User talk:Peter1c

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, Peter1c, and welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy!

I know this is a belated welcome, but I am simply making amends. I have noted your work at times and am appreciative of it, and just thought it was time to make public note of it while I am briefly checking in here . ~ ♞☮♌Kalki (talk · contributions)⊙⚡ 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent additions[edit]

Thank you for your recent additions. I have gone back to most of them and made some minor formatting corrections and added categories. You might want to take a look at my changes and apply them to pages going forward. The changes I made were to bold the name of the person, expand birth and death dates, and add an External links section (with a WP link, a DEFAULTSORT tag and categories). Thanks. ~ UDScott 15:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I have been reading your additions to Wikiquote and I have been deeply inspired and moved. Keep adding quotes, and thank you! ExistentialBliss 20:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Max Scheler and Altruism are interesting articles. Like UDScott, I have added a DEFAULTSORT tag and categories as appropriate.--Collingwood (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your contributions - but the pages need to have some categories added to them as well. I've added them where I noticed it, but it would be good to just add them when you are creating the pages. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ram Dass‎[edit]

Thanks MUCH for creation of the Ram Dass‎ page — had been intending to do one for him for ages — but never actually got around to it. ~ Kalki·· 01:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Vahik Ovanessian[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Vahik Ovanessian, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Collingwood (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Howard S. Becker[edit]

Thanks for creating the Howard S. Becker entry. As an artist, of cause, I had to add a chapter about Art World, and took some time to look into the other work of Becker. I must admit that at first I didn't understand all those different quotes about deviancy, until I read some parts of the book myself, and understood. I hope you don't mind I a few quotes together? -- Mdd (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your addition could use more cite info[edit]

Regarding this addition, could you please add Year, Publisher, and Page number? Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was fixed by Ningauble (talk · contributions). Thanks again for your interest in Freedom of speech, -- Cirt (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Peter1c! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you for creating the Wikiquote page for Argument from authority.

A few others that could use creating here on Wikiquote that I find most interesting are:

  1. Appeal to pity
  2. Appeal to emotion
  3. Formal fallacy / logical fallacy

If you wished to create any of those, or work on them together with me as a collaborative quality improvement project, it'd be most appreciated!

-- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Chronology vs Alphabetical listings in theme pages.[edit]

I wish to start by saying that I very much appreciate many of your contributions here, and thank you for these, but I have noticed you changing theme pages, which are normally simply sorted alphabetically by author or source into sortation by chronologies (such as they generally are presented on pages for individuals). I actually don’t agree with dividing up the quotes on theme pages into eras. Sometimes the era assigned to quotations can itself be very dubious or indefinite, and I believe it could often present more problems of arrangement and duplication than simple alphabetized listings, which have been the general preference here on theme pages. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

Your contributions I much approve of, and your collation of quotations at your User Page I do often browse.

Keep up the quality, I thank you for your work here; IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I like reading your own writings. I especially liked this recent addition:

"The goal of the businesses that produce your entertainment isn't to help you strive for perfection in the way you and you alone can. Their goal is to make money. They distract your from your true tasks, the task of perfecting your intellect, the task of drawing ever closer to God."

Although I don't understand and politely request elaboration on this: "Shakespeare wrote his plays with an eye on profit."
Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi IOHANNVSVERVS. Thanks for your encouragement and your feedback. What I meant to say is, cynics insist that even Shakespeare was trying to make money from his plays. But even supposing they are right, he hadn't reduced the moneymaking aspect of art to a science as Hollywood has.

property rights questions[edit]

