User talk:CensoredScribe/2015-2016

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive 2015-2016

I have moved your unsourced quotes to the respective talk pages[edit]

Please note that quotes like the following are not considered "sourced":

  • Does it ever wake you in the middle of the night? The feeling that one day they will pass that foolish law or one just like it, and come for you? And your children?
  • The honorable Elijah Muhammed teaches us that Jesus did not have blond hair and blue eyes. The honorable Elijah Muhammed teaches us that the images of Jesus that are on prison walls and churches throughout the world are not historically correct because history teaches us that Jesus was born in a region where the people had color.

"Magneto" is a fictional character, and is therefore not the author of this quote; a proper attribution would identify the writer of the film script, as well as the year of the film; it could then note after this sourcing information that the line was spoken by the character Magneto, portrayed by Ian McKellen. Although Malcolm X was a real person, he is not the author of the film, Malcolm X; this quote must be identified in his speeches or writings to be considered sourced. It is possible that the real Malcolm X never actually said this, in which case it should also be sourced to the writer of the film script. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool; I was wondering how sourcing films went. Sorry about that, I'll do the same for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on Holy Grail. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that for each of these film, the writers are identified in the page on the film. BD2412 T 02:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused whether to include who the screenplay was by or who the story was by, or both; in the case of X-Men (film), it says screenplay by David Hayter but written by Tom DeSanto and Bryan Singer.
"Story" generally refers to the sequence of events, while "screenplay" refers to the actual writing of dialogue, so it will be the screenplay. BD2412 T 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Great work![edit]

A barnstar.

I just wanted to thank you for the great work you have been doing across a swath of pages. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this means a lot to me as it's the first barnstar I've ever been given.`CensoredScribe (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Film categories[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for your work to add categories to several pages. I do disagree with a couple of your choices however, specifically the addition of Psychological horror films to any of the Halloween or Friday the 13th films. These are pretty much just slasher films and do not exhibit elements of psychological horror (see my comment on Talk:Halloween II (1981 film)). Just having a psychologist character does not make the film a psychological horror film. Secondly, the addition of Children's films to the same films just because they may have children as characters - the use of that cat is for films whose intended audience is children - and these horror films were definitely not made for children. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I wouldn't consider any of the Nightmare on Elm Street films psychological horror films even though they mention psychologists and a lot of scenes take place inside the characters minds. R ratings effectively prevent children but not teenagers by definition. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
One other distinction I might make is that you put Apocalyptic films as a subcategory of Disaster films, but I would actually reverse that (and that's how WP does it as well), so that Disaster films are a subcategory of Apocalyptic films. I believe that the topics covered in Disaster films are potentially one kind of apocalyptic situation, but not every apocalypse involves things in disaster films. What do you think? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the only apocalyptic movies that don't feature disasters are low budget religious and supernatural horror movies but that's about half of apocalyptic films, so neither category should contain the other as they are distinct concepts. I also realized there's a couple of films which should be added as apocalypse and or disaster movies.
The Omen isn't a disaster movie because the earth it's self never seems to be in danger, just the people on it, however Noah is both an apocalypse and a disaster film. If the Omen counts as apocalyptic for being about the ultimate evil's rise to power, than I think that would mean Lord of the Rings would also count as an apocalypse film, though not a disaster film; because we are never told the extent of what Sauron can do to the environment.
The Matrix and Terminator films are commonly described as robot apocalypses which show widespread environmental disaster. The forests being frozen and the sun nearly being blighted from the sky in Legend by the Dark Lord would be disasters, and though that logic Batman and Robin is also disaster movie because large parts of the city are frozen and both villains are environment themed. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop adding "Family Film" categories on the six Star Wars movie pages. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, specifically why are they not family films? If the phantom menace is not for family's than who is it for? The violence level is comparable to the family film franchise Pirates of Caribbean, no one bleeds yet swords are swung. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


I want to recommend you be more cautious in your editing. For example your Augustine of Hippo edit here: [1] and your Catholic Church edit here: [2] I have reverted. The Augustinus one was inaccurate and the Catholic Church edit I think was over long. However, be not discouraged! You do good work, such as your edit to the Carl Jung page here: [3] looks good as well as your edit to Hatred here: [4]. Just remember: "err on the side of caution" and "when in doubt, abstain". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, you greatly improved the Augustine of Hippo quote; also you are right in that Stephen Fry and Trey Parker shouldn't have their own sections, I see now that Martin Luther and other protestant church founders don't have a book comparable to The Book of Mormon to warrant their own sections. Summa Theologica isn't even mentioned on the page for the catholic church, despite it widely being considered the most important original Christian text produced during the crusades.
However, I think both Stephen Fry and Trey Parker have enough top say that I would like to quote them to the maximum limits. I've noticed even some admins disregard the quote limit, though I see that it says two quotes for half an hour for TV programs, seven lines by one character, ten lines of dialogue. Than again the guidelines for electronic games are absurd given Final Fantasy VII has hours of reading yet there's only supposed to be 3 quotes from it so perhaps this is something to bring up at the village pump. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the quote limit can definitely be ignored, we do not want rules to stifle Wikiquote. However, if you are going to exceed the limit it ought to be because the quote is important, or especially relevant. For example exceeding the limit as regards a highly regarded/influential Aquinas quote or Luther quote is reasonable, but an obscure and disrespectful South Park quotation I think should be kept modestly small. I think prominence ought to be in proportion to relevance. For example, you said on the Vilage Pump "I would like to use more than 3 quotes from metal gear solid on the page for genetics." I think that is a bad idea; one quote from Metal Gear Solid ought to suffice and even than it could be argued that Metal Gear Solid has naught pertinent/unique/influential to say about genetics. We do not want Wikiquote pages to be flooded with quotes from everything ever published about genetics. Quality is better than quantity. Do you see what I mean? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
To an extent; I understand Wiki quote isn't the place for including the entirety of obscure documents, that's wiki source. Within the Catholic Church page, page there are quotes from high ranking Vatican officials and lay catholic celebrities; as well as leaders of other churches now. There are no clerics of atheism, what makes one an official expert if not the weight of their arguments and personal notability? Why is this quote notable on atheism when it's clearly talking about science and not atheism.
  • I would, like any other scientist, willingly change my mind if the evidence led me to do so. So I care about what's true, I care about evidence, I care about evidence as the reason for knowing what is true. It is true that I come across rather passionate sometimes — and that's because I am passionate about the truth. … I do get very impatient with humbug, with cant, with fakery, with charlatans.
    • Richard Dawkins, BBC interview, April 2004.

Richard Dawkins is quoted no less than 4 times on the page for atheism, equal to the amount of quotes I would like to attribute to Trey Parker, who has written more on the notoriously difficult to define subject of atheism, and is better known. Evolutionary biology and zoology are only some of several fields that provide evidence against a young age creation, why not quote Alfred Wegner or Willard Libbey? Should Darwins thoughts on the non existence of god be included more than Richard Dawkins, if there's sufficient quotes? Evidence against a recent creation Rationalwiki CensoredScribe (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right to remove the Dawkins quote which does not mention atheism. But wrong to add that South Park quotation which does not itself mention atheism either.

Also, Trey Parker is not better known than Richard Dawkins and Parker has written less about atheism than Dawkins. Also, you very well could quote Wegner and Libbey; but remember that Dawkins is not only a biologist and zoologist but also a highly prominent writer about atheism and religion.

Regarding "I would like to use more than 3 quotes from metal gear solid on the page for genetics.", do you agree that is unwise or do you think differently?

Good to speak with you, I like this healthy debate, which methinks benefits us both. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed it as well, 3 is fine, Hideo Kojima isn't to genetics what William Jennings Bryan is to evolution. Trey Parker is less known than Richard Dawkins, however South Park is considerably better known, I presume, as neither of us presented a source such as a PEW pole comparing the two's popularity specifically. South Park has been on television for years with recorded ratings in the tens of millions; God Delusion hit 3 million in september; I'm aware Richard Dawkins is more academically accredited; but he's not more popular; as indicated by any number of criteria under the special page comparing South Park to Richard Dawkins. My only question now is whether Trey Parker (not South Park) is as unheard of around the world as Edward Snowden?

Would you be interested in adding the category electronics games cleanup to the many pages that need it? CensoredScribe (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that three quotes from Metal Gear Solid on the genetics page is too many. Some of those quotes also were not directly relevant to genetics. Also, on the genetics page, I removed this improperly formatted conglomerate:
  • Those were early days--days when a priest could still persuade someone to put their faith in God's hands rather than those of the local geneticist.

  • My genetic scarlet letter continued to follow me from school to school. When you're told you're prone to learning disabilities, it's sometimes easier not to disappoint anybody.

  • For the genetically superior, success is easier to attain but is by no means guaranteed. After all, there is no gene for fate. And when, for one reason or another, a member of the elite falls on hard times, their genetic identity becomes a valued commodity for the unscrupulous. One man's loss is another man's gain.

  • The majority of people are now made-to-order. What began as a means to rid society of inheritable diseases has become a way to design your offspring--the line between health and enhancement blurred forever. Eyes can always be brighter, a voice purer, a mind sharper, a body stronger, a life longer. Everyone seeks to give their child the best chance but the most skilled geneticists are only accessible to the privileged few.
    • Jerome played by Ethan Hawke, Gattaca written by Andrew Niccol

As regards "Would you be interested in adding the category electronics games cleanup to the many pages that need it?", I politely decline.


IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Which one was you favorite from Gattaca, might I ask? CensoredScribe (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
"For the genetically superior, success is easier to attain but is by no means guaranteed." I like that sentence a lot.
Also, I am reminded of "The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought, and attended to my answer." -Henry David Thoreau. I feel somewhat now that way. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent edit here: [5] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego?" quotes[edit]

Please provide an author for these quotes. BD2412 T 02:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not even the Carmen Sandiego specific wiki lists the script writers, 101 articles isn't much of a wiki. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I sourced one (at Audacity) from a video clip of the episode introduction on YouTube. You can probably find the authors of the rest the same way. BD2412 T 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, the next thing I do will be to attribute the writers of those Carmen Sandiego quotes; but for now I'm going to take a break. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You should also work on your formatting. It is often sloppy and problematic. For example, you can't use a series of ":" indentations followed by a "*" bullet point, or "**" double bullet. BD2412 T 20:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I intend to go through your contributions and remove quotes that are off-topic for the pages, or lacking in full citation. You may want to go through your contributions first and make these corrections yourself. BD2412 T 03:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I will stop making edits for the time being. As far as establishing off topic; I think the only example that I can really think of off the top of my head would be the lord of the rings quote for responsibility and power, as they are demonstrated but not named the concepts. Yeah, these two I will go revert. I understand that illustrating anger through any number of action movie one liners would be effectively the same thing, or romantic dialogue that doesn't specifically say romance. But I don't think I really did that, except for the LOTR quotes I mentioned. I figured the quotes on amazons mentioning warriors were acceptable for containing war in them. The quotes on the page for bigotry are also largely examples through example. That's all the off topic ones, the LOTR quotes should probably go but I think the Amazons are alright. What I did do some of though is make quotes based off of a redirect, should I not do that?
I will make my next contributions when I edit again in a month to correct my own mistakes. If that time frame is not acceptable please give me another so that I may know when I need to have the quotes cleaned up by and I will see if that is possible for me given my course load I've been neglecting. My apologies for the bad typography from "**"'s, on my user page I'm now using "::"'s instead, I haven't really seen much back and forth dialogue outside of TV and film pages which is a lot of what I've been adding, should I try and avoid that?
I'm sorry. I know I've been rather active so undoing anything should be my next task. I am positive that the only unsourced quotes are from Carmen Sandiego, I source video games writers and source orphaned quotes I find. An example of my recent activies with categories is how I loosely applied the labels of sociology and psychology, here's my explanations. I was going to make a redirect from etymology to language to explain the history categorization; but no more editing till this is dealt with, psychology on language is for the Linguistic relativity. I was pretty loose with the belief category, using it for things like UFO's and other widespread modern legends that exist beyond formal mythology and religious structures. Theories are beliefs, I think Hard A.I. would count as should mutant. Genomics as engineering makes sense as well, though wouldn't say all genetics is genetic engineering. I also believe I am correct with the art categorizations, and in counting social sciences as category science.
I think beauty and ugly being categorized as art is appropriate as those terms are used to frequently. Bad books aren't described as ugly. Again it's sociology and psychology, in this case I was thinking of body dysmorphic disorder or a page for Body image; perhaps? The Hell Raiser quote is technically using limit not limitless but the idea is definitely about pushing the limit. User:CensoredScribe|CensoredScribe]] (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, I saw the power page. I will totally just transfer everything to the correct dialogue sub section from now on and where I have done it wrong before. It is by using ":"" for the quote/dialogue followed by ":*" for the citation. I had a feeling I should have made a dialogue section. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I did that for Power only because there was so much dialogue. A few, comparatively short instances of dialogue are reasonable in the body of a long page. Dialogue, if included, should be trimmed only to the portion that is relevant to the page, to keep it from overwhelming other text. We also have greater copyright concerns with dialogue than with other kinds of quotes. BD2412 T 19:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Please stop adding quotes to pages that do not mention the topic of the page, as you did here at DIFF.

Please, I ask of you, instead to engage in discussion, at the talk page of each associated page.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think an X-Men quote is just as relevant to the subject thematically as say quotes about child labor, desegregation in schools, or quotes about school shootings. Death of a child refers to ones own child and not children in general, and presumably most quotes about children involve thinking about them to some extent so the distinction between related concepts is important to maintain. I imagine your issue is with the fact the phrase think of the children isn't specifically used in the quote, rather the character is just voicing their concern for children. I've seen other pages with quotes that don't specifically use the term but rather use synonyms that lack pages; I don't recall anyone ever saying think about the teenagers but they are generally considered synonymous with children by the adults who make these sensational kinds of political speeches. Substituting synonyms happens quite a bit with redirect pages; it seems to be a matter of debate similar to the one over pairing images with quotes they were never intended to go with.

Would the following quote be 25% closer to matching "Think about the children" as it contains the word children instead of teenager and is clearly about the subject thematically?

  • Magneto: Doesn't it ever wake you in the night, the feeling that someday they will pass that foolish law, or one just like it, and come for you? And your children?

CensoredScribe (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I happen to love X-Men as much as you do. :) But I'd like to keep the page to quotations that actually use the exact phrase, "Think of the children" -- sound good? -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, it was my mistake. Some pages need to be very specific, like Threatening the President of the United States, which shouldn't have quotes about the leaders of other countries.

