentious blankings, censorship and edit-warring at the Aurangzeb article. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy, you earlier removed the last part when I pointed to you that it was actually about "The Moonstone". Also something that is not relevant and not really much quoted by others is not "notable" in any sense. Now please show me how it is notable? You yourself proved my point. There is no "censoring". I have not touched any relevant and notable quotes I've seen. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote is entirerly correct, notable and relevant, as it still has descriptions of Somnath (it implicitly describes Somnath as the most sacred of cities of India, before Benares). I have made the quote shorter as part of the consensus building with you, but you still continued your edit warring and blankings. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote is nit relevant as the main topic was always Moonstone, and even you removed about it. The actual topic of the article was Somnath. You have yourself proved that when you added it, you never checked whether what you added was actually focusing on the topic. Merely describing something sacred isn't part of notability. The whole book is about the Moonstone diamond btw. Please be careful and at least make relevant quotes. This isn't a problem on one page. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the book may be the Moonstone (and the origin of the moonstone is Somnath by the way), but the topic of the full quote is also Somnath. An influential English novel describing an exotic place (for English people) like Somnath in vivid detail means the quote is memorable. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can all read the quote. It's mentioned as the place where the Moonstone was located and some details added about it. There can be no dispute the passage was actually about the Moonstone. But regardless you have never checked its notability. You never proved once any notability nor checked it beforehand. Now you are making up stuff. Also as I said earlier, I have already started adding notable quotes on Aurangzeb. If you didn't disrupt, it would be much easier and the article a lot better. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the quote in the context of the book also? It is available online, and after many discussion I expect that you did. Then you would perhaps more clearly see that an influential English novel describing an exotic place (for English people) like Somnath in vivid detail is memorable. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read the other statements of the page too. Somnath was the place where it was located before being looted. From there some words are added. The focus however is still Moonstone. We can all read it. Regardless you are not proving notability. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome comments on the Wilkie Collins quote from other editors. I believe that the quote is memorable and relevant, after all it calls Somnath "the wonder of the Eastern World". I'm pinging those editors that have already previously commented about MonsterHunter32 (on his deletion nominations): @UDScott: @Kalki: @DanielTom: --Jedi3 (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielTom: has himself been complained about at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom has been recommended for a topic ban. While you are blaming me, it is ironic that you wanted to use another accused editor with similar biased views towards subjects like Barack Obama. How is just calling it a wonder make it notable? I also invite @Prinsgezinde: to comment. I am calling @UDScott:, @CensoredScribe:, @Ningauble: to comment and take action against Jedi3. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That thread about me which you keep linking to is from 2016 and was started by someone with an ax to grind who was actually found to be "in the wrong" in that dispute. Having said that, I am of course biased and will refrain from commenting on this particular dispute other than stating that I believe MonsterHunter32 is being extremely annoying and disruptive. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom That thread has only been linked to show that you have been yourself a disruptive user in past. Please don't call someone as annoying, that's an insultive term. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Annoying is not a personal attack, but MonsterHunters continued abusive comments about other's people supposed religious or political beliefs are. --Jedi3 (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jedi3 Pick up a dictionary. Annoying means irritating and harassing or making angry. If you are being "annoyed", then perhaps you need a control on your self. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom, if I had an axe to grind, wouldn't I have pursued it a bit further than not at all? For the record, I'm not concerned with who "won", it appeared to be the only way at the time to highlight your behaviour and possibly get a response from you and the others involved. Did I go about it the wrong way? Probably - it would have been much more believable if I hadn't restored that disputed content first. Anyway, enough about a discussion from 2 years back. I'm not active on Wikiquote at all so I also don't think I should be involved. I don't know what DanielTom's editing behaviour is like now and I'm not going to go through any edits to find out. Anything I thought I knew about him only applied to the editor 2 years ago. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

197.211.59.161

197.211.59.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This user has repeatedly added spam, first on his talk page and now on Talk:Albert Einstein. - Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress&oldid=2370129"