Open main menu
The triad constraints.jpg
Chimpanzee seated at typewriter.jpg

Contents

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.


Welcome backEdit

Hi CensoredScribe. Just wanted to say welcome back to Wikiquote. You are adding some good quotes, but I'm still finding spelling and formatting errors. I hope you will correct these minor flaws and redo your changes. Best regards, Peter1c (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome and for you for noting both the ups of the quotes and downs of the formatting in your summaries. I was hoping to wrap up my addition of psychology quotes today than take a break from editing for a while before coming back to deal with the correct formatting; I didn't find much to add over the last 6 months.
During my time away I did reflect on some of my more contentious quotes, mostly from my earlier days, in particular those from television. For the most part the South Park quotes I've added to topics have not been reverted, my additions from Doctor Who and Star Trek also have a fairly high acceptance rate. For all three of these 3 shows is that every episode has it's own wikipedia page and am wondering if there are in fact any television quotes from episodes that don't (other than ones I've added).
It seems to the best of my knowledge the only 4 animated shows that have Wikipedia pages for their specific episodes are The Simpsons, Futurama, South Park and Family Guy, correct me if I'm wrong. The Flintstones and The Jetsons should really be included on that list I think because they are the originals of the animated family sitcoms.
PS: Take a look at Category television episodes by year, Category Lists of American animated television series episodes and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_science_fiction_television_series_episodes Category Lists of science fiction television series episodes, there are some interesting trends. I counted a total of five episodes for Aqua Teen Hunger Force force have their own pages on wikipedia and none for Space Ghost Coast to Coast the older flagship from the 90's. Avatar: The Last Airbender and Gargoyles don't have specific episodes except 2 television movies despite being recent popular shows. In terms of sci-fi: Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica (2004),and the 2013 show Defiance have an extensive episode guide but not older sci-fi shows, those without spaceships and those with living spaceships such as Farscape, Lexx, Dark Angel, Doll House, Orphan Black, Knight Rider, The Incredible Hulk, Quantum Leap, Blakes Seven, or Arrow. The X-files and Fringe both get them but Smallville or Eureka don't; nor does Stargate SG-1. It seems to be a list of sci-fi exclusively with space ships or FBI agents, which excludes animated and non english examples like Gundam. In conclusion: using this as the sole metric for notability could be problematic. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Also of interest, unlike Superman, Batman, Spiderman or any other superhero show, the first season of X-Men also has an episode guide on wikipedia. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Bullets and sub-bulletsEdit

Read my explanation here. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and my apologies, I made that mistake with the list for Victor Hugo where there was no difference in page numbers. Would using Ibid be acceptable? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
See Wikiquote talk:Templates#Ibid and other formatting problems. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, I read that as well as Wikiquote:Citing sources. I see UDScott recommends making a section after 4 quotes from the same source. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

WQ:LOQ#Length of quotesEdit

Your latest edit at black people exceeded WQ:LOQ#Length of quotes. Please keep this in mind. -- Mdd (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's very interesting, because all of those quotes were taken from the wikipedia page for Black people in Mormon doctrine and I assumed wikipedia had the same rules on quotes that wikiquote does. I've read through some of your recent edit summaries where you mention the limit is 250 words, would you happen to know what it is on wikipedia and why the two limits are different? Clearly it isn't a legal issue or else wikipedia would be in the wrong. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the quotes I added to John Brown are also featured on wikipedia and exceed the 250 word limit on quotations that Kalki seems to not be aware or flagrantly disregard; notice proverbs 8:20 - 36 is a whopping 32 words over limit. Would you like to inform Kalki this is unacceptable and that Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard is a means of addressing this grievance, or should I? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

OstracismEdit

A page that you have been involved in editing, Ostracism, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Ostracism. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Mdd (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sourceEdit

Hi CensoredScribe, would it be possible for you to start (search for and) add additional (notable) secondary sources, when adding a quote to thematic lemma's. This guaranties that the quote is indeed notable, that the portion of the text quoted is acceptable.