Do you think it would be a good idea to have pages for Declarations of war and Peace treaties? I would learn a lot of geography and history from those pages; and that's not something I think I've seen collected as a book either. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Do those have corresponding Wikipedia articles ? -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Peace treaty and Declaration of war both have pages and lists. There's a category for treaties on wikisource as well, along with declarations of independence; though not of war. Wikisource has the Italian declaration of war against the United States, though it's not part of a larger category. The wikiquote page for Declaration of Independence is U.S. specific as well, which I think should be opened up to cover the other countries that made them. I'm curious now how many countries don't have declarations of independence compared to how many that do, is it really just 18 that have them? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay sounds good. Good luck with your research, -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Your conduct as an editor of Wikiquote has been questioned in the thread you started at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard #WikiLubber doesn't understand about sections or the crime genre. You are welcome to respond there, and I urge you to give serious consideration to the issues that have been raised. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Serious consideration would imply I have done something horrific and irreversible, you reverted a total of a dozen of my edits which were all made the day before yesterday, hardly ban worthy offense. The fact you leap to ban without considering a short term block shows says a lot. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


From now on, please only add categories to Wikiquote pages that are used in their respective Wikipedia articles. Stop making up stuff. And pls only add quotes that are actually quoted by others, preferably in books, not just something you read in Internet forums. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No; I've done nothing wrong. If elves are wrong so are mermaids but that didn't push your buttons. Go to the libterianism in film discussion in the articles for deletion page. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film), an "Elf film"? But, it not only has elves, but also tables and chairs, along with many other things. So I was wondering, according to you, is it a "tables and chairs" film too? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually DanielTom there are 7 dwarf films, the 6 lord of the rings films and snow white; while there are only 4 mummy films. You do make an excellent point though; in comparing the slave Dobby the elf to a piece of furniture; legally in the world of harry potter they would both be property. What about Category:Mummy films, and category [[Category::Genie films]]? The dwarf films category is 7, genie is 8, mummy is 4. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is a "Dwarf film"? Just something you made up, right? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No more or less made up than angel films. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think the LOTR films are about dwarves? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

publisher, title and date[edit]

Please start citing your sources adequately, don't just add a name and a link with no explanation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, which in particular have been a problem? CensoredScribe (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello?? Are you even making an effort? And who the hell is "Kathy Castro"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Bare url's are't nearly as bad as unsourced statements or not attributing the authors like on the war page. One question, would you prefer the site name or the article name as the link when they differ? Kathy Castro is famous in a recognized dominatrix/femdom/giantess subculture the same way graffitti artists are recognizable in their subculture and Catherine Robbe-Grillet is quotable. You didn't complain about Giantess Katelyn who has a higher google search result, or Laura Gentile founder of wESPN, or Kellie Everts for founding women's body building. Nor for Kirsch, Irving who has a contrary theory about anti depressants that would never be included on the Wikipedia page as it would never reach the phase 2 medical review trial put in place initially with circumcision by Doc James back when he went by Jmh. If I'm not mistaken on my wikipedia history, I believe that's when the stricter policy first was implemented.
These quotes are definitely memorable, original; and educational, who knew hypnosis could do that or that Buddhism had such a spiritually important diety like Sarva-Buddah Dakini Narodakini; who isn't mentioned on the wikipedia page for Naropa even though she should. Not to mention all the things that Kathy Castro says if sourced should really be added to the page for Narodakini. I'm banned forever; but that's a different story. Although these quotes would not work on Wikipedia but are still of interest for wikiquote. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way; it's title, publisher, date; not publisher, title, date; while we are nit picking. Tools Citation Guide (Retrieved 4-8-2016) CensoredScribe (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition to Meditation[edit]

I am concerned about the quality and notability of the following addition to the Meditation article:

Rev: Hello Tyr. Have you come to join me in meditation?
Tyr: Meditation is for weak people with troubled minds. Is your mind troubled?
Rev: You have an interesting way of starting a philisophical discussion.

This quotation is from a marginally notable source, and is of marginal quality. These two factors together lead me to suggest it is unsuitable for inclusion. What was your motivation for adding the quote? ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Andromeda has a page and the quote is memorable, though it is more about not meditating than meditating; so you made the right call. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
In retrospect good call; I pick battles slightly more carefully now. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition to Colonialism[edit]

I have abridged your addition to the Colonialism article, and wanted to ask about the motivation for including it. The property rights of the beneficiaries of eighteenth century land grabs have been handed down for generations, collecting interest along the way. If the property rights produced by past injustice do not expire, why do the claims for past injustice expire?

Also a formatting question: Why do you make a new bullet for each paragraph, rather than starting with ":*" to get a continuation? Because that typographically looks, the way I do it is in bad in keeping with the left hand margin along the rest of the page. What your describing is trying to replicate the look of a term paper where every paragraph is indented. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Additions to Humanity[edit]

When adding quotations it is helpful to include links to wikipedia for authors so that other editors can see the author is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion. I was not able to determine if the authors of these additions are sufficiently notable. I also don't understand the motivation for the additions.

"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."

The basis of these quotes is on these, admittadly I had a similar problem with the [Catholic Church]] page where the quotes did need to be considerably shorter but were ultimately still of importance. You seem more interested than motive than effect; also you seem very interested in property rights; I'm surprised you haven't chimed in on Category:Libertarian films; which was deleted; hmm...why just today, what a coincidence. I am not not here to discuss property rights, but I think most people would agree that if enough people call what happened to the native Americans colonialism that it should be included, particularly seeing as America was officially referred to as a colony of Britain. I understand people call Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falkland island colonies; perhaps those quotes should be included the same way people are tend to use most political labels pretty loosely. I'm may I answer your question with the question of why; also why did you wait until now to make those revisions, have you not seen them before; I've brought up these issues before the Village Pump. I've read your page, you mention the village pump and guidelines yet don't seem as proactive in the community discussions as your seniority would suggest. Also if you could use Tildeseven when it's obvious, apparently we have to use perfect grammar at all times which includes the absence of particles. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Debate about inclusion of quotes[edit]

Hello CensoredScribe. I think the length limit on the comment field is leading us to an inadequate debate on the merit of inclusion of quotes, and in particular to a debate that is more acrimonious than it needs to be. I am hoping we can expand on our rationales in the talk pages to avoid this unnecessary animosity.

I suggest we talk more about the inclusion of the following quote on the Adam page, since it is representative of a concern I have about numerous additions you have made:

More and more, as the organic world was observed, the vast multitude of petty animals, winged creatures, and "creeping things" was felt to be a strain upon the sacred narrative. More and more it became difficult to reconcile the dignity of the Almighty with his work in bringing each of these creatures before Adam to be named; or to reconcile the human limitations of Adam with his work in naming "every living creature"; or to reconcile the dimensions of Noah's ark with the space required for preserving all of them, and the food of all sorts necessary for their sustenance. ...Origen had dealt with it by suggesting that the cubit was six times greater than had been supposed. Bede explained Noah's ability to complete so large a vessel by supposing that he worked upon it during a hundred years.
Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) Vol.1 p. 54

The quote is interesting, but the issue I have is that although it includes parts about Adam, it also includes a lot of material that doesn't relate to Adam in any way I can see. Perhaps the quote would have seemed more relevant if it were shortened to:

More and more, as the organic world was observed, the vast multitude of petty animals, winged creatures, and "creeping things" was felt to be a strain upon the sacred narrative. More and more it became difficult ... to reconcile the human limitations of Adam with his work in naming "every living creature."

The rest of the quotation pertains to Noah, not Adam. The most important thing is that we can discuss issues like these without animosity, so we can all learn from the process rather than becoming infuriated by it. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your edited version pertaining to Adam; though the entirety is of use for allegorical interpretations of the bible. I'm sorry if my choice of words has been harsh; I was aiming for an equivalent amount of legalese, but not Tony Snark, like everyone on Rat Wiki tries to be. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocking warning[edit]

I don’t have time to make an extensive assessment or assertions of situations right now, and currently am NOT inclined to block you, but I have just noticed that a suggestion has been made to another admin to do so, and I believe that it is appropriate that you be warned here that there is a genuine dangers others might soon block you. I can actually see some justification for a short block of a day or two, but believe that such measures are not yet necessary, as I do believe you are sincere in your will to contribute, and have noted significant and worthy efforts to do so. I would advise being more selective of the significance and relevance of the quotes you add to theme pages, and to avoid quotes that amount to extensive passages — especially those which are not very famous or widely noted. I don’t have time to stick around much more, but I should probably be active here sometime tomorrow, at the latest. I am now preparing to leave, and might not respond to any further developments until after I return. ~ Kalki·· 23:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC) + tweak

What you said means a lot to me; thank you. No more internet celebrities, even ones with wikipedia pages like Maddox (writer), the fictional character or the production staff of Lonelygirl15. Although PewDiePie might have important to say about video games and Maddox makes sense for masculinity; themes aren't things one can really be an expert even if their name and academic degrees are both Doom. I'm also just about out of time, as my studies just became a lot more demanding, so I can't really justify making any about sections; which I'll be sticking to over theme pages. Gargoyles works for war because it is sufficiently mature and complex understanding of violence; though ELApro seems like a good person for me to talk to about either. I'm not sure what constitutes notability in a scientist or academic; a doctor I have to read multiple journal articles from in school may not have a wikipedia page. Genomics and graffiti both seem pretty niche, for most people it's basically Banksy for notable graffiti artists and really no one for genomics who isn't a sci-fi author that calls it something different, or a scientist who says something incredibly interesting yet lacks a wikipedia page. David Brin's Uplift would seem as notable source of well written quotes for morally complex themes as much as Ender's Game; I would argue to include quotes from Hugo and Nebula winning sci-fi novels and even popular enough comic book issues to relavent theme pages; although I chose to delete the Ender's Game quotes I added that Peter deliberately ignored during one of their meticulous quote purges so someone else can feel to carry on that battle for transparency. Although there is no page for pocketbook, Superman saying, "Sorry if this is tough on your pocketbook, but I'm thinking of the lives to be saved!" is just as pertinent thematically as his support for, truth and justice. I thought money made sense because it's what you carry in a pocketbook; and there isn't a page for gloves belt, or wallet. I just noticed mask and friendly and neighborhoods. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In the above statements, which you provide, I cannot actually agree with some of the assertions you make, nor even perceive a generally obvious coherence or lucidity to some of them, and will remark that though some of your edits do seem to be possibly sincere contributions of notable statements on notable subjects by generally notable individuals, too many can easily be characterized as deliberately contentious trolling, and pushing beyond generally accepted or acceptable standards of notability or relevance, especially in many of your postings to the theme pages, and continued posting of long passages with rather incidental or trivial relevance to the subject.

I have sometimes been noted for posting extensive assertions where I merely indicate some aspects of the considerations I quite often give to things, which are far in excess of what others could easily understand or bear, but I generally do try to avoid doing so when I believe I properly can. In this case I believe it is probably proper that I make more of an exposition of relevant thoughts than I normally would.

I recognize some of your contributions are worthy additions, and thus remain reluctant to block you, but will note that perhaps a majority of your edits can easily seem to be deliberately designed to merely be contentious and irritating, rather than genuinely notable and valid additions which it is worthwhile to even read, at all, let alone do so in a compendium of quotes where it is expected that many primarily aim to provide many of the finest examples of the wit and wisdom of Humanity, rather than have this project simply become a receptacle of dreck, or very mechanically gathered materials, with very little actual human thought involved, as is the case of many less rigorously maintained and less profoundly interesting internet sites.

One of your major lines of defense or rebuttal when several other editors have sought to amend or revert some of your lengthy or only loosely relevant edits seems to be that there are examples of lengthier, or in your view, less notable statements on other pages, as there often might be, but often many of these do actually have generally recognized interest or relevance to various subjects plainly and prominently associated with that of the page, and at least have some statements most could easily recognize as important without major mental re-adjustments or physical brain-surgery to destroy many normal ranges of human assessment capacities.

One very significant distinction between MANY edits of others which might exist elsewhere that are either too lengthy or rather trivial in relevance, is that YOU very OFTEN, by the sheer abundance of your only very marginally related additions, at least SEEM to be intent on DELIBERATELY irritating others — with MANY entries which have very little or NO direct relevance to various subjects, and often EXTENSIVE passages with but very incidental and trivial relevance, that are very arguably viewed as more irritating distractions from significant quotes, rather than significant and worthy contributions. Some marginal relevance of a long passage, or even some very trivial or marginal relevance of some statement within a long passage, is NOT generally recognized here as justifying the posting such large passages to theme pages as a quote. IF you continue to desire to post large passages that you believe to have relevance to some subject, do it on some User-pages such as you CAN create in USER SPACE, such as "User:CensoredScribe/Experiments" or such — and perhaps occasionally inquire of others whether they believe any portions of such major passages are worthy of general note, if more than a very few short lines of clear relevance. I do not believe many of us would agree that the extensive passages you have often posted merit the attention you seem to wish others to give them, nor do any of us wish to be regularly or constantly pestered with calls to assessments of ideas of what you wish to have considered interesting and relevant.

The very wise and astute KNOW that EVERYONE can PERCEIVE some ASPECTS of relationships or relevance to ANYTHING which no one else can easily perceive — and the very ignorant, confused and stupid tend to think that their discovery of such facts, and some of the significance such facts permit them to perceive about some things, are, or should be innately major ones for everyone, rather than usually quite bloated and exaggerative perceptions of the exceptional importance of their own inclinations and appetites.

The difference between competently entertaining and interesting expositors of many usual or unusual perspectives and those who are overly self-indulgent, selfishly narcissistic, and even solipsist bores, is that the truly wise and clever tend to usually focus on presenting PRIMARILY things in such ways as many CAN and DO at least partially understand, and can and DO find interesting or appealing, entertaining or relevantly educational, with perhaps occasional subtle or even overt forays into more tenuous realms of indications of unusual insights, rather than usually seeking out emphasis or focus on presenting things in the very ways that irritate, bore, distress or extremely disturb others.

There ARE a few cases where I believe those you have been irritating for some time have reverted your edits with what I could agree was an ill-considered zeal and little patience — but I can sympathize with some of their attitudes and understand their frustrations at your continued abuses of the patience or impatience of others.

In many of the edits I have noted, you have often plainly seemed to give a major emphasis on sado-masochistic subjects and attitudes (as do many vandals and trolls though often or usually in more subtle or disguised and less overt and obvious ways) — but I believe it is time you begin to realize that Wikiquote is NOT the place to attempt to extensively exercise or experiment with whatever SM inclinations you might have on the readers and editors of Wikiquote, NOR to merely experiment with the limits of tolerance of those involved in it.

I am probably far more tempered in my responses at the present time than some might prefer me to be, because I still tend to believe that some of your contributions are clearly worthy ones, and can believe that even those I and others do not consider either very interesting, relevant or acceptable are perhaps sincerely meant to provide examples of what you might genuinely perceive to be important aspects of things, but you continue to exhibit a marked disdain for the considerations of others, and a refusal of them to defer to your own propensities for posting rather boring or obscure passages emphasizing what most people who have taken note of them can and DO regard as only trivially relevant, even if directly so at all.

