Quotes:Administrators' noticeboard

From Quotes
The road to wisdom? Well, it's plain and simple to express: Errand err again but less and less and less.
Piet Hein
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a messageboard for all administrators.


Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behaviour, or requests for a meditation between another editor and you — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. (The page archivers really need the time information.)

To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.

To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.

Related pages:

Pages needing admin intervention:

See also:

Bureaucrat tasks:




Arbok again

Previous discussion: Quotes:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/012#Arbok

I blocked Arbok from editing for two weeks due to his disruptive editings, as following:

  • unnecessary move (or rather "wrong" move)
  • copyvio (suspected to post a whole copy)
  • wrong change of {{prod}} tag to {{delete}}, insisting it as a "little change"

The first two disruptions were already warned in July and August respectively, and he was already blocked from editing twice. Also I am not happy to see him posting {{welcome}} to newbies which may cause them to contact a wrong person to be asked about the project.

His biggest problem I am afraid is that he seems not to recognize his own immatureness and hence not to give any try to get lessons from others' comments. I think his actions have already gone away beyond the limit we are expected to place in respect of WQ:AGF. He may not intentionally harm the project, but de facto rejection of learning from past lessons (NB: he was already twice blocked by two admins respectively) cannot be thought of "good faith".

I propose hereby to extend his blocking term from the current two-week one to much longer one: six months or more. Or indefinitely. --Aphaia 00:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbok mailed me, it is a wikimail so it can hardly be forged. --Aphaia 01:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:56:39 +0000
To: Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com>
Subject: Ahem!
Message-Id: <E1KkTXb-0006si-L5@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
From: Arbok <cumminggarcia@yahoo.com>

You little retard! How dare you block me! I did nothing wrong. 
All I did is simply make an article about an awesome game I liked. 
Is that so wrong? I think not!

Don't be an idiot!
No objection from me. He's a pain. Will (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
He was back today and made a wrong move (wrong capitalization). Blocked for 6 months. --Aphaia 20:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

English teacher from Sitka, Alaska?

Did anyone notice user page creations (and it is their only edit) which says they are "English teacher from Sitka, Alaska" yadda yadda? I am afraid they misuses this website and use it rather as MySpace? --Aphaia 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up. Having a discussion on checkuser-l, it is now obvious it is a cross-wiki text spamming. The user made a same page on other wikis and had no edit at all. It is no appropriate usage of userpage, hence I deleted this page and blocked the account as vandal-only account like other projects including commons and enwikinews. --Aphaia 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Sandiego

I protected the page indefinitely and blocked also an editor Socal gal at heart (talk · contributions) for a week who seems to edit also as anon. This editor insists his or her edits are to remain since they are true, and do not have ears Wikiquote doesn't accept excessive quotations. Since this editor is autoconfirmed and he or she edits as anon too, I suppose either semiprotection or a mere block on the account in question may not work. If someone clean it up, he or she will be very appreciated (I cannot: since all seems me crappy and unmemorable). --Aphaia 02:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please unprotect the Carmen Sandiego, page! All the lines from the TV Show are true. The episodes are true and do not need to be deleted. It's's fault. -- 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Aphaia"

You anon completely misleads the issue. It violates Quotes:Copyright and other guideline including limitation of citation amount per episode, but you ignore it while you were told there are guidelines and insist that those citations should not be removed since just they were taken from the show. If a quotation comes from the subject is no sole reason at all if a quotation should be removed or remains in an article on this project, although you anon persistently ignore: We at Wikiquote accept only five dialogues from the show per episode which the anon on the above blatantly ignores on this article , but you reverted all removal to clean it up. It is no our position on this project. Excessive citations must not be accepted and it is the case of this article. In my opinion the article needs more removal due to its current condition. --Aphaia 11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of this page has been copied to Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? in an apparent attempt by user Auldlanggone to evade page protection. ~ Ningauble 14:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Since it is a duplication of an article, I speedied it as copyvio. Btw We know the IP address behind account:Auldlanggone. It is blatant sockpuppeting imo. Since this user (either editing as an anon or registered user) obviously has no intent to keep guideline, I recommend to keep him from editing until he understand his editing should be within the community policy and norm. --Aphaia 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has been duplicated again at Carmen Sandiego (game) by Special:Contributions/ in another apparent attempt to evade page protection. ~ Ningauble 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it again. ~ UDScott 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A related report: Due to vandalism, and since it is not his first one, I blocked (talk · contributions) for one week. --Aphaia 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