This way of working is already suggested for Illegitimate Barrister, see here, and I think you can also benefit from this course of action to become more effective here on Wikiquote. Now you can choose to participate voluntarily, or I can make a proposal at the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard to impose such a limitation. -- Mdd (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume because you added the quote to the Bernie Sanders article, that quotes taken from a senators website are considered sufficiently notable for their own pages. Now if I understand Ninguable correctly, although Bernie Sanders website is quoting a piece of legislation he wrote earlier, because it's still Bernie Sanders this is a primary source? Further more, a news transcript of a debate or eye witness's testimony is also a primary source. The request for only secondary sources for theme articles would thus invalidate the Washington Post's Feb 11th Democratic Presidential Debate annotated transcript that I added to the Bernie Sanders page from being viable for inclusion in theme lemma, correct?
As you brought up the issue of secondary sources I've posted an excerpt from the [[Wikiquote:Notability], for clarification, for you and others reading this. Notably, at no point in the page are secondary sources mentioned as a criteria.
Even if a person is notable (e.g. has a non-trivial Wikipedia or Wikiquote page), that doesn't mean that everything such a person says on a theme topic should go in Wikiquote. One factor to consider is whether the quote has been quoted by others.
However, for theme articles in particular, quotations from notable people or notable publications that discuss the theme can be especially appropriate regardless of the frequency of the material having been quoted elsewhere, especially obscure or forgotten quotations that speak directly to the theme - this is one way Wikiquote is unique as compared to conventional compendia.
Just because a quotation has not been frequently quoted recently does not mean it was not quoted at some time in the past, but a quote that has never been singled out for quotation should be especially suspect. Inclusion of such a quote at a Wikiquote theme page should be especially disfavored if the quote is relatively long at a theme page that is already large. (Source)
Furthermore a google search of wikiquote secondary sources brings up only Wikiquote:Sourcing and User:Ningauble/Useful/Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. From the former...
... Wikiquotians are encouraged to seek out and cite primary sources. However, many primary sources are unpublished; in accordance with the policy on verifiability, citations in published secondary sources are to be preferred over unpublished primary sources. Of course, if both can be cited, that's all to the better. (Source)
And from the latter...
Secondary sources are those that repeat the previously published words of someone else. When they cite the primary source this is called quotation, otherwise it is more properly termed attribution and may be treated with some skepticism.
Secondary sources are a valuable way to demonstrate quotability by showing that a statement is actually quoted outside the primary source. This is but one of several considerations for assessing quotability, and for suitable sources it can be a determinative one. There is considerable subjectivity in the criteria of quotability, and evaluating secondary sources can itself be subjective. E.g., quotability is not necessarily indicated by sources that have a narrow interest or a close association with the author or the subject, and a quotation in contemporaneous news reporting is a weaker indication than one in retrospective news analysis. (Source)
I am confused where you read that secondary sources are a requirement for a quotes inclusion on the page for a thematic "lemma" (encompassing a pages redirects as the dictionary base of a word). In none of the wikiquote pages mentioning the words secondary source is this implied as a requirement, Ninguable even points out it is one of many marks of the highly debatable notion of notability.
You were right to remove the full quote from academia, but for the wrong reason. You should have cited length. A case could be made that were Bernie Sanders as synonymous with academia as Solomon is with the theoretical platonic form of Wisdom that the quote could be extended.
All quotes under this guideline must be accompanied by a citation of said quote even if it's just a CNN article or are to be removed. It is a commonly ignored rule as can be seen on numerous lemma and people pages, as we have both just demonstrated. Please cite the rules you claim to be enforcing and what page they are found on, or else your claims appear misleading and seem to show a lack of understanding of the actual established community guidelines. Thank you for the continuing dedication of your time and addition of citations for the improvement of this project. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, you assumption is not correct. The first comment was made, because I am detecting a longer lasting issue here:

  1. Last year your contributions have been questioned by Kalki, Peter1c, DanielTom, Ningauble, etc.
  2. Last year Kalki gave an interesting description of the underlying problem: Your recent activities continue to have a mix of worthy edits, and clearly misplaced or low quality additions of little direct relevance to the pages... Kalki 22:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Last year you have been blocked 4 times, in total for a period of 8.5 months
  4. This year since 15 January 2017 you made some 200 contributions, of which at first more then a dozen have been reversed by Peter1c, and later some more by me, Ningauble and DanielTom.
  5. Yet, I noticed, you never seemed to have processed the critism starting with [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]... Instead in the marriage lemma you continued your misbehavior by adding another unsourced quote, see here.
  6. Beside continue to add low quality additions, and not following clues, you don't seem to directly respond to the situation but start parallel discussion (for example here); make inappropriate comments (on the Village pump) ; start deletion requests out of the blue; continue to violate WQ:LOQ#Length of quotes here; alter the layout of talk page contributions... and more (?)