In recent days I noted that some of your edits of the page Angels involved a passage with clearly little or no relevance, and no clear effort at providing it:

  • [ . . . two hundred] 2donkeys, two hundred asses, two hundred . . . rams of the] 3flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [ . . . beast of the] 4field from every animal, from every [bird . . . ] 5[ . . . ] for miscegenation [ . . . ]

I noted recently that DanielTom quite properly reverted your addition of this mass of FRAGMENTS of statements from the Dead Sea Scrolls, without ANY clear context, and you reverted that removal with the comment "You didn't even bother with an explanation; there is no page for demons plural and these are specifically referred to as fallen angels; the page name." I will point out that in originally posting this mass of rather incoherent GIBBERISH without ANY clear relevance as a "quote" you did NOT even bother with ANYTHING close to a coherent explanation as to WHY, in the citation section, and what you seem to purport to be a rational explanation involves a massive leap of rather irrational conjecture or pretensions as to what this POORLY transcribed example of POORLY preserved passage of a historical document has to this particular page — or any other on the Wikiquote project. I don’t believe there are likely to be any lucid objections to the assertion that it would not even deserve to be considered an acceptably notable passage to serve as quote on a page for the Dead Sea Scrolls, and thus have just reverted that re-addition to that page.

I will note that within the last few days I also recently reverted your recent post to the page for Abraham which was a rather extensive remark on the nature of golems with only VERY incidental and trivial remark in the passage, of some of Abraham's purported abilities or inclinations, similar to those of people who were purported to make golems, without any genuinely strong relevance of the entire statement to Abraham. Your subsequent addition of a quote by Maimonides was clearly more relevant, and that has been retained.

Though willing to give most people the benefit of a doubt, from what little I have investigated into your edits, and contentions with others, I can agree with others that you might indeed be more inclined to wasting other people's time with trolling or apparently obtuse additions of low value text passages, rather than in any sincere efforts to contribute significant quotes. I can acknowledge some of your edits are worthy additions, but you very often seem to be more interested in provoking and inciting dissatisfactions in others with deliberately low quality additions, or extensive additions of rather dubious relevance or notability, rather than in contributing generally significant quotations, which a normally intelligent and lucid person could easily come to recognize as clearly relevant and notable.

The persistence and abundance of your postings with the apparent presumption or pretensions as to the importance of statements generally perceived to have little relevance or notability can easily be interpreted as trolling or vandalism, even if that is not a deliberate intention; which I will note it quite often seems to be. Whatever your intentions or motivation, tt is not an act of intolerant censorship of ideas for people to remove quotes with little or no clear notability or relevance to the subject of the page, or extensive passages which might have some conceivable but relatively trivial relevance through providing tedious examples related to some subject, but relatively little or nothing clearly stated about the subject — and it might be appropriate to begin to defer to growing consensus that your edits, if not clearly deliberate vandalism or trolling, are more likely to require review, censure, or even temporary loss of editing privileges.

I am NOT inclined to block people who have contributed to the project with some apparent sincerity without a clearly apparent need to do so, and a notice and clear rationale for doing so, and thus I am now am giving you this notice of FORMAL WARNING:

Though some of your contributions seem acceptable and welcome, MANY of them clearly seem to be deliberate or even malicious efforts to provoke contentions and confusions. Further behavior that so disregards general standards of relevance, notability and reasonable brevity, and provokes the objections of others will probably be responded to with a temporary block of between one day to a week, and further such activity beyond that could eventually result in a long-term block of weeks or months, or even a permanent block, if it becomes the clear consensus of the community that many of your edits continue to be more properly characterized as likely acts of trolling or vandalism, rather than sincere contributions. ~ Kalki·· 19:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I apologize for the Spider-Man gibberish, I wanted to lighten the mood with you and it clearly didn't work, I should have realized the last time I did that was speaking with Ryulong and stopped then. I apologize that my actions made you and others feel this was needed; I particularly feel bad knowing you are short on time, given I am in the same situation. Thank you; but although I do have an agenda sadomasochism isn't it. I'm more interested in wounds going away and staying that way; unfortunately that's not something people readily talk about in fiction or real life; for example, there's a lot of more killing in the bible than healing; the same thing throughout any cultures HIStory. Ryulong called everyone who supported me on rationalwiki a zombie presumably because he saw my addition to that page, or because he likes mindlessly shooting them a whole bunch in video games. Video games other than the one with the half naked animal girls you have fight on Noahs ark. Ryulong was not pushing any kind of dangerous sexual agenda by setting himself up as the nicest guy to champion feminism by constantly editing Gamergate; unlike with me for quoting the following: 3 or 4 dominatrixes of which only Frances most famous Catherine Robbe-Grillet but not Canada's was ok, due to her having a wikipedia page and aspects other than her career that make her notable. 2 women with macrophilia of which 1 was okay for the sadism page because it was an interview with the magazine vice. Brannon Braga who is ok for the Star Trek: The Next Generation page because that's a good part of why fans hate him. Than lastly the creator of Wonder Woman's quotes on the subject of sadism which are in an academic study shortly after psychology differentiated from philosophy. In addition there's a million quotes from fiction about fictional villainy equal to the amount of fictional heroics but I don't think that is what is ultimately being discussed here.
The bit with the macrophilia internet author for small was on par with quoting the Lucky Charms catchphrase, which though famous, isn't notable. and the 6 episode long anime Bastard! which I will use as a marker of where obscurity lies. Understanding why quoting the Gargoyles cartoon for war is acceptable but quoting the anime Bastard for charms is not requires testing the waters, which doesn't always work. Based on these few though very notable errors, and by comparing them to what is acceptable, such as Maddox for masculinity; or the longer series of quotes from Phyllis Chesler for Amazon. I think The Book of Giants is worth including somewhere despite it's fragmentary nature however I don't disagree with your deletion to the angel page for that particular passage. Creation narratives are short like poetry, because they are often verbally memorized and not written down so I figured they were acceptable to include. Again I'm sorry; I'm done as of today and not coming back for months for another about section; that you suggested I caused physical harm but not a single persons physical regrowth hurts and tells me you would never try what I'm clearly trying very hard to suggest with quotes while still meeting the standards for no soap boxing. Thank you for your time and thought.
I suppose Wnt could be wrong about what what I asked at the reference desk about injecting embryos into the bloodstream using the tongue as the plunger and lips to create an airtight seal and how no ones bothered to try and it could well work similarly to a stem cell transplant. They also said test results from pharmaceutical companies who use only in male lab rats are suspect when their "a more inbred population than the Egyptian pharaohs". Can I quote Wnt on my talk page? I refuse to quote myself like DanielTom does as it seems like cheating.
Also, you make an excellent point that I shouldn't complain about Daniel Tom not including his reasoning for deleting something unless I first provide reasoning for including it I was trying to avoid making long repetitious edit summaries, which I was chided for on rational wiki. As for editing too much, yes; I should have quit before your last post as it read as slightly more positive than negative and is now the reverse which simply won't do for Wikipedia's Arbcom. That completely defeats the point one of my two primary objectives in editing here, the other being learning more about entertainment and mythology; I think I actually have done a fairly decent job at the second through about sections, though less well through themes, but only because there's a lot more debate about a good cartoon quote versus a good religion quote.
The about sections need editing; though in fairness I was trying to give one to every film and perhaps not every film should have an about section, though you could say the same thing about some films not being notable to have pages at all. No one questions a CGI movie, or a video game like Crash Bandicoot with almost no dialogue; but every book needs proof it is worth while unless it has a wikipedia page specifically about it. Although there are a good number of scientists with wikiquote pages, I have to wonder if are there are really only 4 entomologists worth quoting like that category suggests. I would think that a doctor working on amazing new research being given a print news interview for a major news service would demonstrate notability in place of expecting every scientist to at least 1 book with a wikipedia page in order to be as notable as a TV actor or a soccer player.
I will gladly add quotes to the sports players male and female who are deemed notable rather than some nobody scientist talking about genomics genetics or genetic engineering advancing faster than they can write best seller books about. I really don't want Michael Crichton to be wikiquote's only source of knowledge on the subject when there's actual scientists trying to make something that can act like Micky Mouse or a cat with a 100% human brain or what ever. Is this coherent enough I will gladly elaborate to answer any specific confusions.
Today will be my last day editing for at least a season. I believe the last concrete concern would be the mechanical nature of some of the about sections. CGI is incredibly mechanical; a lot of the films are ridiculously interchangeable and designed around what the technology can currently render; not to diss on Toy Story, but they had to do that film before finding Nemo. Special effects is a big part of movies and even in traditional animation but it's the majority of what is notable about a lot of CGI films. What is important for a video game woud seem to me to be the same as with a movie for the most part; and the average video game sadly has a better story than the average CGI movie; an interesting find that one medium is marketed at an older audience than the other. My about sections for non CGI movies are generally decent; with the exception of films that are really bad like Cat Woman where after a while no one wanted to do an interview. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks.
I remain unsure about the clarity, relevance or coherence of some of your statements, but will note that within the bounds of Wikimedia policies, far more latitude and tolerance can generally be given to material posted in user-space, on user-pages, than can be given to things posted into the articles. Many of your rationales for associating things seem rather tenuous, at best, to myself and others, but if you perceive that a relatively short passage that you believe relevant should have some short explanatory comments, they should be provided. I would again warn you to currently avoid posting long passages, especially into theme pages, and try to take into better account the limitations of others understandings or acceptance of your rationales, or their likelihood of developing them. Anything which you can clearly understand others are likely to find confusing is probably not going to be found sufficiently notable or relevant. ~ Kalki·· 20:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
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. Unlike some, I am not confident that you deliberately intend to be irritating, but I can perceive that you are being very irritating to some, whether deliberately or not. I agree with some removals that DanielTom just made, and assert that recent additions you made to the Sculpture page had very little relevance there. If you wish to add material on the theme of Golems outside of additions of notable quotes to pages for authors who have written about them, create such a page for the subject, and do not plant major statements about them in articles that have only incidental and trivial relation to them. I am refraining from blocking you, as of now, but be very careful in what you add to theme pages, and consider well whether others are likely to find it either notable or relevant, for your own apparently rather hasty assessments on such matters seems often more than a bit awry to others, including myself. ~ Kalki·· 22:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC) +tweaks
Ok this sounds acceptable, like a C- on the final I'd still gladly accept over a block, even if it doesn't as it gets me off of academic probation at Wikipedia. I've just a few questions, would you consider the Rocail quote to count for Golem, he is definitely talking about comletely realistic moving statues/robots of some kind in an antediluvian Muslum world view. The "talking" statues of Egypt are described using that word specifically. Which bring me to question two, Kojiki which has yet to be reverted; I would like to eventually focus on animated movies and creation myths with the occasional fantasy and horror movie and film. I'm not going to lookup video gmaes I haven't played or books. The pages I make about sections for, not being CGI films, will be of a higher quality and just just an advertisement more more realistic looking wolf fur. I knew what I was getting into with those films but still why is it just Shinji Aramaki and early Pixar who make CGI movies with stories as PG-13 as a video game I understand the Uncanny Valley but I'm talking family friendly Super Nintendo even. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for what I'm about to do Kalki but it to demonstrate things are not as they seem here and that no one really cares about gay rights or conducting proper blocks. You are correct about the Golem quotes; though the Pythagoras quote is of equivalent quality and was approved of. Yes the broken texts of the books of giants are historically important but broken; understandably there is not a policy ofbroken up quotes because it is quite a rare occurrence to be notable but in that state. Now allow me to recieve a ban of somekind after the exact quotes I've listed are added afterwords by someone other than the person who blocked me who thinks they had better things to do than list gay suicide numbers for teens in favor of insert your favorite works of fiction or mostly homophobic religion.

Bubbles watched the mango smash about the alpha female CoCo's mouth before gesturing for her to come hither. CoCo began to breast feed her; and moaned as Bubbles washed down the mango by flicked CoCo's nipples counter clockwise with her tongue. Bubbles began to rub her GG as Coco inserted her tongue into the child not yet a year old and hungering for sex as often as greater apes feel the need to text; she squirted as apes tend to do according to Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on wikisquirt. There was no observable spanking like on the spanking art wiki, however the bonobos being generally peaceful creatures; Dr. Goodall nodded, watching through the replicant snake drones video camera eyes; controlling it's movement via a touchscreen dancing atop the air with anti hydrogen.

Yup 2 sentences of needless fan fiction of monkey breast feeding to be considered hardcore pornography on par with saying penis a bunch for no reason; an offense I am certain has occurred her and did not receive a bane, a ban worthy offense with no village pump discussion I imagine and no mention of my contributing these articles for LGBT or homosexuality. I estimate this will be removed within the day shortly after someone whom is not the person blocking me adds quotes from the Shephard article and claims it was because today is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. It would have to be today or else that seems a bit odd to have a delayed reaction to a google doodle. Timing this will be everything, they struck when you were absent. Forgive me Kalki there was no other way of demonstrating the corruption a "handful" of editors in your absense; I feel a bit like Lois Lane jumping out a building to get super man's attention in that I know I normally should not be doing this. My estimate is blocked in the next 2 hours; did not have time to look for dox everywhere nor saw bold sections. I expect some kind of additional block for this or a discussion which would invite others to look over these edits and determine how to randomly enforce the rules. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A note on excess dramatics, a repeat of advice, and a note on stylings...[edit]

If you do not wish to weigh in more as a troll, in the opinions of others, I would advise you to stop dramatically implying you are about to leave for a long time, when it seems you actually do not. If you wish to stick around as an active editor, as you apparently do, I am continuing to strongly advise you to strongly take into account previous advice on some things to avoid, and not assume that because you can perceive some connection to a subject, that this is sufficient warrant to place it in a page where its relevance or significance to the subject of the page is rather strained or tenuous. Also, your additions often seem to lack care in transcription, and sometimes in citation.