Can an admin please change the last regex to:

.*[A-Z ]{10,} <newaccountonly|casesensitive>

Its blocking legitimate usernames (and I'm not sure what the point of the space between the .* and the [A-Z ] was) (otrs:2004062). Mr.Z-man 19:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of the space either, it may be a tweak when copied from MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist. The account on the ticket may not be rejected by the setting now (hopefully), which was intended to reject cap only accounts (like "WIKIQUOTE IS COMMUNISM" or whatsoever). --Aphaia 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits not showing on Recent Changes

Something peculiar has been happening to my edits today: they don't appear on the Recent Changes page, or at least they don't appear on my own screen. My last edit to appear was October 5 at 2:59, but I've made about a dozen other edits since 18:04. I continue, however, to see everyone else's edits. I know that my edits have worked; they also show up on the "My Contributions" page. I tried using the purge function, but it didn't change anything. Has anyone ever seen a situation like this? - InvisibleSun 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a setting under 'Recent change options' to 'hide my edits' which would cause this behavior. Perhaps this mode was set by gremlins during your session. Similar but surely unrelated: I have noticed votes at VfD sometimes do not show up in the main list. This seems to be caused by transclusion of an outdated version of the individual article pages. ~ Ningauble 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ningauble's reply led me to look over the settings on my Recent Changes page. What happened is that when I was promoted on October 5, I was identified as a sysop, bureaucrat and bot (although I don't actually have a bot). Since I had the setting of "Hide bots," the change had identified me as a bot and caused my edits to be hidden. I have now corrected the settings and can see my edits once more. I will need to have the bot status removed, however, so that I will not have to keep correcting the setting (which keeps reverting itself to "hide bot"). - InvisibleSun 19:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah sorry it was my fault (I marked at first "bot" square instead of b'crat). Sorry for your inconvenience. I thought your bot status stripped already, but will give one more look ... --Aphaia 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Import request

Please import w:Template:Autoblock from English Wikipedia. I copied and pasted their w:Template:Checkuserblock in regard of the current checkuser-l discussion and the former is referred from this template. It would be better for us to keep their history and all past versions, if possible. Thanks --Aphaia 20:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please check if anything else is needed.--Jusjih 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Aphaia 09:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Language skills of administrators

May I kindly request all administrators to disclose your language skills? Knowing which languages administrators speak would be very useful.--Jusjih 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds fine. How will we do? Using Babel templates on our user pages or make a list of admins by languages like Commons does? --Aphaia 09:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Babel templates should be used on our user pages. I have annotated Template:List_of_admins with some administrators' language skills. A list of admins by languages like Commons does is good, but I cannot yet find what languages Kalki, Iddo999, LrdChaos and Fys speak. For now applicants and nominees to become administrators, they should be suggested but not required to disclose their language skills.--Jusjih 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Are any administrators monitoring Category:Candidates for speedy deletion regularly? I know everybody is busy, and "speedy" is a relative term, but there are items that have been tagged for days and even weeks without being deleted or declined. ~ Ningauble 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - I know that I often forget to look there. I have added a link at the top of the RC list to make it easier. ~ UDScott 18:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat's noticeboard

There is a newly submitted request on WQ:CHU which I consider unproblematic. Is anyone interested in testing the renaming interface? *wink* --Aphaia 00:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. ~ UDScott 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I would like the checkuser function to be performed on users Zarbon and Waheedone. Zarbon, who has had a history of sockpuppet use on Wikipedia, may be working in tandem with Waheedone to rig the QotD voting. Waheedone's only contributions to Wikiquote have been to cast votes on QotD, to converse with Zarbon and to protest (along with Zarbon) one of the QotD choices. Even if this suspicion turns out to be unfounded, there is reason enough, based on Zarbon's past behavior, for a checkuser request to be made. - InvisibleSun 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I ran checks and passed the result to Jusjih, my colleague. I hope to get his reply soon and give the community back our shared opinion about that.
Not checkuser but a member of community I suppose one other approach we may take would be to set up voter suffrage, like minimum edit count to join the vote. But WQ:AN is no right forum to discuss it perhaps. --Aphaia 19:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence of sockpuppetry from check results. Cheers, --Aphaia 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I checked Kalki's initial chat to find this section. I just wanted to say that none of the recent people who have been voting for qotd are sockpuppets. I have never created a sockpuppet on wikiquote and that was already proved through checkuser. However, I can't control the actions of those other users. Another user, Fossil, has also been continuously rating many of my suggestions highly. I relayed the message to this person on their talk page that they should give it a break, because these accusations are seriously getting annoying. If anything, I want to help stop vandalizers and sockpuppeteers. I hold great respect for both Kalki and InvisibleSun and I have respect for the idea behind qotd. Therefore, I want to help maintain it. Zarbon 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for rollbacker flag