These developments are on my radar, and I am wondering if the underlying problem continues or is resolving? My initial comment is a suggestion to assist in resolving the situation. Now I have kept monitoring your contributions, and see the problems expanding. If this continues I will block you for a longer period of time. -- Mdd (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC) / update 12:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New sectionEdit

Thanks for given it a try to add a secondary source in your latest edit to the Statue of Liberty lemma, however:

  1. Both authors (Edward Berenson and Barry Moreno) are not that notable. Both have no Wikipedia article.
  2. Both works (The Statue of Liberty: A Transatlantic Story (2012), cited 4 times; B. Moreno, The Statue of Liberty (2004), cited 24 times) are not that notable.
  3. The author of the secondary source, the journalist Erin Blakemore, is not notable, and the published website smithsonianmag.com/smart-news is reliable but not that notable.
  4. Both quotes have been cited some dozen times online in the past two years, but not in any published book.
  5. It (the quotes) does have some actual value in the light of current events, but Wikiquote is not Wikinews.
  6. The source data contains a mistake (Edward Berenson instead of Edward Berensonas), and the source data is incomplete: it should contain the publication dates (2012 en 2004).

I think this all together doesn't meet the minimum requirements. -- Mdd (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @CensoredScribe: Here's a hint that may help you. If you can't memorize a "quote", don't add it to Wikiquote. (E.g., could you memorize "Sauropod expert Mike P. Taylor did a bit of science (this time on the original, not on the TriStar creation) ..... Interested in how much weight can be absorbed by the limb's cartilage pads, and in how big these pads needed to be in sauropods, Mike threw Godzilla into the data set to see what might happen. Godzilla's cartilage disks would not, it seems, hold up under his incredible weight, and we can therefore conclude that a terrestrial biped of Godzilla's size and weight is impossible... Godzilla is meant to be something like 100 m tall and between 20,000 and 60,000 tons in weight ....."[6]? Somehow, this doesn't sound like something that you could quote from memory, say, during a speech. Or would want to quote at all, but I digress.) Corollary: does your "quote" fit the definition "quotations are the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words"? If not, don't add it to Wikiquote. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
(If you can memorize a text is another one of those vague statements that depends on the person, one on the one hand there's 7+2, and on the other there's actors memorizing scripts and hafizs.) Thank you both for your opinions and good luck when it comes to getting a majority of the others to officially codify them; I think you should be able to convince them, you should give it a try. Prey tell how would you go about setting up a vote for changing pages in the guideline category, or is it easier to just shake down every new editor? Unfortunately when it comes to preventing my further additions to about sections and theme pages, your points will be moot, because I'm effectively retired as of this moment as I'm not in the mood to go through the rest of the major and minor religious leaders or other quote websites lists that I've invited you all to go through.
The fate of the about sections is no more clear than it was a year ago as few of them have been reverted and you both seem highly opposed to further work on them and my recent additions on scientific themes/lemma/pages goes unmentioned despite being substantial. I do find it interesting no one has had fault with the nuclear science lemma quotes. While we are teaching each other new words are either of you familiar with Palilalia? I highly recommend improving wikiquotes science coverage, and reconsidering notability qualities that cause this wiki to fail to compare with the quote coverage of today in science. I also recommend to you in your stewardship of the site, in reconsidering a limit of 250 words which bars transferring quotes from wikipedia pages like John Brown and Black people in Mormon doctrine. Best of luck to the new management. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Altering the layout of talk page contributionsEdit

CensoredScribe, altering the layout of talk page contributions by others is (in general) not done, and this happens when you add a gallery of image on the left and on the right of the page. Personally I think these images work out as a smoke screen, making the (already difficult) conversation, almost impossible to read. So I removed the 30+ images you added here. -- Mdd (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I typically understand a smoke screen as obscuring things all around instead of just at their sides, which is really more of a frame, but I get your point minus the overly dramatic analogy. Is this formally a rule yet, and if so, why no link? If not it should be spelled out somewhere, because it would be good to implement, though I am glad to comply with your request until than; also, thank you for the civil way you stated that and omitting slurs like incompetent, clown, lazy, or (worst of all apparently based off the 6 month block), rotting road block. I did notice Kalki's talk page images were only in the center at the top, I must assume this layout is acceptable unless there's a specific rule stating quotes in the center of talk pages accompanying images must be limited to only three lines (Kalki's max on their talk page), which seems oddly specific. Again, thank you for your assistance and professional demeanor. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

March 23, 2017Edit

Hi CensoredScribe, I reviewed half of the 25 edits you made today and roll back half of them for several reasons; from adding unsourced quotes; alphabetizing an article section while the whole article is chronologically ordered; adding hardly notable quotes to thematic lemma's on topics far outside the field of the authors expertise; etc. With edits like that all advice given by several Wikipedia editors is completely ignored again. Previous warnings about these edit behavior become actual again. Therefor hereby I will give you a formal warning, that if you continue this way, I will block you for a longer period of time.