Beyond that (this is not a criticism of you in particular, for others have used similar simplifications of what had once been the standard norm), if you are going to create a section for "quotes about" a subject or person there is much more clarity of that fact by indicating they are "Quotes about [whoever or whatever]" rather than simply heading the section as one "About [whoever or whatever]" which could easily imply to some that it was a place to provide further info about the person or subject, OR a title which implicitly provides the quotes about the subject an aura of legitimacy, accuracy or endorsement by the editors of the project as a whole, which they do NOT necessarily have. The sections headings also have more versatile options when one simply creates a "== Quotes about [some person or or subject] ==" rather than using a template of the page name, as usually the full name of an individual which the page is about is not necessary, and the last name usually suffices. ~ Kalki·· 07:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Thank you; but I actually am going to take a break from editing for a while this time, I know last year I said I was going to leave than didn't, but responding to posts takes about a day or two. I needed to show I can be trusted with categories, as that in particular was why I was kicked off wikipedia. For a while it became a race with Allixpeeke, UDScott and me, than even after I had proven myself worthy of being allowed to categorize things I just kept going with that momentum even though it was finals. It was a bit like how MMORPGS end up requiring obsessive raiding schedules towards the end levels, or Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas (worth it but not a lot of fun at the time). I've learned to hate categories now by the way, what ever the value of knowing every film that has a flying car is certainly not worth getting kicked off wikipedia over less than a sentence added. I don't believe any of the categories I created here on Wikiquote were deleted and my over categorizations resulted in maybe two dozen reversions mostly to art and technology; the majority of my additions to those however remain viewed as improvements.
I'm super busy in school right now so I just don't have time; also I really need a break from written history and analyzing fiction. I saw the about section for Attack of the Crab Monsters and like what Gilldragon is doing with about sections; I would still like to eventually make about sections for practical effects sci-fi fantasy and horror, old and new, as well as for traditional animated films and television. I didn't mean to make a big deal, sorry if I did. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed block[edit]

At the Village Pump, within the section which you began what I consider to have been trolling activity, I have proposed that you be blocked for a period of a month, beginning within the next few days. You are free to comment upon this proposal there, as I have not yet seen sufficient reason to immediately block you, nor to propose a permanent ban. ~ Kalki·· 07:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I only came back for the one day for those religious quotes and to add a link to my user page; than I remembered that I never finished adding quotes from The Boondocks and that South Park was the only animated series I added things from that wasn't getting reverted en mass. I think maybe half the Justice League quotes I added remain, no such luck for Batman TAS for copyright even though copy-writing your pollution joker fish of terminator seeds is exactly what Monsanto does by suing farmers for nature transporting their product. I'm glad the one from Amanda Waller on satellite remains; thanks for not reverting the Reagan being the devil quotes from Boondocks. I'm surprised the Dragon Ball Z and Tales of Symphonia quotes on strength are still there as well.
It is only certain episodic mediums seem to get marginalized by Peter; I see almost no reverts to films or novels, but television particularly western animation and comic books are never notable enough; even when it's an award winning Green Lantern Green Arrow run like was on the page for hero. The Alan Moore quotes on guns are still up and most the Superman and Wonder Woman quotes are all up; but other than that there's not a lot of comic book quotes on theme pages. I didn't think the flash quotes on speed where that different from the cold quotes from Mr. Freeze. I think in terms of video games Peter objected to Metal Gear at some point but to be honest I rarely add quotes from video games because I haven't played any in a while. Even the old play station and super Nintendo RPG's took a couple of days to play through; it's the same reason I'm kind of light on adding quotes from novels. So yeah, Boondocks was it for themes from works of fiction; I was thinking of adding quotes from Breaking Bad and Avatar The Last Air Bender which have a lot of well written social commentary, but I actually want to watch those again and don't have the time.
I have another disturbing quote involving torture to add; this time on Guantanamo Bay. I forget the article but I recall several years ago reading one about the connection between the BDSM scene and George W. Bushes use of torture; I think a lot of it was said to have first come from BDSM and than been implemented by the military. I found something from Guantanamo Bay in the meantime; I'm not sure how many quotes come from inside places like that.
Thanks for your help over the months, the time off site has been great though I look forward to editing again eventually, what I learn about memorable entertainment writing here is very useful. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I was just preparing to leave, when I realized I had not yet preformed the block which had been discussed at the Village Pump. You are presently blocked from editing other than your own talk page for the period of a month. I hope that you can become more appreciative of the need for stronger and clearer relevance to many of your additions in the future, and no further blocks will be deemed necessary. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
A break definitely helped put things in perspective; and allowed me to separate editing from researching and remember getting along with others, full citations and grammar are just as important as finding the references. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Georges Bataille[edit]

Kudos for your additions to Georges Bataille. I especially liked this:

Ever since sentences started to circulate in brains devoted to reflection, an effort at total identification has been made, because with the aid of a copula each sentence ties one thing to another; all things would be visibly connected if one could discover at a single glance and in its totality the tracings of Ariadne’s thread leading thought into its own labyrinth.

Let's keep up the debate on the merits of capitalist art ... it will be educational for both of us. ~ Peter1c (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Capitalist art as compared to communist, prehistoric, or religious? Would Frankenstein be an anarchist novel, what makes something capitalist?
Capitalism emerged around the time of the Italian Wars in the late 1400's with the splintering of the western Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox and other churches also claim the historical right to the name Catholic) as clergy after centuries of crusades, and the rise of military knight orders and a mercantile class. Effectively this was the dividing point between the medieval and modern eras. This cradle of nautical colonialism was enabled through military advances in cannon carrying ships originally employed by the Ottoman empire.
Russian animation emerged during the imperial period just prior to the Russian revolution meaning it is not technically a communist art form. Communist art often eschewed a main character in films of the Soviet Union, with paints in their animation being more scarce. Than of course there's the propaganda art. I think Bataille would have liked the works of Ladislas Starevich for their reanimation of dead insects, given his fondness for blood sacrifice; though maybe he would have preferred the war propaganda as being more human sacrificial. I havent studied much communist art, just some uncompleted architecture like Tatlin Tower and the Palace of the Soviets; the occasional soviet realist poster. I know there's a lot of science fiction films and novels in communist Russia; I haven't heard much about classic Chinese sci-fi. I know Im rambling off topic at this point but I'm curious whether cybernetics and genetics could be depicted even negatively given Stalin repressed research into those fields. I've also heard there are only 3 books they were allowed to read in Tibetan Autonomous Regio schools despite Mao being a librarian with access to more than just those; I imagine th.
Would you count Star Trek as communist art, according to Gene Roddenberrys behind the scenes comments they are all atheists with no currency? I woul unless you have to be from a communist country to make communist art?
Religious art, assuming the religion isn't iconoclastic like early Buddhism, Judaism and Islam is normally anonymous and extremely conservative in style; the dimensions of Buddha are quite detailed and inflexible to personal redesign in traditional Tibetan art.
Anonymity was common in the early days of comic books as well. You could make a case that Jewish paper craft are the comic books predecessor, though you could say the same thing about the first and only traditionally animated episode of South Park; cell and digital painting would of coarse not count. Reform Judaism
Extremely conservative house styles are most notably employed in animation as to not jar the audience with split second visual inconsistency but also for comic books, Jack Kirby had his Superman faces redrawn by D.C. [7] Todd McFarlanes interview with the comics journal I think demonstrates the disdain for pop culture which is often warranted but makes it easy to overlook good work that is still produced in a factory.
Personally I wouldn't want to be castaway on a desert island with electricity or in a Comicon convention with Jig-Saw where I had to choose between pop culture and art history; or between western southern northern and eastern art. Both high and pop art can be beautiful despite their occasionally unethical processes of manufacture. Regardless of their ideology capitalist, communist or religious presumably artists were all paid with at least a meal, unless they were slaves about to be sacrificed like certain Meso American murals depict.
I'm not sure what Bataille would have preferred which's available today, either in new art made using mediums he never imagined, or in art history research. Though based off the article I read and from what his wikipedia bio says of his fondness for human sacrifice, he probably would have a crush fetish. I'm not sure if he would appreciate the lack of commas and semicolons in the writing for Adult Swim's Super Jail and Metalocalypse or how they actually criticize ultra violence, like Clockwork Orange and The Colbert Report, both which use more commas and are regarded in more esteem. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi CensoredScribe. I really like what you wrote here and on user talk:Peter1c. You are very articulate and make your arguments very persuasively.

I noticed you're getting in trouble with DanielTom on the Village Pump again, and just wanted to offer a suggestion.

  • For fiction articles, I think there's a greater degree of freedom than for theme articles. I think that for fiction articles it's probably fine to be inclusionary. The audience for these articles is very interested in the story and characters, and will like a variety of quotes. But for theme articles, as you said before, the standard has to be higher. Maybe something like this would work:
  • If you're at least 90% sure other editors will like an addition to a theme article, add it to the article
  • If you're less than 90% sure, add it to the talk page for the article

This might be one way to get all the quotes you think are worth considering into circulation while keeping peace with the other editors. ~ Peter1c (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Peter that means a lot to me coming from you, you've actually thanked me, I'm going to have to go through my notices one day and see if there was a point Daniel Tom ever thanked me but I think he first met a vandal pretending to be me, which gave him a dislike for me from the start. I'm still getting accused of sock puppeting on Wikipedia, apparently they can't actually trace IP's because they shuffle? That was the explanation given by whomever the most recent innocent person selected to take the heat was
The probability Margaret Cho's comments which were reviewed months ago not being notable for it's camp and bisexual feminist insights sounds like Bayesian probability. Based off my recent edits, very few have been reverted, it's simply that I've had a lot of revisions coming as I chose to clean up formatting errors rather than backtrack on theme articles looking for particularly loose associations worthy of Bartletts. I should have done that earlier and I've thanked Daniel Tom for every revision I think justified, which has been many. I think my relative accuracy though is still in the 90%, unless the about sections turn out to not be wanted. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


Blocked double time from last block by Kalki (talk · contributions).

For same repeated behavior as from prior block by Kalki (talk · contributions), in addition to addition of irrelevant quotes, and disruption of the site.

Please modify your behavior pattern in the future.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, should I be unblockde it is possible in light of these events that I will than be made sysops due to this review and the notice I'm on a large number of popular pages; to prevent further unnecessarily long blocks not reached through prior discussiono n the village pump, provided very few if any of my edits of since my very educational block have been reverted. You noticeably did this during a time Kalki is not here if Kalki or BD2414 or enough people at the pumo or my talk page or the edit summaries, have a problem with me I listen, like I did in fixing bare urls. You are just ganging up on me with Daniel Tom as Peter remains the good cop being cordial; not to suggest they are friends or anything which I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say, like how I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say Daniel Tom and Kalki differ on politics without being punished for no reaosn. Your objection is that I do too much citing previous failures rather than events in the last days or prior to the month block. I request that I be unblocked and in exchange as a matter of establishing my credentials and trustability in the wikiquote community and that in exchange I will not edit for 5the next 14 days at least as I focus on my schooling. You clearly see by my reversions I am not adding additional material and am adding my rationals, I am now no longer capable of reverting. Hopefully my wrods did not offend you for you hold absolute power over me until Kalki returns, should they chose to see my edits of the last 2 days as being of merit and deserving some recognition like that Dr. Who quote from Sidney Newman. Please don't remove my talk page acess unless I start saying things as stupidly unbecoming as I did long ago on my Wikipedia page; I intend only the most diplomatic and logical of negotiations. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No intention on my part to remove your talk page access, yet. Unfortunately your comment below on this very user talk page shows intention to revert on massive number of pages. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you infer that I I would revert a massive number of pages? I did not say that, you put words in my mouth and are being quite rude and ineffectivein painting me a villain to any of the roughly 400 people who who possess decent reading skills and an attention span long enough to see you are making paranoid leaps of logic attributing statements to me that I never made. The 50 figure is the number Daniel Tom presumably was collected during the month I wasn't editing unless indeed all these edits were made today, that's perfectly possible as well, ntocie how few of those revisions Daniel has doubled down on after my explanations which do no harm. I've been known to make 300 edits in one day before so perhaps Daniel hasn;t been edit storing, not that there's ahyting wrong with gish galloping someone to appear more compotent by being more alpha.

Which do you believe the community discussion was over, my reverting Daniel Tom too many times for superflously connected additions like those from the Boondocks to theme articles? Because your logic and sense of village pump decision history is inconsistent incomplete and misleading. Would you mind elaborating what your perceived problem is with me that didn't warant further discussion with others before you took action Kalki didn't like me much suggestig a month long block much less enforcing one, they have a strong dislike of misuse of justice.

Utterly uncalled for and akin to double jeopardy, punishing me for reverting a handful of quotes from before the block; which could have been reverted during that month? I don't expect any apologies because you don't strike me as attune to the emotions of others particularly attune to the emotions of others, based solely off your interaction with me wherein you assumed I said words I did not and made actions in the future; while disproportionately weighing my past already tried actions against my present. Quite mean, though very elite gaming of the systems weaknesses, you will proabably get away with it seeing as everyone hates me and thinks I'm mad rather than bothering to test anything out or discuss why these terrible CGI movies like alpha and omega need pages at all. I had my talk page blocked on Wikipedia for suggesting there is a single Wikipedia editor who bends the rules, over political differences. Are there political differences between me and Cirt; I would like to ask them if allowed as many users would consider serious moral errors like misuse of power as being more important than typographic or coding.

Use of talk page while blocked[edit]

Access to posting on your talk page while you are blocked is provided for one purpose only: to give you an opportunity to appeal to have the block lifted. Collateral to that purpose, because understanding what you did wrong and why you have been blocked is essential to making a successful appeal, you can ask for clarification of the reason for the block.

Any other use of this talk page while you are blocked is inappropriate, and if you continue to use it for other purposes then access to posting here may be revoked for the duration of the block. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Collateral to that purpose, because understanding what you did wrong and why you have been blocked is essential to making a successful appeal, you can ask for clarification of the reason for the block." Could you please clarify; by citing the actual edits which warranted this block? Kalki specifically cited the string of 4 recent The Boondocks related edits to the terrorism and gun articles, and the only recent edit that was reverted was my insistence "Is there a doctor in the house?" was a notable quote, everything else was from months ago and was apparently acceptable enough during the month I was gone from the previous well verbally explained and justified block from Kalki.
I have yet to see your actual reasoning for this cited through examples as you simply used the previous block Kalki said they did not want to impose again and didn't despite the 2 bad X-Men quotes they reverted. If I was blocked over that 1 edit war I would like for it to be known that is the official reason why as the current rational you've provided is less than a paragraph long compared to the...8 or so paragraphs Kalki generally uses ina fashion akin to a police report. Also could you please cite where in the rules it actually says what you say it says that? Because I read the page on the blocking policy and the use of talk pages is not mentioned. Please provide a url to this policy and a quotation of it and I will believe you that it is a real policy, otherwise I must question why you are familiar with said policy yet unwilling to properly cite it to provide proof of its existence.
Is there another page where the information you cite as policy is included? I would appreciate a url like so, Blocking Policy. Thank you, and unfortunately Avatar and Inuyasha are pretty obviously reincarnation in fiction; otherwise the love triangle with INuyasha Kagome and Kikyo wouldn't make as much sense nor would the whole Avatar state thing. Please don't construe this as a personal attack for questioning your motives, but why didn't you act during the libertarian and feminist films fiasco? Also what's an example of a work that is about reincarnation in the media, would Kundun work; what about Clara Oswald from Doctor Who encountering the Doctor across many lifetimes, an her I presume quotable line "A soufflé isn't a soufflé; a soufflé is a recipe." Which is about reincarnation via a plot convenience time machine Michio Kaku has written about extensively.
Also you cite promotionalism as a reason for reversion, where is this listed as an acceptable reason. We just added a page for 7-Eleven before a generalized article on convenience stores, in much the way we have McDonald's but not fast food. I'm confused why you don't link to policies or use quotation marks when citing them. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You were blocked because, quoting from Kakli's admonitions above:
  • The persistence and abundance of "clearly misplaced or low quality additions of little direct relevance to the pages" and disregard for general standards of "notability and reasonable brevity", despite having been repeatedly advised, admonished, and warned.
  • "MANY of them clearly seem to be deliberate or even malicious efforts to provoke contentions and confusions" (i.e. "deliberately contentious trolling").
  • Continuing with more of the same despite being previously blocked for it, in a manner that, in Cirt's words, constitutes "disruption of the site".
That is the official reason why you were blocked. To this I would add:
  • Many of your remarks contesting removal of your contributions, in edit summaries and elsewhere, also display a lack of relevance to the point in dispute, and many of them are clearly trolling.
This last was not among the explicit reasons given for your current block (except by general reference to disruption), but you should take it as a specific warning: evasive responses, taunting, and accusing people of political or other prejudices, are all examples of the sort of incivility that can and will result in being blocked or banned.