I don't see any centralized policy with respect to rollbacker on wikiquote, but I realized, while cleaning up after User:GreenBalls's most recent vandalism spurt, that it would sure be handy to have here. I currently have rollbacker on en.wikipedia.org [1]. I've have had it for a while without incident. I also used JS based revert scripts there for some time before getting the flag. I think my having the ability to push the rollback button could only be of a benefit to WQ because, while I'm more active elsewhere, I do see vandalism here and everyone reverting it certainly helps. AubreyEllenShomo 08:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but not done now. Trust doesn't matter here regardless who yo uare: the current problem is that usergroup Rollbacker is not enabled on EN WQ currently (it is a kind of house group of some wikis). So I think you have to make consensus if EN WQ has this user group at first, have devs activate it on bugzilla and then request for that. Cheers, --Aphaia 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah. That's why there's no centralized policy on it here. That's cool. I'll use the good old-fashioned way, then, when I'm here. AubreyEllenShomo 07:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection for Template:Wikipedia

Please re protect this template. It was unprotected almost 2 months ago to allow somebody to make some edits to it but it was never reprotected. It has been vandalized quite a bit over the last couple days and the template is highly used. Thanks, Rjd0060 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that some of those tedious page-move vandals have apparently gotten thrown out of their other playpens and have decided to hassle us now. They've gone by GreenBalls (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log), and Beano2 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) here, and may be behind similar edits from (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) and (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log), whose New York City Public Schools assignment suggests they're just children. Perhaps one of our checkusers can look into this (if they haven't already done so) and put a somewhat longer block than the automatic 24-hour block on appropriate IPs? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Page was protected. - Rjd0060 23:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for heading up:

  • The IP addresses underlying those accounts are hard blocked for three months.
  • Pelican Shit vandal is monitored in a crosswiki level. I hard blocked some other IP addresses which were used for the same pattern vandal on other wikis from checkuser-l reports.
  • Two IP addresses mentioned by Jeffq are checked. No account was detected from checks, while it doesn't mean they had been used for piling vandal accounts (checkuser is not effective for too much old activities).

We may block some educational institutes like EN WP does perhaps? --Aphaia 19:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

QOTD selection process

When I devised the current ranking system for ranking QOTD suggestions and began using it a few years ago, I had anticipated that the voting process could conceivably be disrupted and corrupted by the concerted action of a very few people, intent on posting material for the most part embarrassing or entirely unacceptable to the general community of those involved with Wikiquote, and asserted that the final decisions on selections should always be made by a responsible administrator, or perhaps a odd-numbered council of them.

Up to recent weeks I have seldom perceived any need or reason to disregard the indicated votes on the suggestion pages, but this is no longer the case. I believe that at the very least such group disruption as I had anticipated has begun to occur, or, more likely a single treacherously deceitful individual has begun to deliberately pollute the voting process so that rankings by multiple sock puppets could provide a fraudulent means of controlling the results, and an an extremely artificial prominence or dominance of this individual's pernicious preferences and influences could occur.

Specifically, Zarbon (talk · contributions), who has in the past had indefinite blocks on his accounts both here and at Wikipedia under strong suspicions of indulging in improper or deceitful activity, and who was permitted to resume the use of the Zarbon account here after much pleading with admins, after long bypassing of the blocks here and at WIkipedia through the use of IPs and other user acccounts, has now been suspected, by me and others, of having recently resorted to the use of sockpuppets in skewing the QOTD votes toward his preferences.

I am only presenting a case here of what seems to me to very clearly be the situation, although this is not yet something proven, and perhaps not even provable through available means. It is my honest assessment that Zarbon may have become more cleverly deceitful in some ways, but that his general integrity and trustworthiness has not clearly improved with time at all, and that his will and desire to deceive, and to have his desires unjustly dominate over the will of others has become rather blatantly manifest, in far more than his pronouncements which seem to range from the authoritarian to the nihilistic, depending on what best suits his particular inclinations at the time.