I want to propose that you stop adding quotes to thematic articles unless that are really notable, this is cited in at least 10 reliable sources. You could turn to the lemma's talk page and make suggestions, where others can review these quotes, and add them to the lemma. -- Mdd (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You and I make a great team, me the writer with the new ideas and you the editor on how to conform them to house style. I'll call this one a draw and as you yourself said the total was half. What are the etc you speak of, could you speak more clearly? Also why did you choose 10? Also which professions are the experts on which emotions? Are the experts on the love and sex lemma prostitutes or celibate leaders of world religions? How are those lemma different from the ones I added Jack Parsons quotes to? I contest roughly half your revisions and would like you to propose your ideas at the village pump rather than on individual users talk pages if you intend for them to be policy that applies site wide, as this is not the correct place to propose rules. Thank you for reverting the alphabetizing of a chronologically ordered article which you failed to specify by name. If you want me to revert all of your edits that don't show 10 citations of the quote being used we can do that, because you never provide evidence of ten yourself, enjoy all of my edits being the enforcement of your own rule against you until you comply.

Oh also, you did a lot of rounding and rule bending to get half for your figures. Allow me to count off edits today Attentional control, Bisexuality, Science, Depression, Business, Voice, DC Comics, Selina Kyle, Minamata disease, Deafness, Iron Man (comics) ‎11, versus Tyranny, Absolutism Organization , Liberalism, Truth , security, psychiatry, and birth. Tell me Mdd, do you believe that 8 is equal to 11? Now let me get this straight boss, are you telling me that Robert Anton Wilson's quoting Jack Parsons does not count as a quote and that the magic number is now 10? Why not 20? Please show me your quote with proof it has been quoted 10 or I'll go easy on you, 4 times by other source that is currently displayed on wikiquote and not a plan for the future. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have issued a fourth block for continue with edit-warring and making accusations after the warning. Before the previous blocks multiple administrators have tried to reason with you. After the last block one wikiquote editor reviewed your new edits and undid about a dozen with various reasons: tips to improve you edits. At that time you ignored all of it, and yesterday again you violated half of those tips. Instead of just asking what did I miss, you undid the reverse, and started making accusations and make fun of the situation in the edits summary, on the village pump, here on your talk page. For now it ends here. I have been monitoring the situations since you returned here, and can only agree with earlier concerns shared: instead of making just a few good edits, instead of specializing in a particular field you know more of, you choose to make questionable edits at two dozen at a time in a wide range of fields. I think, we can not expect other wikiquote editors to keep following you edits, and keep correcting the many mistakes you make. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Under what conditions would you or other administrators reading this talk page, be willing to shorten the block? What words could I say in theory? Please forgive a bad day's writing. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This block is issued because of the ongoing flaws in your edit pattern and (lack of) responses in the past two months. In this period at least four editors have removed a significant number of quotes you added, at least three editors have tried to give you leads to improve your work, yet from start to end you didn't seem to accept the leads and your contributions didn't approve. In three months you get another chance, but if this continues, more permanent solutions are required. -- Mdd (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding duration of the block, Mdd has been quite lenient in using half the length of your previous block rather than using progressive enforcement by doubling it. The conditions under which administrators will stop blocking you are when/if you demonstrate that you fully understand what you have been doing wrong and completely stop doing it. Otherwise, as Mdd notes, a more permanent solution will be required. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Mdd showed great restraint, they could have easily banned me and no one would have cared that a vote wasn't held, it would just seem like the natural result after a 6 month block. I would like to know if either of the two of the four editors who have wasted their time dealing with correcting me could as a change of pace before addressing specific edits in the last 2 months, provide an examlple of an edit they thought constructive, perhaps from one of the several pages listed on my user page. If indeed none of those contain a single edit worth thanking me for, than I apologize for only making bad edits, weighing the good versus the bad can be difficult sometimes and it's easy to forget the balance without keeping statistics.
I believe the David Brin's quote was noted by Kalki and others as notable, and that Robert Anton Wilson's would most likely as well by that logic. The other issues I am in the wrong, although the Obama quote on science is acceptable expecting others to format it correctly is indeed lazy, you all have better things to do than track down sources and clean up commas. Also most importantly, CSI dialogue is not notable. Although in fairness, the quotability seems to make it much easier for movies than television shows to be recognized. For some reason Star Trek dialogue is notable, which if a facet I would like further explained beyond it having a wikipedia page for each episode. You have done more than your fair share dealing with correcting my mistakes already so I can understand completely refusing to further instruct me, but I really do want to learn from you how to contribute to this projects many facets. I would prefer to focus on issues beyond proper citation and formatting which can be addressed with a link to a style guide for the particular medium, and focus more along the lines of what constitutes the standards present past or proposed for quotability for quotes outside of pages for a particular work of fiction, many of which have not once been cited by a source of any note unfortunately.
Again I ask, under what conditions could I, without making further main space edits, remove as little as a single week from the three month block? Not making a mistake again is to be assumed on my art when I am allowed to return in three months assuming no further wrongs are committed on my part, however according to the notability guidelines for theme articles quoted can be cited regardless of the frequency of quotation. This is really misleading, it would be great if this would be clarified or deleted to avoid confusion towards the required frequency. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy and pasteEdit