If you need some specific examples, I had previously reviewed all of the edits you made during the first two days upon returning from your previous block (April 5–6, as seen here), which was all I had time for. Eleven of sixteen article edits (69%) have been reverted, mostly for reasons elucidated by Kalki above. Two of three non-article edits (67%) are trolling in the manner noted by Kalki above, as are some of the edit summaries. These are only examples, covering everything you posted in a two day period of relatively low activity.

Regarding talk page access: at the time the policy page was drafted it was not even possible – blocked meant blocked from the entire wiki. The software has been changed to give you this opportunity: Don't waste it. We don't spend a lot of time at Wikiquote writing and rewriting rules, but you have been given fair notice of what is expected of you.

Finally, since you have linked directly to the "Elastic clause" on blocking you are responsible for having read it and understood what it means: Wikilawyering is not even relevant. You have been blocked in the good judgment of two administrators exercising their discretion to protect Wikiquote from disruption. As a third administrator I concur with their decision. You were given fair notice and failed to stop. Thus far they have only been temporary blocks because you are being given an opportunity to reflect and learn from it, in the hope that you will act responsibly in the future. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, why did you limit yourself to the first 2 days, that seems like a rather arbitrary number. Why did Daniel Tom wait to mass revert until weeks after I returned? Also keep in mind your statistics are based off current standings and rather flexible to future alterations by others. Weren't you aware of all of these and chose to do nothing after you edited the War on Terrorism articleon April 10th? did you need Daniel Tom to tell you the poignant quotes from Kevin Smith were unimportant because you didn't judge as much yourself at the time? I'm also aware George W. Bush has very loose associations between concepts and is more fond of non vaguely racist non sequitur's than Joe Biden. Could you please adjust your statistics to cover from April 5th to the date of the block rather than using sample selection biases?
Also for what is now the third time I've asked you, if you could please provide the links to the blocked policy specifically stating listing planned edits is not allowed. Do I have to ask a fourth time? CensoredScribe (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding several of your questions:
  1. I do mind because I already said why: it was all I had time for.
  2. Questioning when DanielTom or anyone else found the time to work on cleaning up your mess is impertinent. Please read WP:NOTTHEM.
  3. I am very aware that the articles you edited are in flux, because the work of cleaning up your mess will probably take months to complete.
  4. It is already acknowledged that some of your edits, such as the one at War on Terrorism are acceptable. At issue is the very large proportion and quantity that are not.
  5. No, I am not aware that DanielTom ever communicated to me about Kevin Smith. This is an impertinent inquiry: see WP:NOTTHEM.
  6. Your opinion of George W. Bush has no relevance to this case or to anything at Wikiquote whatsoever.
  7. No, I do not have the time to review all of your edits. You asked for specific examples and I gave you a link to 19 of them.
  8. I doubt the examples I reviewed are unrepresentative: they cover a contiguous time period without cherry picking individual edits, and a reasonable person might try to exhibit their best behavior upon returning from a block. Whatever the actual proportion of unacceptable edits may be, their sheer quantity is totally unacceptable.
  9. If you kept asking until your keyboard wore out, wikilawyering would still not be relevant.
These lines of questioning are not constructive, and give the appearance that you don't get it. Let me try to clarify two essential points that you really need to understand:
  • Disruption at its root means wasting people's time dealing with inappropriate activity. Several users have expended a huge amount of time and effort cleaning up the messes you have created, time that could have been spent building Wikiquote instead of repairing damage. Multiple users have taken the time to try to help you understand what you have been doing wrong, time that is wasted if you act like you didn't even hear them. This is the bottom line reason you have been blocked: to protect Wikiquote from disruption.
  • Understanding and respecting the norms of the community is essential to successful participation. You must recognize that many members of the community object strongly to the way you have been conducting yourself. It is a fact that cannot have escaped your notice. Whether or not you understand or agree with their objections, they are the voice of the community and you should pay attention.

    This is about getting along with others. People who respect and abide by community norms are welcome members of the community. When people will not abide by community norms, even trolling like they are here to "fight the system", then the system can, should, and will kick them out.

If you are willing and able to reform then these two points are essential to becoming a responsible member of the community when your block expires. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
"They are the voice of the community"? That reminds me of the uncyclopedia a page for hypoerbole, what are you, the hive queens in Ender's Game readig everyones thoughts for them? Everyones voice in the community is equal theoretically other than the people who legally own the servers whom count slightly more because they control the on and off button and could theoretically make invicil comments disappear like Ryulongs talk page on Wikipedia. I listen to the people at the village pump and speak myself when allowed to; what exactly are you so afraid I'm going to do with my editing privileges?
  1. You had time for doing them in sequence from the start? You can exactly the same thing about the edits from my last 2 days before the block; you chose the start rather than the end because it was cherry picking your case. Perhaps this Gizmodo article on a recent Last Week Tonight with John Oliver can explain it better than I can. [8] Do you have time to select 20 edits from my last 2 days? If you allowed me I could do it for you on this talk page; but I doubt you would allow that.
  1. Please provide a link to when I "questioned" Daniel Tom or a date, or something.
  2. You said a handful of good edits, an incredibly vague folksy sounding number and you didn't bother to provide any counter examples, including the terrorism one which I had to bring up.
  3. I never said Daniel Tom did communicate with you, nor would I particularly care if he did. I'm free to communicate with any number of admins myself and have done so. Now that the spring finals are over maybe one of them will have time to appeal to the other half of the wiki that likes me because I ask for specific examples of things instead ofbeing vague and am willing to discuss them in great detail without blanking parts of my talk page like certain users; not that historical revisionism and lack of transparency matters or anything. I myself would keep any hate speech graffitti on my talk page as a reminder; with the exception of doxing.
  4. ""Your opinion of George W. Bush has no relevance to this case or to anything at Wikiquote whatsoever."" What you meant to do was use bold; seeing as that isn't a quote you referenced with a url. DT's opinion on Kalki being a liberal Obama lover isn't relavent either; so why does he say things like that? I'm counting on Kalki to recall when that incident occured or for other users to collaborate if it becomes a fact checking issue.
  5. Inappropriate activity is on par with The Miller Test unless you provide lists of examples and explanations in more detail; with particular emphasis on precident and group decision ala site policy pages.
  6. Social norms, well Peter said the word weird was inherently anti gay, which is how I will interpret this comment; along with a reference to that time Mr. Fantastic created the statistical mutant detector and told congress they all had above average oration abilities and were thus abnormal. You chose norms rather than laws, because norms are unwritten rules like try not to be too gay sounding in the 50'seven if it isn't technically illegal like sodomy.
  7. "I doubt the examples I reviewed are unrepresentative: they cover a contiguous time period without cherry picking individual edits, and a reasonable person might try to exhibit their best behavior upon returning from a block. Whatever the actual proportion of unacceptable edits may be, their sheer quantity is totally unacceptable." They represent the contiguous 2 day period at the beginning, presumably a period I would be less skilled than afterwords seeing as most human beings tend to learn things. By cherrying picking dates lik eyou I've statistically determined that you pooped yourself today by ignoring the progression of obvious patterns, similar to the first 2 days back from the block you've selected "randomly". Perhaps I should expand the time frame slightly like you?
  8. No, I do not have the time to review all of your edits. You asked for specific examples and I gave you a link to 19 of them." Alright, select 20 from the last 20 days, that sunds reasonable, you could have probably done half that in the time it took you to write this response; I would gladly do it for you if you are too busy.
  9. "If you kept asking until your keyboard wore out, wikilawyering would still not be relevant ." You have an extra spcae; also I cite Godwins law where in stupid analogies like comparing citing wikipedias rules to being a lawyer is needlessly metaphorical and obscurantist; like saying teachers pet. Random bad people aren't card carrying Nazi's and using citations of policy pages on a cite dedicated to quoting things isn't wiki lawyering, it's being intelligent and citing the rules while others use stupid metaphors to describe what you are doing contrary to the precident set by Wikipedias actual lawyer ike Godwin on metaphors being dumb per Wittgensteins academic hatred of all colorful language like "handfuls".
  10. "These lines of questioning are not constructive, and give the appearance that you don't get it." Which lines? Me talking to you, that sunds liek how Daniel Tom refused to ever speak to me on his talk page. Cite a specific question that is bad.
"Disruption", see Miller Test. As for time wasting, I was gone for a month; Daniel Toms did not make revisions at this time; nor have they since my block. I ask that one of us gather a complete tally rather than stopping after 20; any interested party can simply review the "handful" of users doing the revisons, you Ninguable and Daniel Tom, and to a much lesser extent Kalki and Peter1c. Cirt hasn't done any revisions to my knowledge just placed the block. If anyone else has been reverting my edits, as few as one plese list them so that I may apologize at the end should it be found I wasted "the community" i.e. you two's time.
I understand strong reaction to my violation of social norms Ninguable, see the abortion page on Wikipedia if you think I don't. Now may I ask what these particular norms which aren't rules citable anywhere on the site are? Don't post more than 20 bad edits in a row I'm guessing, arbitrarily selected from the period of April 5th to 6th as it was the start, and ignoring that I was blocked on April what took "the community" i.e. you "handful" who chime in on every discussion about banning me, the additional 2 weeks to wait to ban me? Because you were expecting me to change and not get anymore edits reverted; like is what happened? It sounds a lot like the string of revisions from Daniel Tom which amass to how many total? Less than 80 right over the coarse of a year and 8000 edits correct so my accuracy is above 85%?
Recall as a "wikilawyer" that the burden of proof should me on the prosecution not the defense and it is clear that you chose to let me to continue to edit after April 6th and that there are no revisions you can site after this mysterious grace period; and that Daniel Toms revisions date from before the initial properly conducted block documented by Kalki. This reminds me of the PBS documentary Peace Officer on police use of deadly force that I'd like to one day quote; if there's wikilaywers are there pataphorically too quick to respond WIKI SWAT? If statistics are so important we should have a function that shows the total number of our reverted edits on the edit counter, or expect some serious cherry picking of data. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
By bogus in the edit summary for screen writing; in regards to the Rod Serling citations, do you mean incomplete and that you are unwilling to properly cite the documentary like me from months ago? Seems a rather strange thing to revert as he is clearly talking about the business of writing; perhaps the first ones magic isn't notable but I'm pretty sure, "Every writer is a frustrated actor who recites his lines in the hidden auditorium of his skull," is unique, memorable and related to the subject of screenwriting. I assume you've some kind of a response you are working on to my refutation of your previous points on this talk page. I apologize for the Bush quotes, though it is understandable seeing as it is a president and not another lesser celebrity it reveals the generally ignorant American attitude at that time towards questions of geography as revealed by the creation of Carmen Sandiego to address said problem. Also acceptable would be the Donald Trump quote on abortion containing the 5 or 6 ums and similar filler phrases as he changes his mind 5 times in a week on the subject, issuing status updates in his changing opinion. If Kalki actually told you to do this, all you have to do is post the message and wait for Kalki to confirm it when they reurn, as right now it appears they are busy at the moment and completely involved in this block they would have opposed the conduction and implementation of without going through the proper channels of warning on the talk apge, and village pump discussion where the accused is given a reasonable amount of time to respond. If you have fault with the "irrelevant" Bush quotes, and "promotionalism" in all of the about sections other than Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), than what is your opinion on the 7-Eleven page and the Joe Biden quote?
Also, I know you don't have time to review all of my edits but do you have an opinion on the quality of the ones I listed before you reverted them from this talk page? You didn't feel it necessary to note those about sections as being flawed nor do I see that many additional revisions to the about sections being made; so I assume after this block concludes you won't have issue with the ones on video games I've recently listed. If you do have a problem with the edits I've listed I've plenty of time between now and the expiration of this unwarranted block to discuss them with you or anyone of the other frequenters of this talk page and ban discussions, who may decide to object to them at a later date. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What would you do in my position?[edit]

A simple question. Stop making about sections is a very understandable one which the Snow White discussions have already addressed and refuted, a list of bad about sections would greatly assist discussing them instead of lumping the 300 I've made together and treating them as one unit. Don' t edit theme pages to include ignorant quotes from former U.S. presidents that illustrate an ignorant foreign policy would be another concrete form of advice; because you know how many more stupid presidential quotes are just lying around waiting to be added to theme articles. Don't make the stupid edits you made 6 months ago and are just now being punished for is also a good a piece of advice, although that one requires that I have a time machine to make any use of as I haven't been repeating that behavior. That's 3 very good pieces of advice I've managed to construe from the less than well defined comments received; unlike DT, I really don't mind talking; Ninguable does an alright Job until forced into realizing/admitting their arguement is inherintly bogus and Peter1c seems not to be willing or is too busy to clarify some of Ninguables points for me using examples from the most relavent and recent period of time I've asked to be judged for. It looks like a user with no registered screenname decided to make their 1st edit to revert lord of the rings as being a film about elves and dwarves; would I be allowed to ask for a check user for this IP being a sockpuppet of 729MT who came back just to edit that page on this day? I'm a bit concerned about the actual effectiveness of check user after reading about my most recent sock puppet investigation on Wikipedia I see check user doesn't actually check much of anything as it is just assumed anyone could be jet setting to different states or having their buds edit for them. On the internet everyone is the same dog unless your a hacker or the police and can verify identities, neither of which anyone with check user appears to be able to do or is unwilling to. Deciding who is really who with no real evidence of identity is a great power to have; and misinformation is in no way harmful to teahing people to do things correctly like Dr. what's his name said repeatedly.