As there is as yet no definite proof of what seems to be rather blatant fraudulence, I have deferred to the apparent ranked preferences up to this point, even when I strongly suspected, and indeed retained very little doubt that fraudulent votes were being used.

As an emergency measure, in response to this, and despite having very strong suspicions, and indeed belief of unethical activity on the part of Zarbon, I will at this point still count his votes, but will disregard the recent votes of Waheedone (talk · contributions) and Fossil (talk · contributions), or any other voter who has not had at least a 3 month history of editing on Wikiquote, as such a standard has been used on Wikimedia voting processes in the past and seems entirely appropriate in this situation.

Despite a strong aversion to complicating processes and procedures more than is necessary, the possibility of the continuation of very fraudulent activity in this regard impels me to make a suggestion : if the voting activity on the these pages continues to appear highly suspicious and highly vulnerable to fraudulant voting, I believe it might become necessary that we should abandon the current system I had devised, where all users can rank the suggestions, and move to have a council of and odd number of trusted admins (perhaps only elected for periods of a year at a time) become the official rankers and final selectors of the QOTD, out of the suggestions provided by any users.

I will refrain from officially proposing this, at this time, as a necessary measure, and hope it might not be necessary any time soon, but I think it, or something much like it might eventually be necessary, if problems continue. ~ Kalki 17:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Since this is posed at AN rather than VP I hope you will pardon my interjecting, but I must say I endorse the proposed emergency measure and encourage the community to seek a long term solution for the susceptibility to manipulation. In addition to the issue of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or single purpose account voting blocks, whatever the case may be, I am also extremely annoyed by the gamesmanship of one who nominates disproportionate numbers of suggestions for every day, many of them self-ranked as marginal. I just want to turn off the computer and walk away from what ought to be an enjoyable exercise: reviewing a few of the very best quotes Wikiquote has to offer. ~ Ningauble 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I originally posted my comments here, on the Admin Noticeboard, but agree it is probably more appropriate to post it at the Village pump, and have now done so : Quotes:Village_pump#QOTD_selection_process. ~ Kalki 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested additions to Special:Preferences - Gadgets

There are a few really neat Gadgets that could be helpful on this project that Wikiquote does not have yet:

  1. w:MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js -- Hot Cat: easily add / remove / change a category on a media file, with name suggestion [example]
  2. w:MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js -- UTCLiveClock: a clock in the personal toolbar that shows the current time in UTC, and provides a purge link.‎
  3. w:MediaWiki:Gadget-addsection-plus.js -- Change the "new section" tab text to instead display the much narrower "+".

Would really appreciate it if these could be added to the options for Gadgets in Special:Preferences. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since English Wikiquote disabled uploader for a long time before, I don't understand why we need Gadget-HotCat.js now. For other two gadgets I agree they will be useful. Any ideas? --Aphaia 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not quite understand, what is "uploader" ? Cirt (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If you mean media files - HotCat works to add categories to regular text pages as well. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with adding new gadgets... Special:Preferences – Gadgets has almost nothing in it. We could use the extra help from some gadgets. – RyanCross (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
EVula (talk · contributions) is on it. Thank you EVula!!! Cirt (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one that's added all four gadgets that are there; I'm more than happy to see them proliferate. :) EVula // talk // // 04:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
As Cirt pointed out, I've added the first two gadgets; the third isn't necessary, since we already use the "+" button. EVula // talk // // 04:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

HotCat works fine - [2], [3]. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the automatic edit summary to link directly to w:WP:HOTCAT, rather than WP:HOTCAT. D'oh. EVula // talk // // 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Either way, no worries. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


Can an admin block this user indef as vandalism-only account please? Thank you. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done by DerHexer (talk · contributions), thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandal categories showing up on most wanted categories