You often copy quotes from Wikiquote pages and paste them into others, but forget(?) to remove the wikilink for the word which is the title of the other page, which makes it appear in bold font (as in here). Try to be more careful. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • My apologies, I went through the edits I made yesterday and the only superfluous bold text that remains is for Islam and Jihad, which I'll be adding additional quotes to momentarily.
Also, I would appreciate your input regarding differences between wikiquote and wikipedia in alphabetizing Arabic names, so as to avoid a block over incorrect formatting. Although Wikiquote alphabetizes Ayman al-Zawahiri under A, wikipedia does so under Z; similarly Omar Bakri Muhammad is listed under M on wikipedia, while here his name is omitted to Omar Bakri and placed under B. I'm also not sure whether Omar Bakri Muhammad would come before or after Muhammad Taqi Usmani, both are classified under M on wikipedia. I assume Wikipedia is correct regarding this, though like one of the wikis, I could be wrong. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You often copy quotes from Wikiquote pages and paste them into others, but forget(?) to remove the wikilink for the word which is the title of the other page. Here the wikilink doesn't make the word appear in bold font as before, but it is still quite superfluous. Try to be more careful. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • As you insist on copying and dumping material from Wikipedia into Wikiquote, let me suggest you something better. Here's a fine dictionary of quotations in the public domain with around 2000 notable quotations, many of which aren't in Wikiquote yet. Only minimal editing skills are required to format and place them in the correct pages here. Ideally each quote and reference should be double-checked (you can use Google Books for this) – in case you can't confirm them you should include something like "as reported in Philip Hugh Dalbiac (ed.), Dictionary of Quotations (English) (1908), p. ..." in the citation – but for the most part both its quotes and references are very accurate. Interested? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I'll pass. Besides, I'm sure you can handle it on your own, the electricity wasting, summary soap boxing DanielTom, the perfect wikiquote editor. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

BotanyEdit

A page that you have been involved in editing, Botany, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Botany. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with UDScott on the deleted page being just fine, but do whatever you want in regards to arbitrarily deciding what constitutes presentation copyright infringement, I would recommend selecting a fixed number of shared public domain quotations as to appear consistent and not we are collectively making it up as we go. You should really remove all of the quotations from the other websites that gathered saying attributed to Buddha which are of a similarly vast number. I think the only publicity Wikiquote would ever get in the news is if another organization that collected quotes actually decided to file suit. Correct me if I'm wrong and we've actually been mentioned in a news article like Uncyclopedia or Rationalwiki have managed to do, but Wikiquote has not, despite it's connection to Wikipedia. I've no interest in going against your wishes, however bizarrely arbitrary I may find them, I've been enough of a hassle already given the amount of revisions that have been made to address my faults in quote selecting and the time volunteered to correct my mistakes. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove boldface from most "Last words"Edit

Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

ResponseEdit

It took me a week to write it, but I have finished a response to you.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

BirthsEdit

Hello CensoredScribe! I doubt if anyone will wipe off the birth years anymore.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response and thank you very much for your assistance! CensoredScribe (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminshipEdit

Six months offerEdit

It may be late, but I think I can answer your questions. That w:WP:SO offer is not a policy, it's own page says so at the beginning and it says clearly that one can be unblocked if they understand why they were blocked and can correct it. But they don't bother.