Pretending to be Kalki's right or left hand is going to have consequences on par with me suggesting Daniel Tom be blocked for a month than being blocked for a month, I warn you that Kalki has Rod Serlings sense of divine retribution and you would be wise to think twice and admit publically that you made the mistakes I've mentioned that do indeed raise red flags worth investigating by the maybe 10 people who will read this in the next month. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As Kalki has been cited so many times, here is the actual correspondence between Kalki and Daniel Tom that was not cited in any form by Daniel Tom.[edit]

From April 23rd on Kalki's talk page prior to a self revision. "He still has no idea what quotes are. Has anyone been paying attention to his latest edits at all? Here's his most recent (IMO worse than Wikia-level) "contribution": When attempting to run from a fast-moving, deadly animal,” said, “high heels are perhaps the worst choice of footwear possible. Running shoes would get my vote. Dr. Neil Cronin Science Weighs in on High Heels Wearing high heeled shoes may at first lead to adaptation and increased strength. Dr. Jee Yong-Seok Science Weighs in on High Heels These are not notable, memorable quotations. (I won't go over the lazy and incomplete citations again. The transcription [«...animal,” said, “high...»] is equally poor.) My question is, what is it going to take for CensoredScribe to be blocked again? (Or am I the only one bothered by this?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)"

For those who don't feel like digging through edit histories, there is not a response. Also notable is that these weren't cited by Ninguable.
ALso from the village pump, "Thanks, but no thanks. I do appreciate your (potential) support, though. Getting back to the subject at hand, I will just state for the record that two different editors sent me "thank you" notifications for my starting this section, which probably means I am not alone in thinking CensoredScribe's edits to date have been very problematic and annoying. He has now been blocked again, this time for a couple of months. (I don't actually like seeing people blocked, but in this case it is 100% called for and unfortunately necessary.)
Might I ask who the two thanks are from, I would guess but any inductive reasoning based off the 3 other people who regularly complain to me and are currently editing would be frowned upon.
Finally contrast this with the edits listed by Ninguable which do not include the shoe quotes mentioned by Daniel Tom who had time for more than 2 days of edits selecting "randomly" April 23rd. [9] of 5-6. Why not ask DT to do the statistical analysis from 23 to 24; or would that take more than the hour it would take everyone else here to look at those edits? [10]
"If you need some specific examples, I had previously reviewed all of the edits you made during the first two days upon returning from your previous block (April 5–6, as seen here), which was all I had time for. Eleven of sixteen article edits (69%) have been reverted, mostly for reasons elucidated by Kalki above. Two of three non-article edits (67%) are trolling in the manner noted by Kalki above, as are some of the edit summaries. These are only examples, covering everything you posted in a two day period of relatively low activity."
Also are we allowed to use the word lazy to describe someones lack of any edits what so ever or just their incomplete edits? The truly lazy don't even do half the work, and are never noted for it because they blend in with everyone else who did nothing. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I submit my Uncyclopedia account Irritable of Contents to show that I listen to the constructive criticisms of others and have a sense of humor that does not lead to disrupting wikis.[edit]

I am currently blocked on Uncyclopedia, for a day. I do not edit war or vandalize, and listen to others. I have received no further discussion from Ninguable Daniel Tom Peter1c or any other party concerning the alleged reasons for my block, the offending quotes from shoe scientists and George W. Bush which were counted by Ninguable in percentage from a randomly selected 2 day period they felt like spending 10 minutes reading, a behavior I heard once refereed to as "lazy" in regards to bad sentence construction, though apparently not maths or interpersonal relationships, let's stick to the parameters you define and are conveniently good at. Just answer me this Ninguable; true or false, April 5–6, were there more or less revisions that the locks are category technology fiasco which was roughly ("handful") 12? CensoredScribe (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Examples of acceptable (and non) theme articles would greatly help me. Would anyone be kind enough to comment on these; compared to the about sections?[edit]

  • Magneto: Do you know why blood is red? Because it is full of iron. That's not very much iron--roughly five grams. Enough to fashion a small nail. Even so, imagine if a "mutie" had the power to extract all the iron from your blood by literally magnetizing the atoms and drawing them outside your body.
  • Magneto: I would imagine she cried as you grinned at her with you rotten teeth and your metal fillings. I would imagine she said, "Please don't kill me." You had all the-power to pull the trigger or spare her life. What would a red-blooded american boy do. Hmm?
  • Paul Jenkins Mythos: X-Men #1

The first explains the properties of blood and magnetism, not atoms as I learned from the Dark Phoenix saga quote on said page. The 2nd quote only illustrates concepts like begging and bigotry and I would not post; despite being from the same source. Both are about specific types of power, guns, which this quote would be inappropriate for and mutants it would also work for. I would not include the lengthy speech befre this for bigotry where Magneto lists a number of hatecrimes. I would appreciate it if someone chimed in one these 2 examples; given theme about sections in general are in question and all issues Ninguable has raised have been solely with theme sections. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Also for scientist quotes on theme articles under humor and science scientists.

  • In my experience, if people don’t have a sense of humor, they are usually not very good scientists either.
  • We’re entering into someone else’s territory, to be frank, and questioning things people who work in that area never bother to ask.
  • Andre Geim as quoted by Sarah Lewis in The Rise: Creativity, the Gift of Failure, and the Search for Mastery, as adapted in Slate, May 2014)

Finally for bigotry.

  • When you call someone a 'fag,' it identifies them with a group, a group that in today's climate is open to harassment. So by calling someone a 'fag,' you are giving yourself and the people around you the license to either damage this individual verbally or physically.
  • A gay and lesbian student attempts suicide every 35 minutes.
  • Kevin Jennings (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) Hate Crimes Gays (September 23 1999)
  • Hate language in the school hallways is huge. These students are too often the target of name-calling, violence and worse.
  • We should be able to go to school without harassment. Our friends and teachers must stand up for us and protect us.
  • There had been so many horrible tragedies dealt out to LGBT people, basically since the dawn of society, and not much had been done about it. And for some reason, now there were millions of people who wanted that to change, who wanted some concrete steps forward to finally be taken.
  • We know that hate crimes committed against the LGBT community have risen dramatically in recent months. Statistically we know that hate crime numbers go up whenever something positive happens to benefit the LGBT community. I don’t know what that says about us as a society. It’s nothing we can be proud of, to put it mildly.
  • In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.
  • (Matthew Shephard) This does not make the perfect poster boy for the gay-rights movement.
  • I seen what appeared to be to a young man, 13, 14 years old, because he was so tiny, laying on his back, and he was tied to the bottom end of a pole. I did the best I could…
  • Aaron and Matthew had a friendship. They’d been involved sexually, they bought and sold drugs from each other. That complicates the original story of two strangers walking into a bar and targeting Matthew – someone they did not know – because he was gay.
  • Jimenez has taken away their angel, and there is the reflexive sense that as a community its suffering was being at last recognised. The people shaping the news require a very simple story – they have to be angels and villains
    • Stephen Jimenez, Reggie Fluty and JoAnn Wypijewski; which would be formatted better if there wasn't a ban being held over me ready to be laucnhed at any second. [12]

I imagine none of these are an improvement according to the "handful" of who continue to persist this horribly executed block is justified correct? I suppose the quote from 1999 can always wait another day and only Peter1c will be thanking me for it; because if Kalki notices you came by to block me for using this talk page inappropriately but didn't think it was worth adding that will be highly revealing; it's one thing not to go through the effort of finding it, another to ignore it when presented to you in favor of what ever edits you feel are more important to add. Also were I to feel the need to prove a point in how I am now being ignored along with the rules of executing blocks as loosely defined and not cited, I would post something horrifically obscene at this time to require I and the Shephard quote beneath the bold and be acknowledged, my talk page use would be removed however whoever does the block will appear rather uninterested in improving the LGBT page which means it can't be Peter who is deeply concerned about the use of the word weird being covert hate speech. I imagine Daniel Tom has nothing against the LGBT page and would be glad to be known for improving it so. Sorry to you and the Congolese child miners if you stopped reading this on your phone from a short attention span or a small screen, have fun doing more important things than editing the LGBT page. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ban proposal[edit]

I suggest CensoredScribe be denied talk page access as he continues to abuse this privilege. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to raise awareness, seeing as Kalki and everyone else now knows you care more about (insert your next main space edit) than gay rights or Congolese child miners, and can just counter any ban proposal even after a 2 day vote has been zerg rushed using their more extensive contacts months later when they return. This will be interesting, as I have the over whelming advantage with wikiquote users with both Wikiquotians with sense of humor and deadly serious liberals; as well as among Buddhists and atheists. Some support from users returning for a limited time only to vote might help; though it would look suspicious. Keep in mind what happened when I suggested a 1 month ban for Daniel Tom; and be aware that if it is determined the initial block was unwarranted, even if this one is; that you might well be dragged down with me and we will all be banned for several months; I would be extremely careful in rigging this vote if I were you. I have nothing else to say anyways; might I ask your opinion on about sections and some of those other Wiki's I've mentioned, are you not deeply outraged at the news of the existence of spanking art wikia and squiring wiki's use of wikia software;the way others would be angered by ignoring gay rights when presented to you in favor of (anything you or anyone else part of the ban discussion post next?) I would like to warn you, this really is not worth it for you and the others; but go ahead and feel free to have a vote that can be overturned at any later date; which may well be after additional ban proposals for what amy be consideredanti gay and pro child labor editors. Happy International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia; in case you don't read the google doodle or just don't care cause it isn't (insert you or anyone else aware of this pages next main space edits about more important topics than children dying en mass.)

FIN CensoredScribe (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Quotes about Camões[edit]

You asked, «Give me a list of Daniel Toms [sic] "best edits" and I will top them on the subjects of their or the community [sic] choice; seeing as my choices don't mean anything.»

One of my personal projects on Wikiquote has been to compile quotations about Luís de Camões (a Portuguese poet) by notable authors.

So far, I've found quotes about Camões by Erich Auerbach, Friedrich Bouterwek, Maurice Bowra, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Richard Francis Burton, Roy Campbell, Cervantes, William Hayley, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Herman Melville, Montesquieu, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, J. Slauerhoff, Torquato Tasso, Lope de Vega, Voltaire and William Wordsworth. Can you find any others? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm glad you finally responded to my needlessly bombastic and optimistic challenge, to your Republican/Klingon honor as an edit warrior, though I'm confused whether I added 20 quotes you found acceptable whether that would prove to you my right to not be banned for edits made months without warning to change my behavior made prior to the ban. I'm afraid of being banned for a typo; or for adding a scientist you don't think is important, or a "bad" George W. Bush quote showing extreme ignorance towards a subject which became the public policy of the most armed and greedy nation on earth. All because Kalki apparently said to do so as part of a blank check against anything I might ever do in the future or in your"case, a past I can't change. I should have gone with Jean-Luc Picard instead of Professor Xavier because the level of "wikilawyering" going on here is on the level of a Star Trek trial episode or political summit.
It only took you about a month to respond which is still better than the typical blanked talk page that would be unacceptably rude in meat space were we coworkers. Imagine you didn't respond to your coworker whose recovering remarkably well from the horrific accident at your job, and see how long that behavior lasts before someone takes issue and calls you a right wing bigot. Might I ask your religion and stance on abortion, or are you ashamed or afraid of expressing those views, like some kind of disenfranchised legally or extra legally persecuted minority such as Matthew Shepard or those miners? Also, how many quotes from Pope Francis have you added, because I've contributed about half a dozen, though not his request for a year of forgiveness. [13]
I also see that neither you, DanielTom, nor IOHANNVSVERVS have deemed the quotes from Matthew Shephard's mother, the Congolese child tantalum miners, or the gay suicide quotes as notable enough for inclusion on any page yet. Would you mind explaining to me what is wrong with these quotes now, or would you prefer giving that explanation during the edit war you ban me over in a month? I'm not asking for your advice on the other topics, which would be that they aren't notable subjects, saying civil rights isn't notable or worse, not answering and hoping the questions will go away, is going to make the readers of this talk page who ignore these quotations multiple enemies old and new. They might mistakenly think you don't care for care about black people, slavery, gay rights, or women's reproductive rights and that you are voting for Donald Trump or your countries local self absorbed monster.
I always knew literature and religion had the highest importance here, even if most of the pages are for pop culture. The 100 year age requirement of the Tsukogami does give a source time to be talked about, by whomever it is you think makes something a quote by quoting it, I presume authors wiki Wikipedia pages reading but not commenting on another authors work. I don't think many academics are going to be talking about the original Mario in academic journals 50 years from now.
Although literature and history are the highest regarded, I figured journalism would still count if pop culture is allowed so much server space. Perhaps you thought you were being polite to me in letting me post the preview quotes you've read on this talk page on my own, well a thank you would suffice for contribution in my mind, you can feel free to ad them during the duration of this unwarranted block I've already discussed in depth.' Not the best read on a cell phone but I don't care at what point you rage quit reading. Would you please add them for me? I'm not sure how many more quotes about Camoes do you think there are, I'm sure many quotes remain for Buddha, which is a page I know Peter1c is interested in but where many of the quotes have already been added. Also I'm confused why that about section differs from David Brins criticisms of Ender's Game other than the aforementioned Tsukumogami notability guidelines? How is Brin criticizing Card any different than your about section for Camões.
Here's some more non notable quotes from Pope Francis from the previous link that you don't seem interested in adding, probably because no famous academic cited him making his words worth repeating.
  • You do not pay for salvation! You do not buy salvation. The door is Jesus, and Jesus is free!
  • God forgives all. God understand us, even in our limits, and understands us even in our contradictions.
  • We have all heard this: ‘I cannot come to forgive.
But how can you ask God to forgive us, if we are not capable of forgiveness?
Forgiving is a big thing, sure. However, if we open ourselves to welcome the mercy of God for us, at our turn we become more capable of forgiveness.”
I don't assume you are Catholic just because your favorite author is, for all I know you are a true believer of RationalWiki, nor would I automatically assume you like the pope were you to publicly identify as Catholic. Pope Francis's liberal policy's have received quite a bit of flack from the "faithful". Although Terry Jones did note that the man whose picture you display on your user page, John Ogilby created a road atlas with the primary purpose of facilitating a Catholic takeover of Britannia; I myself don't share all of William Godwin or William Moulton Marston's views.
If you are interested in an edit duel we need an objective third party preferably parties to judge at the village pump and formulate less biased rules that don't favor a subject either of us has already extensively added nearly all the extant quotes on. I doubt Kalki will be interested in facilitating such a petty squabble between 2 of the wiki's top contributors. Daj je leSpal je taj. qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD. chaq tlhab Qap nIvbogh loD!

I'm only jumping through your hoops if there's a reason for me to do so, like your promise on this talk page you will reverse the block, not because it was completely unwarranted but because I beat you at your own game and that somehow means I should be allowed to edit, unlike before. I'm not doing this for fun, or for honor, but for my freedom and because apparently no one else cares about child miners and gay teen suicides; or what the current pope has to say. Do we have an agreement, or are there any others up to the challenge say your like minded compatriots at the ban discussions, Peter1c, Ninguable, IOHANNVSVERVS or Cirt? I'd prefer just having to this once instead of 5 times as a gauntlet, or a 5 on 1 gang beat down.

If any of this has been inappropriate I would appreciate more than just a blanket criticism, explain which specific sentences I've written are problematic so the others reading this won't repeat the same mistake should they cross either of you 5, if you could actually respond to the questions I've raised within a month and allow others to do the same I would appreciate it. Hopefully either the pope, Matthew Shephard or child miners in the Congo are notable to one of the people reading this, I'm sure it will be interesting to review all the main space all the edits you thought more important than cry for mercy coming from the leader of the Catholic Church and the plights of dying children. Not against the rules, just against societal norms of human decency that should any of you you be Catholic your fellow church goers may take personal offense to your inaction and unforgiving nature towards.

FIN CensoredScribe (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: Saying I can outdo you in days what took you months to create is obviously extremely arrogant and akin to Scrappy Doo's "Let me at um!", adding a quote or two to the about section for Camoes would be impressive enough.

Here's some quotes from Hillary Clinton currently not included, unlike the Bernie Sanders rape comments; again I'm sure no wikiquote editors conservative liberal or none of the above will blame you for not adding these (as they were provided by me).