Why are obvious vandal categories with profanities, etc, showing up as most-wanted categories? Cirt (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Update: It has something to do with vandalism showing through a hidden category at {{cleanup}} template (I think) but I haven't quite figured it out yet. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem runs deeper. WantedCategories appears to have been refreshed earlier today, but the vandal activity was weeks ago. Looking at the pages in these categories, I see that they have two things in common:
1) They all show (on the edit screen) that they use the deleted vandal templates {{AaA}}, {{BbB}}, and {{CcC}}, but there is no direct call on these templates in the article markup.
2) They all have a {{cleanup}} (uncategorized cleanup) tag, but I see no direct or indirect call on the vandal templates from this template either. This template had been heavily vandalized.
On a hunch, I edited one of the affected articles (Kobe Bryant) to change the {{cleanup}} tag to {{people-cleanup}}. Lo and behold, the article disappeared from the vandal category and no longer shows use of the vandal templates. Not wanting to jump to conclusions, I picked another affected article (Bart Bull) and made a minor format edit without touching the {{cleanup}}. Presto: this also cleared the vandal influence on the article.
I conclude that the affected pages were corrupted while the template was in a vandalized state and, although the template has been fixed, the articles will remain corrupt until they are refreshed. Making any minor edit to each affected article should break the corrupt template links and clear the vandal categories. Based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:BbB there are currently 111 affected articles.
Or does anybody know a less tedious way to fix the corrupted articles? ~ Ningauble 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY resolved. Not sure why, but they are gone now. ~ Ningauble 13:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay thanks for the update. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Edit War

I am currently engaged in an edit war on the Rush Limbaugh page. There are two supposed “quotes” by Limbaugh that are included in a single book, which itself does not cite a source for the quotations. Based on discussions, it appears that the quotes are not reliable, since they come for a biased secondary source that does not cite a primary source. The consensus was that the quotes should be deleted.

Since then, the quotes have been repeatedly restored by one or two anonymous IPs. The users (or user) refuse to discuss the quotes, and simply restores them every time they are deleted. According to another user, the IP addresses match someone who was banned from Wikipedia for the same behavior:

You are tangling with a long running troll and POV vandal from Wikipedia. THe puppetmaster account is Eleemosynary. He is permanently blocked for outing the personal details of an administrator and had a longrunning history of bans for edit warring, 3RR, POV, personal attacks, etc. He has branched out to Wikiquote since his banning and employs the same tactics of blind reverts (claiming "vandalism" or whitewash") and refusal to discuss on talk pages. Good luck in dealing with him.

Some helpful links:

Not sure how to do interwiki lins, however from Wikipedia, check out the following:

w:User:Eleemosynary - puppetmaster w:User: - most recent ip, banned 6 months at Wikipedia. w:User_talk: - long running ip, perma banned from Wikipedia

Can you tell me the best way to proceed? I am not sure how to escalate this issue. Thanks! The Vidiot 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is a festival of dissembling from what appears to be two ardent Rush Limbaugh fans, but may actually be a single user engaging in a sock account. Put simply, the two quotes from Limbaugh in question are sourced. The source is directly linked from the Wikiquote page to a reproduced passage of the source via Google Books. The book does cite a source for the quotation: Rush Limbaugh. The vague language by the above user -- "based on discussion, the quotes are not reliable, since they come from a biased secondary source" -- is at best wishful thinking, at worst an outright lie. No "discussion" on the Talk Page or the Village Pump reached any consensus that the source was "unreliable." The book may indeed by critical of Limbaugh, but it meets Wikipedia sourcing standards. The above poster is inventing claims of "unreliability."
Months ago, a consensus agreement was reached on the Limbaugh talk page to place a modifier under the two quotes in question, stating "a second source for this quote has not been found." That was the compromise reached, via consensus. I thought (and continue to think) that that's an excessive modifier, as no other quote on the page (or on Wikipedia, to my knowledge), requires such a caveat. But apparently, that is not good enough for the Rush Limbaugh devotee(s) above who is (are) trying to scrub the quotes unilaterally, via straw man arguments, tendentious edits, edit wars, and dissembling.
I am one of the users restoring the quotes, as the above user is acting without consensus in deleting them. He is employing the hoary, shopworn dodge of "hey, you didn't even discuss this on the Talk Page," when a check of the Talk Page history will show that I -- and several other editors -- did indeed discuss this very issue. The above editor's edits are uniformly concerned with scrubbing these sourced quotes from the Limbaugh page, and I encourage the admins to take a close look at his, and my, respective edit histories.
The additional (mostly incorrect) info posted above concerning Wikipedia activity is, apparently, the last, best hope of another banned Wikipedia user still stewing in his own juices over his own ban, and trying to assuage himself with Wikistalking. I'll provide more info on this user should the admins request it. But as it's just a red herring, irrelevant to the Limbaugh page, I'd rather concentrate on the germane. -- 12:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)