But forget about unblocking, they even banned me from talk page under a frivolous reason of repeated unblock requests eveb though you can make as many you want. Even banned me from UTRS despite me admitting block evasion. They kicked me out many times of IRC only because I wanted unblock except one time I created a huge drama.

Especially after I criticized some of the Wikipedia admins, I think an unblock is highly unlikely considering they become agressive and kick me out instantly.

If you always listen to them and don't speak up no matter what, they might just unblock you. But some of them are plain uncaring. Many admins I contacted didn’t bother despite my attempt to stop socking. If they say you have to do it, taking it quietly is your best shot. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I honestly haven't requested to be unblocked for a couple of years now, and it seems obvious now that as a form of persuasion, my citing examples of good edits made with sock puppet accounts on Wikipedia just doesn't work regardless of how noble the edits may have been. I suppose it's worth a shot asking again, several of the edits I've made here are significant improvements to well frequented pages and it's pretty obvious I'm not interested in making up subjective or overly broad categories or I'd be doing it here, I'm not the first person to confuse Wikipedia with TV Tropes I have the feeling, it's the ignoring a dozen warnings from administrators is what is difficult to forgive, it really doesn't matter what the warnings were for, that there's a dozen of them for the same thing shows an unwillingness to change. Had I at least bothered to argue the merits of the categories with someone at the time I could have realized talking to them how subjective they were; like what essentially happened here with the Libertarian films category I argued be deleted.
I don't mind that much though, I have lots of things to do here anyways, the overlap between the two wikis is great, editing is largely just a difference between generally summarizing sources in your own words and directly quoting snippets of them. The fact my Wikiquote and alleged Wikipedia contributions don't appear to overlap much in subject matter should be an indication to whoever runs the sock puppet investigations that I would have at least attempted once to double dip using references from Wikiquote on Wikipedia, and if I had seen all the anime and played all the video games I am accused of editing the pages for on Wikipedia than I would have edited the descriptions for them, added about sections or quoted the instruction manual. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate your thoughts.Edit

Why are you still wasting time with vacuous material that is meant to entertain and distract rather than educate and enlighten?Edit

CensoredScribe, why are you still wasting your time with vacuous material that is meant to entertain and distract rather than educate and enlighten? It is obvious that you are very intelligent and are capable of great intellectual discipline. Why are not exerting some discipline in your choice of material, and allowing the random machinations of the market to select for you? Reading lists for masters and PhD programs of many universities are available online (example). Why are you distributing your attention to sources unworthy of attention? I really don't get it. Your mind only comes into this world only once and you get only one chance to do something worthwhile with it. There is no time to waste.

  • Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.
    • Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:9; Yerushalmi Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 37a.