  • Children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior.
  • When I was a 27-year-old attorney doing legal aid work at the [University of Arkansas] where I taught in Fayetteville, Arkansas, I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant accused of rape. I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not. And I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did.
  • And by the very nature of criminal law there will be those you represent you don't approve of. But, at least in our system, you have an obligation. And once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation.

For Sikhism

  • Almost as many Sikhs died in a few days in India in 1984 than all the deaths and disappearances in Chile during the 17-year military rule of Gen. Augusto Pinochet between 1973 and 1990
  • Such wide-scale violence cannot take place without police help. Delhi Police, whose paramount duty was to upkeep law and order situation and protect innocent lives, gave full help to rioters who were in fact working under able guidance of sycophant leaders like Jagdish Tytler and H K L Bhagat. It is a known fact that many jails, sub-jails and lock-ups were opened for three days and prisoners, for the most part hardened criminals, were provided fullest provisions, means and instruction to "teach the Sikhs a lesson". But it will be wrong to say that Delhi Police did nothing, for it took full and keen action against Sikhs who tried to defend themselves. The Sikhs who opened fire to save their lives and property had to spend months dragging heels in courts after-wards.
    • Jagmohan Singh Khurmi, The Tribune

For Genetics, Animal Rights, Simians and Richard Dawkins

  • Our ethics and our politics assume, largely without question or serious discussion, that the division between human and 'animal' is absolute. 'Pro-life', to take just one example, is a potent political badge, associated with a gamut of ethical issues such as opposition to abortion and euthanasia.
What it really means is pro-human-life. Abortion clinic bombers are not known for their veganism, nor do Roman Catholics show any particular reluctance to have their suffering pets 'put to sleep'. In the minds of many confused people, a single-celled human zygote, which has no nerves and cannot suffer, is infinitely sacred, simply because it is 'human'. No other cells enjoy this exalted status.
But such 'essentialism' is deeply un-evolutionary. If there were a heaven in which all the animals who ever lived could frolic, we would find an interbreeding continuum between every species and every other. For example I could interbreed with a female who could interbreed with a male who could ... fill in a few gaps, probably not very many in this case ... who could interbreed with a chimpanzee.
We could construct longer, but still unbroken chains of interbreeding individuals to connect a human with a warthog, a kangaroo, a catfish. This is not a matter of speculative conjecture; it necessarily follows from the fact of evolution.
  • A successful hybridisation between a human and a chimpanzee. Even if the hybrid were infertile like a mule, the shock waves that would be sent through society would be salutary. This is why a distinguished biologist described this possibility as the most immoral scientific experiment he could imagine: it would change everything! It cannot be ruled out as impossible, but it would be surprising.
  • Richard Dawkins The Guardian, Jan 2009, Richard Dawkins Chimpanzee Hybrid

For Neon Genesis Evangelion

  • I was watching the NHK [public TV channel] program "Brain and Heart" and learned about the existence of the A10 nerve, and I told Anno about the idea that popped into my head at that time. That was the idea where "the dead mother is inside the robot, which is operated by mental/psychical bonding with the child.
    • Interview with in the Deluxe Edition of the artbook "Der Mond" in September 1999, translated by Bochan Bird

This second quote would also work for love and brain.

  • On the floor of the midbrain is the ventral segmental system, that neurobiologists call region A10. Cells soaked in dopamine, certain emotions are processed here: such as the thoughts of two lovers - or a parent and a child. And it is the synchronization of the threads and bundles of A10 that splice pilot and Eva together; to become one entity, to fight. In other words, the power of love drives this weapon of mass destruction.
    • Yoshiyuki Sadamoto Supplementary interview from volume 1 of Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga)

For fear

  • It's like when you see a snake and you jump back in alarm, but when you look back you realize it's just a stick. That's your quick-and-dirty panic response: it isn't very accurate but it's necessary for basic survival. And then there's the more nuanced fear-appraisal which takes longer to process but is more accurate.

For race

  • What we find over and over again in the literature, is that if a black person's face was shown really quickly, then people are quicker at categorizing negative words than positive words that follow it. Versus if a white face was shown really quickly, people are usually quicker to categorize the positive words, compared with the negative words.

For bigotry and brain

  • A few decades ago, it was unthinkable that looking at the brain to understand representations of social groups such as black versus white was even possible, let alone that such explorations could yield useful knowledge.
Moreover, the neuroscience of race has been useful in pointing the way toward the type of new behavioural evidence needed to answer questions of not only what happens when intergroup cognition is at stake, but whether and how change is possible in real human interactions.

Birth Control No One is Using

  • Being excluded or ostracized is an invisible form of bullying that doesn't leave bruises, and therefore we often underestimate its impact.
  • When a person is ostracized, the brain's dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, which registers physical pain, also feels this social injury.
  • Being excluded is painful because it threatens fundamental human needs, such as belonging and self-esteem. Again and again research has found that strong, harmful reactions are possible even when ostracized by a stranger or for a short amount of time.

Birth control


  • I want to make it clear that we are not advocating that people abstain from using condoms. Clearly an unwanted pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease would more than offset any advantageous psychological effects of semen.
  • Since the steroids in birth control pills survive the digestion process, I would assume that the same holds true for at least some of the chemicals in semen.
  • I understand that among some gay males who have anal intercourse, it is not uncommon to attempt to retain the semen for extended periods of time. Suggesting, of course, that there may be psychological effects.


  • In India, the lunar calendar, possibly one of the first of its type, is still in use today ... the total for 28 days is both a menstrual and lunar cycle, with the full moon as a cosmic representation of pregnancy, and the new moon standing for the promise of rebirth. These beliefs are apparently universal, for the lunar markings found on prehistoric bone fragments are thought by many to represent women's cycles.
    • Beth Richards published in Herizons Magazine, Winter 1994, vol. 7
  • In the developing world, menstrual regulation is still a crucial strategy to circumvent anti-abortion laws.
    • National Abortion Federation [Plan Parent Chall, International Planned Parenthood Newsletter (1): 30–1]


  • I'm in this experimental division where nobody knows what the hell is going on and we're just trying out new ideas. I find out what's not working about certain products and what can be better. Then I go ahead and recruit people from the office to come in and do tests on them. I'm not supposed to go into detail about the products we work on.


  • Anyone can make a mashup in 30 seconds but that record took me-- outside of collecting the samples-- at least a year of putting everything together. It's always just trial-and-error, I get all the loops and mix-and-match them on my computer. A lot of different variations of this album went down live over the course of the last two years, different mixes, beats, and samples. That was a good way to filter down to exactly what I wanted.
  • I'm not trying to make a point about sampling. It may bring up issues but I'm not trying to push it on anyone. This album has a lot more crossover appeal and it's a lot easier to listen to than my other records. My label, Illegal Art, and I are just a little worried about potential legal repercussions. But we stand by the fair use law; that we do recontextualize the source material into a new whole. I don't know if our argument would hold any water. Regardless of whether it does or not, I absolutely think that it should be legal because I really don't feel like we're potentially hurting the sales of the artists sampled on the record. If anything, it's potentially promoting the artists sampled. We haven't heard from anyone yet but we're just waiting for a cease and desist to come in the mail.


  • Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding.
    • Daily Mail 16 July 1993 headline

Fish, mostly to determine how about a quote something needs to be

  • Jack Harkness: There you go! I can taste it! Oestrogen. Definitely oestrogen. Take the pill, flush it away, it enters the water cycle. Feminizes the fish. Goes all the way up into the sky then falls all the way back down onto me. Contraceptives in the rain. Love this planet. Still, at least I won't get pregnant. Never doing that again.

Grant Morrison and Super Man

  • I spent months immersing myself in the thought processes of an evil, dying God who longed for nothing less than the degradation, destruction and enslavement of all of DC’s superheroes, along with every other living thing in the universe and beyond!"
  • I tried to be true to the concept of Superman as I understood it. It seemed fairly significant that the more threatening the world has been made to feel, the more this concept of the superhero has bled from the margins into mainstream consciousness, onto screens and T-shirts and into political speeches. That seemed worth exploring via the original superhero, Superman. He seemed the perfect subject for what became an attempt to make a mainstream, adult superhero comic that didn’t rely on ultraviolence, or superheroes swearing and getting their dicks out.
  • We’ve deconstructed all our icons. We know politicians are lying assholes, we know soap stars are coke freaks, handsome actors are tranny weirdos and gorgeous supermodels are bulimic, neurotic wretches. We know our favorite comedians will turn out to be alcoholic perverts or suicidal depressives. Our reality shows have held up a scalding mirror to our yapping baboon faces and cheesy, obvious obsessions, our trashy, gossipy love of trivia and dirt.
We know we’ve fucked up the atmosphere and doomed the lovely polar bears and we can’t even summon up the energy to feel guilty anymore. Let the pedophiles have the kids. There’s nowhere left to turn and no one left to blame except, paradoxically, those slightly medieval guys without the industrial base. What’s left to believe in? The only truly moral, truly goodhearted man left is a made-up comic book character! The only secular role models for a progressive, responsible, scientific-rational Enlightenment culture are … Kal-El of Krypton, aka Superman and his multicolored descendants!
So we chose not to deconstruct the superhero but to take him at face value, as a fiction that was trying to tell us something wonderful about ourselves. Somewhere, in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down and that seemed worth investigating.
  • I think the best Superman stories have an edge of sadness and loss. This is a man who has lost an entire planet, after all! But, like all our lives, a good Superman story also needs comedy and drama, fear and wonder. There’s something particularly poignant about the fact that no matter how strong or fast or good-looking he is, Superman can still have his heart broken and his head twisted. He can still suffer guilt, loss, confusion and grief, which is where I find him instantly relatable.
  • I saw Superman/Luthor as a classic pair of opposites, complementing one another like the two sides of a coin or an argument. Lex is, of course, convinced that if there had been no Superman to stand in his way, he’d be the beloved leader of a scientific utopian culture. I don’t agree and think the flaws in Luthor’s character would have always held him back. If he didn’t have Superman to blame all his failures on, it would be someone else’s fault. His decision to become Superman’s archenemy is a way of inflating his own sense of importance to cosmic proportions.
  • If Superman is us at our best, Lex Luthor has to embody the worst traits of humanity. And so, while Superman sees the potential for good in Luthor and is constantly, vainly, trying to appeal to his better nature, Luthor, who sees only the worst in everything, believes Superman is as devious, untrustworthy and arrogant as himself. Then we decided that Luthor really likes Clark Kent! Clark’s self-effacing humility and shabby physicality make him everything Superman is not. Playing out that dynamic added a new spice to the relationship between the two.

Malcolm X

  • “A schoolmate, Bob Bebee, recalls the day they stumbled on a local boy jerking off. Malcolm, Bebee recalled, ordered the youth to masturbate him, and subsequently boasted he had given him oral sex. Later, from the age of 20, Malcolm had sex with men for money – as hinted at in Spike Lee’s 1992 biopic – and he had at least one sustained sexual liaison with a man. While living in Flint, Michigan, his roommate noticed that instead of sleeping in the room they were sharing, Malcolm sneaked down the hall to spend the night with a gay transvestite named Willie Mae.”
  • The pilgrimage to Mecca, known as the Hajj, is a religious obligation that every orthodox Muslim fulfills, if able, at least once in his or her lifetime.
The Holy Quran says it, "Pilgrimage to the House [of God built by the prophet Abraham] is a duty men owe to God; those who are able, make the journey." (3:97)
Allah said: "And proclaim the pilgrimage among men; they will come to you on foot and upon each lean camel, they will come from every deep ravine" (22:27).
Every one of the thousands at the airport, about to leave for Jeddah, was dressed this way. You could be a king or a peasant and no on e would know. Some powerful personages, who were discreetly pointed out to me, had on the same thing I had on. Once thus dressed, we all had begun intermittently calling out "Labbayka! (Allahumma) Labbayka!" (Here I come, O Lord!) Packed in the plane were white, black, brown, red, and yellow people, blue eyes and blond hair, and my kinky red hair -- all together, brothers! All honoring the same God, all in turn giving equal honor to each other. . . .
That is when I first began to reappraise the "white man." It was when I first began to perceive that "white man," as commonly used, means complexion only secondarily; primarily it described attitudes and actions. In America,"white man" meant specific attitudes and actions toward the black man, and toward all other non-white men. But in the Muslim world, I had seen that men with white complexions were more genuinely brotherly than anyone else had ever been. That morning was the start of a radical alteration in my whole outlook about "white" men.
  • Each hour here in the Holy Land enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening in America between black and white. The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities -- he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites. But as racism leads America up the suicide path I do believe, from the experiences that I have had with them, that the whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, will see the handwriting on the wall and many of them will turn to the spiritual path of truth -- the only way left to America to ward off the disaster that racism inevitably must lead to. . . .
I believe that God now is giving the world's so-called 'Christian' white society its last opportunity to repent and atone for the crimes of exploiting and enslaving the world's non-white peoples. It is exactly as when God gave Pharaoh a chance to repent. But Pharaoh persisted in his refusal to give justice to those who he oppressed. And, we know, God finally destroyed Pharaoh.
I will never forget the dinner at the Azzam home with Dr. Azzam. The more we talked, the more his vast reservoir of knowledge and its variety seemed unlimited. He spoke of the racial lineage of the descendants of Muhammad (PBUH) the Prophet, and he showed how they were both black and white. He also pointed out how color, and the problems of color which exist in the Muslim world, exist only where, and to the extent that, that area of the Muslim world has been influenced by the West. He said that if on encountered any differences based on attitude toward color, this directly reflected the degree of Western influence.
  • Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and the overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this ancient Holy Land, the House of Abraham, Muhammad, and all the other Prophets of the Holy Scriptures. For the past week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors. . . .
You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. This was not too difficult for me. Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts, and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds it. I have always kept an open mind, which necessary to the flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of intelligent search for truth.
During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept in the same bed (or on the same rug) -- while praying to the same God -- with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the actions and in the deeds of the "white" Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan, and Ghana.
We were truly all the same (brothers) -- because their belief in one God had removed the "white" from their minds, the 'white' from their behavior, and the 'white' from their attitude.
I could see from this, that perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then perhaps, too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man -- and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their "differences" in color.
With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called "Christian" white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem. Perhaps it could be in time to save America from imminent disaster -- the same destruction brought upon Germany by racism that eventually destroyed the Germans themselves.
They asked me what about the Hajj had impressed me the most. . . . I said, "The brotherhood! The people of all races, color, from all over the world coming to gether as one! It has proved to me the power of the One God. . . . All ate as one, and slept as one. Everything about the pilgrimage atmosphere accented the Oneness of Man under One God.
  • At one or another college or university, usually in the informal gatherings after I had spoken, perhaps a dozen generally white-complexioned people would come up to me, identifying themselves as Arabian, Middle Eastern or North African Muslims who happened to be visiting, studying, or living in the United States. They had said to me that, my white-indicting statements notwithstanding, they felt I was sincere in considering myself a Muslim -- and they felt if I was exposed to what they always called "true Islam," I would "understand it, and embrace it." Automatically, as a follower of Elijah, I had bridled whenever this was said. But in the privacy of my own thoughts after several of these experiences, I did question myself: if one was sincere in professing a religion, why should he balk at broadening his knowledge of that religion?
Those orthodox Muslims whom I had met, one after another, had urged me to meet and talk with a Dr. Mahmoud Youssef Shawarbi. . . . Then one day Dr. Shawarbi and I were introduced by a newspaperman. He was cordial. He said he had followed me in the press; I said I had been told of him, and we talked for fifteen or twenty minutes. We both had to leave to make appointments we had, when he dropped on me something whose logic never would get out of my head. He said, "No man has believed perfectly until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."