You are destroying your mind (and soul) by feeding it material that is unwholesome, not beneficial to its growth. By the logic of the Mishnah, then, you are destroying an entire world. ~ Peter1c (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the compliment and the concern, I am in no rush to create another about section or to add an extensive amount of quotes to theme pages from cartoons or comics like I did when I first started editing; the particularly soap boxy inspirational quotes from comics all seem to be about the same basic subjects: strength, courage, teamwork, friendship, etc., though I don’t see them of being of a drastically worse quality than the numerous inspirational quotes from professional athletes. I have only watched one new movie in the last 9 months for wikiquote and no TV shows, and I’m already feeling tired of fiction just from looking up information about things I've already seen. I don’t tend to spend as much time creating about sections for TV shows on account of they rarely go into as much detail in interviews and reviews, I haven’t completed that many of them, and there’s often a language barrier with video games and anime. I am starting to get tired of reading film reviews and interviews for violent action and horror movies as well as depressing historical dramas with slightly more educational value to them due to the research that goes into making them appear more historically accurate. Adding reviews for CGI animal movies is of no interest because I’ve not actually seen many of those either and I don’t like reading reviews to things I’ve not seen, the interviews however tend not to reveal much of the plot as they are often done to promote the film and there’s often a wider array of topics, like animation, film or acting.
    Honestly between the brief amount of time I spent on the pages for WWI, 9/11, terrorism, and nuclear weapons I’m ready to think about something more pleasant for a while, even the psychology journals I want to read before the end of the year are just a tad dour and those are designed to help people. I might eventually add something from a longer non fiction work though at the moment I intend to add quotes from journals and some more religious figures before I seriously consider retiring from this pursuit and just reading without the intent of looking for things Wikiquote is lacking, it’s been a while since I’ve done that. Most of the great classics of literature already have pretty decent coverage on Wikiquote, though there’s plenty of books written by literary theorists analyzing them from different perspectives that could be added to about sections. I am definitely interested in adding quotes of greater educational value than I have recently, though I think understanding why a film is bad or good is important, I regret not adding more reviews from Crosswalk and other religious film reviewers as they are just as widely read as the other entertainment websites, (though I wouldn't necessarily say the major newspapers), and showing them side by side with more secular reviews demonstrates that there are more similarities between the reviews than there are differences for the most part. Roger Ebert thought rather highly of studio biblical epics written with the approval of religious groups, as was the custom during the Hays Code. Sometimes though they disagree in ways you would not expect, such as with the violence in The Passion of the Christ which seems to have been protested more by secular sources than by Christians, many seeing it as just your typical violent Hollywood horror movie passing under the radar because it is excused as a passion play; whether or not this would have been the reaction to a crucifixion scene with similar levels of blood is questionable and hard to prove given the general lack of films featuring scenes like that. I read an article from the British Film Institute titled, War is Hell, but how much can you show? detailing film censorship in the U.K. during the second world war, I have not reviewed the official stance of churches on the televised images of atrocities that took place during the Vietnam War and whether the news was ever protested the way one might a violent film showing these horrifying things happening.
    Not to digress to much, but what I find strange about religious protests of violent entertainment is that professional sports has been given the pass, seemingly no major religious organization has made a serious effort in modern times to oppose professional sports citing it being a glorification of violence, an unnecessary risk to human life, resulting in numerous preventable serious injuries or being a colossal waste of time and resources that could go to the poor. I could speculate as to why no church wants to pick a fight with a bunch of professional athletes beloved by the local community and the many businesses that support both the local sports teams and the local churches, who would hate to pick sides and divide the cornerstones of patriarchal culture. Why do religious critics not normally protest cheerleaders for not wearing enough clothes the way they did with Wonder Woman in the 40's? Does that mean her attire is now officially acceptable and the previous condemnations were incorrect given the current stance on cheerleaders seems to be they are dressed perfectly fine? I’d be much more interested in an actual quotation that could be added explaining the near universal approval of organized sports by religion. The biggest religious opposition seems to be that throwing a pig skin football is not kosher, and Jehovah's Witnesses generally dislike all organizations above a certain size, which is hardly a call for a football prohibition. I agree that most of what has been described in this discussion is just bread and circuses but with a television screen and high fructose corn syrup. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CensoredScribe. Thank you for your reply. I really like what you wrote. I'm really glad to hear I'm not the only one who has noticed religious leaders are giving a pass to spectator sports. In a theology class at UC, the professor began each class by chatting about football with other students. One day I got fed up and stood up and demanded that we discuss whether football was idolatrous. He laughed. But I had a good discussion with some other students after class. Spectator sports are a key part of the propaganda system that gets young people to worship the beast. The reason for the failure of courage on the part of religious leaders to take on spectator sports might be a desire not to set themselves in opposition to popular athletes, as you say, but it could also be something more sinister. Organized religion is, after all, funded by the beast of global capital. Spectator sports, as you rightly point out, are a colossal waste of resources that might have fed the poor and housed the homeless. But the mansions and tropical vacations of the owner class are also a colossal waste. Religion that preaches against conspicuous consumption is not in vogue, perhaps precisely because the owner class doesn't want to be called out on their inhumanity, and therefore funds religious leaders who give them a pass on their cruel indifference to the poor.