  • Love is best when mixed with anguish.
In our town,
we won't call you a Lover
if you escape the pain.
Look for Love in this way,
welcome it to your soul,
and watch you spirit fly away in ecstasy
  • I am so drunk
I have lost the way in
and the way out.
I have lost the earth, the moon, and the sky.
Don't put another cup of wine in my hand,
pour it in my mouth,
for I have lost the way to my mouth.
  • Everyday my heart falls deeper in the pain of your sorrow.
Your cruel heart is weary of me already.
You have left me alone, yet your sorrow remains.
Truly your sorrow is more faithful than you are
  • Rumi as quoted in Hush, Don't Say Anything to God: Passionate Poems of Rumi, by Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (Maulana), Shahram Shiva


  • Children can learn to appreciate eroticism and sexual intercourse long before they are capable of understanding how a child is conceived. It is valuable for children to cuddle with adults. It is no less valuable for sexual intercourse to occur during cuddling.


  • He who performs not practical work nor makes experiments will never attain to the least degree of mastery.
  • This very real difference between GM plants and their conventional counterparts is one of the basic truths that biotech proponents have endeavoured to obscure. As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science.
They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe. Yet this, as Druker points out, was clearly not true.
Druker describes how amazingly successful the biotech lobby has been – and the extent to which the general public and government decision makers have been hoodwinked by the clever and methodical twisting of the facts and the propagation of many myths. Moreover, it appears that a number of respected scientific institutions, as well as many eminent scientists, were complicit in this relentless spreading of disinformation.

Donald Trump

  • Well civil unions, look. First of all, I live in New York. I know many, many gay people. Tremendous people. And to be honest with you, as far as civil unions are concerned, I haven't totally formed my opinion. But there can be no discrimination against gays. I'm against gay marriage; I took a lot of heat for that.
    • CBN, The Brody File, 4/12/2011
  • America is “going to hell” because the NFL defended openly gay player Michael Sam
    • Fox News’ Fox & Friends, broadcast May 12, 2014.
  • Shaking hands is proven to be a bad thing to do for our health.
    • Barbaro, Michael (1 May 2011), "After Roasting, Trump Reacts In Character", New York Times, retrieved on 2011-05-06

Andrew Vachss

  • My goal was not to raise consciousness, but to raise anger. Ours is a country where anything can be accomplished if enough people get angry... because, in America, we act on our collective anger. If you want proof of how that works, just take a look at how New York State finally closed the hated (and virtually unknown) 'incest exception.
  • In his autobiography, former President Bill Clinton credits [Andrew] Vachss with [writing the National Child Protection Act] and notes how important it was to him and wife Hillary. But there's a catch, according to Vachss: 'It's never been funded.'
    • July 14, 2005, in Ohio's ThisWeek
  • Journalism is the one thing that protects us. There's a history of crusading, let–the–chips–fall–where–they–may journalists. But that's given way to 'advocacy journalists,' who have left– or right–wing biases. That doesn't make sense. The only thing a journalist should worship is the truth.
    • Duane Swierczynski's entire interview with Andrew Vachss, originally published July 7, 2005, in the Philadelphia CityPaper.
  • [A]nybody who has served in combat in any way understands that words are weapons. And I'm in a war. The war hasn't stopped. I've always used the books as a blunt instrument."
    • Dan Webster interview, originally published June 19, 2005, by the Spokesman Review,
  • [C]an you be noble as you practice violence, extortion, blackmail, even mass murder? The struggle to be free from oppression is, in my mind, per se noble. But noble causes attract a wide range of participants, and many would fall far short of nobility
  • We don't distinguish between the various forms of child abuse. Emotional abuse ... is pretty much ignored. When someone spends their life being told, 'You're stupid, you're a disgrace, I should have aborted you, you ruined my life,' it scars them in ways that are almost impossible to describe with words. And yet, such a person describing their life would be told, 'Oh, you weren't an incest victim? Oh, you weren't burned with cigarettes? So, how abused were you really?
    • Patty Satalia WPSU on October 24, 2004 [
  • I promise you, there are people in America whose only problem with the Taliban is that they did it for the wrong god. Whether it's incest, rape, terrorism or Nazism, it's all the same thing—accumulating and abusing power.
    • New York Post on April 11, 2004.
  • I don't love kids. I hate their predators. It's a burning hatred I feel to this day.
    • Michael Heaton Cleveland Plain Dealer on March 6, 2003
  • When someone asks me, 'Why do you write comics?' I tell them, for the same reason I write editorials, essays, and articles; the same reason I give speeches; the same reason I appear on TV programs, and give interviews. Same message; different forum. There is no universal forum, so the more outreach we can do, the better the chance of forming coalitions.
    • Borderline, January 2003
  • I don't believe this country will ever come to grips with child abuse until they make the obvious, simple connection between today's victim and tomorrow's predator. As long as they believe a Ted Bundy or a John Wayne Gacy is a biogenetic mistake as opposed to a beast that was built and a monster that was made, they'll continue to blithely walk around, saying, 'I'm against child abuse.'"
    • Todd Taylor's interview October 23, 2001, on
  • Plenty of states, like Florida, still don't have [law guardians]. What does that tell you? Because with non-attorney guardians there's no attorney-client privilege. There's no ability to cross–examine witnesses, to subpoena evidence, to appeal. Basically you serve completely at the pleasure of the judge. And if you don't please the judge, you're history. What more of a message do kids need?"
    • Tom McPheeters and Ellen Becker's interview as published by the Journal For Living, Number 21, 2000.
  • Our reasons for critiquing the [child protection] system [are] pointless. To analyze the system and point out what's wrong with it, without the power to alter it, is masturbatory. The whole concept behind analysis is the concept behind consciousness–raising. Which is, if I show you that something is terrible, you will do something about it. That's not reality. Reality is, it's about power. It's not about education, and knowledge is not power.
    • Trey Bundy as published on on December 4, 2000.
  • The child most at risk [to be accessed by a predatory pedophile] is the child not bonded deeply to anything or anybody. Children who are most deeply bonded with parents, parents who are protective, it's almost like, I don't know if you've seen predatory animals that put a kind of smell on their young to protect them? Okay? I think your 'luck' was much more likely due to your parent[s] than it was to any blind confluence of the planets.
    • Spence Abbott in a two–part interview, published on in November 2000
  • It's an extremely profitable thing to be 'concerned' about drugs. You don't just have treatment programs, you have law enforcement programs, you have entire industries that could not function but for drugs. Including the prison industry. I think America has gone psychotic ... there are human beings—even as we speak—dying, in the kind of shrieking, tormenting pain you couldn't inflict on a P.O.W., because America doesn't want them to be drug addicts.
    • Pete Humes' interview Punchline in October 2000.
  • Everything that's in [my] books comes out of what I've seen, or touched, or felt, or smelt, and if I had one wish it would be that the books were fiction.
    • Dave Thompson interview
  • My position on pornography is quite simple. You can argue about Penthouse or Playboy or things of that ilk. But child pornography, a picture of a child engaged in a sexual act, is a photograph of a crime and you cannot argue about that. It is, per se, illegal, illicit and immoral. It is unfortunate that my work is taken up by people with whom I am not allied.
    • 1988 interview with Andrew Vachss, published in the January '89 issue of The Face
  • "I think that what drives the American public, which is like a huge, lumbering beast, is anger; and the other thing that drives it is self–interest. What I'm trying to do in my books is different from other people writing about child abuse. I'm not trying to engender sympathy so much as to say to the public, 'Today's victim is tomorrow's predator.' The things that you fear have a genesis, and the price of being safe in this world is early intervention. It costs you something to look away, not just in moral terms, but in practical terms."
    • Crime Times, Nov./Dec. 1988


  • When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.
    • Numbers 31:1-18
  • And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
    • Deuteronomy 20:10-14
  • How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have sworn by the LORD that we will not give them of our daughters to wives? ... And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh.
    • Judges 21:7-11
  • If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ... If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
    • Exodus 21:7-10
  • 2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
    • Samuel 15:2-4
  • O daughter of Babylon, O destroyed one, O the happiness of him who repayeth to thee thy deed, That thou hast done to us. O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!
    • Psalm 137:8-9
  • A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."
And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. If she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. If one of those who are unfit for marriage has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her did so, they are put to death on her account. But she is free of responsibility.
If she is younger than that age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.
  • (Mishnah Niddah 5:4)

For age, and the scientific methods by which it is determined.

  • By the end of the century, the atmosphere will look a couple thousand years [older than it really is]. Some of the ways that we use radiocarbon now will be less effective
  • The age of fresh organic matter will appear indistinguishable from material created in A.D. 1050" due to fossil fuel emissions.

I apologize for the mistakes I made in the past no one specifically mentioned in the timely fashion. Evidently Richard Dawkins using religion as synonymous with fiction differs from many's view the problem I've gathered with many of my additions is when something is an example of a larger concept; no one is going to be commenting on every single manifestation of a thematic concept. However, knowing that not even the first part of the Richard Dawkins quote i usable for fiction lets me know too narrow gives me a good bar by standard by which to measure, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Although I would say simply choosing a loosely defined word and equating it with another loosely defined word has already a president for circular definitions; from the love page: "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." John the Evangelist, in 1 John 4:12

Edit warring and wiki lawyering are a socially acceptable mockery of the horrors of law and war; Wikipedia's lawyer Mike Godwin is famous mostly for his opposition to unfair comparisons yet apparently these 2 phrases are the exception to being Politicay Correct. Let's go with edit war, pataphorically is someone who goes into an edit war expecting to be flame warred into the "death" of their account than a wiki suicide bomber? Workaholic or in this case wikiholic is another internet socially acceptable commonly used portmanteau, despite the number of serious health problems noted in salarymen and salarywomen.

When I feel like making fun of something, I go to Uncyclopedia, where I've been practicing my html and grammar, where I have yet to "edit war" and my bans normally last 1 day. It's sad Uncyclopedia provides me with much more precise and timely criticism that allows me to tune my writing before bans. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Fictional characters[edit]

I would appreciate any insights regarding this policy particularly the bold and what exactly etc. means, in the past I've interpreted it to include production staff. Eponymous works: When the name of a character is the title of a work, or is the name by which a body of works is known (e.g. Superman comics), it may be used as the title of an article. Such articles are about the work: they are not just for quotes of the individual character, and they are not supplemental articles in addition to a main article about the work. Quotes attributed to the character must be properly sourced to the work from which they originate, and if possible the author of that specific work must be identified. If a character has a catchphrase or other oft-repeated line, the quote should be sourced to its earliest appearance. Themes about a character: Quoteworthy remarks about a character, such as literary criticism, are ordinarily included in an article about the work, in an article on the author of the work, or author of the remarks. If the character appears in multiple works by different authors, and a quote does not relate to a specific work, then it may be included in an aggregate article on the body of works, or in an article on the primary work in which the character originated. If neither of these options are practical, it may be appropriate to create a theme article for quotes about the principal character of a body of works. Such a theme page on a character is appropriate only where: The character has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and Notable authors, scholars, fiction critics, etc., have themselves made noteworthy quotes and comments on the fictional character. An example of a quote appropriate for a theme page would be: Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak. He's unsure of himself. He's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race. Bill, in Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004), by Quentin Tarantino. This quote is from a notable work, by a notable author; it is about the character, Superman, but the characteristic described is one that appears in all Superman media, and thus it does not relate to any specific portrayal of Superman. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Pythagoras and other edits you should probably delete if citing length as a reasoning.[edit]

Seeing as no one will add the edits I've asked to be added in my absence, perhaps someone would be willing to elaborate on why they haven't deleted the lengthy section about Pythagoras? Many of the passages I've added from Lives of the Necromancers are shorter yet have been deleted. It seems somewhat random what stays and what goes and almost like it has more to do with perceived page ownership and avoiding reverting certain admins like ELApro for interpersonal reasons, which is more politics than policy. Both Peter1c and DanielTom seemed to have approved through non action of this section, which is far longer than the example orivded at the Wikiquote:Quotability guidelines. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You dang kids and your interwiki linking differences[edit]

w should actually lead to wikia, wikipedia would be wp. I'm not sure why only Uncyclopedia seems to make the distinction but given my typos have been used as a call for a ban proposal, I figure I'd bring this up. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Some comments on your Ostracism article[edit]

Hi CensoredScribe. Thanks for your contribution Ostracism, which I very much enjoyed reading. I have a few concerns.

  • I see that a large part of the text comes directly from Professor Adams' website at CSUN. I don't have any experience judging this, but it seems like this may be running into a Presentation copyright issue.
  • Looking at the source for the Kipling D. Williams quotes, I find that the author of this article (not Williams) attributes two quotes to professor Williams. But the other one seems to be spoken in the voice of the author (not in quotation marks), and should therefore be attributed to the author.
  • Many quotes make references to historical figures with whom the Wikiquote audience may be unfamiliar. It's helpful to provide links to Wikipedia to assist readers in learning the context they need to understand quotations requiring detailed historical information.

Overall I was very glad to have read the article, and it is a very interesting and important topic. Thanks again. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Third block[edit]

Continued trolling, incivility, and disruption with pointedly inappropriate additions and revisions to Wikiquote articles, all of which have been remarked by multiple contributors, have resulted in this account being blocked for a longer period of time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple means Daniel Tom and you in this particular case, but sure, your an admin and I'm not so you are right unless another admin calls you out on it, which they probably won't. Also, it is a bit uncivil to refer to people as idiots and the most incompetent user ever; but what ever; continue using loosely defined terms rather than citing actual URL's to the questionable revisions; you miffed over genomics only this time correct, or are you going to cite me calling Daniel Tom a roadblock as a ban worthy offense? I thought by stopping revisions at 2 it would avoid edit warring, which is defined as 3, but clearly the rules don't actually matter when they are so loosely defined.
I thought calling someone a roadblock was allowed as it is less offensive than calling them the most incompetent editor ever, or an idiot for not citing the version of the bible you are quoting from. I regret using this language and would have ceased doing so were a warning issued at the village pump. I don't think I should be blocked until October without warning for habitual incivility despite not swearing, by someone who constantly calls me the most incompetent user ever. I won't be adding intended edits like last time as I've established I have plenty of quality material to add; it's just this feud which is long overdo for mediation. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)