Regarding your concern that some works are already adequately covered on Wikiquote, I definitely wouldn't let that dissuade you from compiling quotes from them. In many cases there are Wikiquote pages for the authors, but not for individual books. You can also add quotes to theme pages as you find them. The quotes earlier editors picked out aren't necessarily the best ones. Before I learned about Wikiquote, I collected quotations in a document on my hard drive. Collecting quotations is a good practice in any case, because it gives you a written record of what you learned from a book. Not sure if you saw this quote before:

  • Just about anyone with intellectual ambition in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was likely to keep a commonplace book. In its most customary form, “commonplacing,” as it was called, involved transcribing interesting or inspirational passages from one’s reading, assembling a personalized encyclopedia of quotations. ... The great minds of the period—Milton, Bacon, Locke—were zealous believers in the memory-enhancing powers of the commonplace book. There is a distinct self-help quality to the early descriptions of commonplacing’s virtues: in the words of one advocate, maintaining the books enabled one to “lay up a fund of knowledge, from which we may at all times select what is useful in the several pursuits of life.”
    • Steven Berlin Johnson, "The Glass Box and the Commonplace Book," Hearst New Media lecture, April 22, 2010

I agree with you that understanding why film and fiction is bad or good is important. But part of that judgment is in the intention of the genre. Entertainment can be good or bad in some respects, but in one respect it's unworthy of attention no matter what, because it's intention is to entertain rather than enlighten, to make money for producers rather than help the moral and intellectual development of the audience. Film and fiction may produce enlightenment and development, but only secondarily.

  • Do you realize the sort of danger to which you are going to expose your soul? If it were a case of putting your body into the hands of someone and risking the treatment’s turning out beneficial or the reverse, you would ponder deeply whether to entrust it to him or not, and would spend many days over the question, calling in the counsel of your friends and relations. But when it comes to something which you value more highly than your body, namely your soul—something on whose beneficial or harmful treatment your whole welfare depends—you have not consulted either your father or your brother or any of us who are your friends on the question of whether or not to entrust your soul to the stranger.
    • Plato, Protagoras 313a, W. K. C. Guthrie, trans. (Collected Dialogues', p. 312)
  • Knowledge is the food of the soul; and we must take care, my friend, that the Sophist does not deceive us when he praises what he sells, like the dealers wholesale or retail who sell the food of the body; for they praise indiscriminately all their goods, without knowing what are really beneficial or hurtful. Neither do their customers know … unless he who buys of them happens to be a physician of the soul.
    • Plato, Protagoras 313c, Benjamin Jowett, trans.

So if we take Socrates' word, the best texts to read are texts that are meticulous in justifying their claim to be beneficial to the soul, and ruthlessly critical of both other texts and themselves. A good text, in this line of thinking, would constantly raise objections as to why it is or is not beneficial, and analyze the objections meticulously. I couldn't find a specific quote to support this, but another viewpoint would be Walter Benjamin's "On the concept of criticism in German romanticism," where he sees good critical texts as texts that develop and refine centers of self-aware reflection that can give insight into the hidden assumptions that lie behind the text itself, and behind other canonical texts. Benjamin thinks good criticism helps to find the hidden assumptions of texts in the way Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, etc. help find the hidden assumptions of capitalist society. In the Buddhist tradition, thinkers like Nyanaponika and Mahasi Sayadaw teach readers how to cultivate a state of "bare attention" in which consciousness becomes aware of itself. Here the focus is more on awareness of the present state of consciousness, and less on the history of how consciousness came to have the assumptions it is. Anyway, this is just me rambling about academic stuff. The main thing is that i really like what you wrote. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that Plato is often accused of being a eugenicist who based off the views he expresses in The Republic seems to have believed in forced marriages as part of a rigged love lottery, and that he endorsed the telling of "noble lies"; also his choice of metal based metaphors could easily be criticized from a biblical perspective as being derivative of Lamch and Tubal Cain's Nimrod like obsession with metal as the supreme material? Granted Plato did take into account that a union of two golds could result in a bronze, (I'm not sure if he is referring to random genetic mutation or some form of meritocratic social mobility that would allow a transfusion of new blood into the homogeneous gene pool).
Have you heard of Archeanassa and the other Hetaerai that the ancient Greek philosophers were in love with? You've yet to recommend I read the writings of any women, Archeanassa's page is a rather short read, perhaps you could change that and add the appropriate ancient Greek texts.
Also, those football stadiums could easily be converted into tent cities for the homeless, which presumably as private property enclosed by walls, unlike parks, people would not accidentally wander into, and unlike the wilderness, could be easily placed under video surveillance should any security minded detractors insist that be needed to prevent the homeless from doing whatever it is the wealthier are afraid they will do when grouped together. I don't think they actually store anything of value in those stadiums anyways, and if they do, all it would take is extra security guards like they have for warehouses. Most of the infrastructure already exists to implement this, meaning it's a relatively cheap modification compared to building affordable permanent housing.
Just saying... CensoredScribe (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "CensoredScribe".