I would like to ask you a couple of questions, if you don't mind: 1) What is your take on the origins of property rights? (I ask this because I know of NO argument that successfully justifies private property, other than the utilitarian one—which is of a more pragmatic nature—or appeals to God (the kind that Locke resorts to in order to establish property as a "natural right", but that atheists can't accept...he then goes on to offer additional arguments, related to labor, but I find them equally unconvincing.) 2) When discussing the legitimacy of property rights or fairness of the free market, do you only focus on whether the starting line "distribution of wealth/resources" was just, or do you also consider that people are born (through no fault/choosing of their own) with different inherited abilities, IQs, and so on? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi DanielTom. Thanks for your message. The short answer to (1) is, I haven't seen a good argument that justifies the existence of private property rights other than the utilitarian one either. Locke argues that since a human being owns herself, she also owns the results of her labor so long as the materials she uses leave "enough, and as good, for others." That means if I go into the wilderness and create a farm on unused land, the improvements, even if not the land itself, belong to me. But then what happens when there is no longer enough and as good for others? It seems like Locke's argument creates only a temporary property right, not a permanent one. Locke’s argument also doesn’t seem to demonstrate that the property right would be the sort of property right that the wilderness farmer could assign to others.
Once we get to pragmatic arguments, the question has to be, “practical for whom?” Maybe we could argue that if introducing a property right makes everyone, including the poorest person, better off, then it is practical. But it seems that this would also be a temporary property right. Once the property right stops making the poorest person better off, it is no longer valid. Raymond Geuss has a lot of good arguments against Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” method of deciding on political institutions. Once we’re making pragmatic rather than apodictic arguments, it seems strange to use thought experiments where we don’t take account of all the facts in the real world.
Libertarians make really good apodictic arguments about the implications of property rights. The implications sometimes seem contrary to intuition, but then the implications of Newton’s Laws seem counterintuitive too, so this is not a big objection. The problem, though, is that if property rights are justified solely by pragmatic considerations, then if any of consequences apodictically deduced from a property right begins to seem impractical, this implies that the property right itself might be impractical.
Regarding (2), I find Rawls’ idea that exceptional abilities are a “common asset” deeply disturbing. It implies that those with exceptional abilities should be forced to work for the common good even if they choose not to. Maybe here is a case where we can assert an apodictic property right based on a Lockean argument. A person owns her own exceptional abilities because she owns herself. (Some googling led me to an article by Andrew Kernohan called “Rawls and the Collective Ownership of Natural Abilities.” Kernohan argues that collective ownership of natural abilities contradicts Rawls’ own first principle of justice, the principle that guarantees basic liberties.)
The idea that exceptional intellects should place themselves in service to society even when they’re not inclined to is also, I think, self-defeating. If you let an exceptional mind do whatever it feels like doing, and just occasionally give it a nudge toward something useful, it will end up being very productive, and it will also improve and cultivate itself so it will be even more productive in the future. If you tell an exceptional intellect what to do, it will balk at the intrusion, withdraw into itself, and try to conceal its virtues for fear of being exploited.
I think the unfortunate tendency of libertarians to talk about property rights without carefully distinguishing between just and unjust property rights is a big part of the reason for the deep gulf of misunderstanding between libertarians and progressives. The property rights of the elite that owns our corporate-state apparatus are all deeply permeated with coercion. When corporations run the state, shares of ownership in corporations amount in effect to shares of ownership in the state. Libertarians and progressives really ought to be in an alliance to try to overcome the abuses of the corporate-state apparatus. After that, of course, the two camps will have to iron out the real and important theoretical and practical disagreements between them.
That's where my research so far leads me to. I'd also be very interested to hear your thoughts and reactions. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Just a few observations. You write, "Maybe we could argue that if introducing a property right makes everyone, including the poorest person, better off, then it is practical. ... Once the property right stops making the poorest person better off, it is no longer valid." – here you're basically proposing the Rawlsian maximin criterion. You mention Raymond Geuss, so you must be much better acquainted with Rawls' critics than myself; still, I can't resist giving you what is in my opinion the most interesting objection to Rawls' "veil of ignorance" experiment: perfectly rational agents do not necessarily need to be risk-averse, and might even be gamblers! Re. "I find Rawls’ idea that exceptional abilities are a “common asset” deeply disturbing." – Rawls was actually only referring to the distribution of natural talents as a "common asset" (but... did you just unconsciously make a case against progressive taxation?)... When you start talking of "the elite that owns our corporate-state apparatus", you begin to lose me. You seem to be receptive to libertarian ideas so, although I am not a libertarian myself, I will gladly quote Ludwig von Mises:
"The people who think that the power of big business is enormous are mistaken also, since big business depends entirely on the patronage of those who buy its products: the biggest enterprise loses its power and its influence when it loses its customers." [1]
The "elites" have always done well, at all times, and in all countries. What's remarkable is that your own country has become so rich in the past few centuries, that the common American now is "the elite" (or "the 1%"), compared to the rest of the world. If you have 2 ½ minutes to spare, I would appreciate it if could watch this, and then tell me what you think. Dinesh basically talks about two powerful groups of people who "detest each other": the "wealth-creating class" (entrepreneurs), and the "knowledge class" (to which – I think it's fair to say – you belong). I could say much more on this, and on the need for all of us to balance the study of philosophy with that of economics, and of the history of economic thought until Schumpeter's entrepreneur in particular, but I'll simply close by thanking you for your addition to Wikiquote of one of my favorite quotes, by Adam Smith, a couple of years back, ending in: "It is this deception which rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind." What Dr. Smith wrote a few lines before is equally brilliant and an eternal truth: "Through the whole of his life he pursues the idea of a certain artificial and elegant repose which he may never arrive at, for which he sacrifices a real tranquility that is at all times in his power, and which, if in the extremity of old age he should at last attain to it, he will find to be in no respect preferable to that humble security and contentment which he had abandoned for it." Peace ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi DanielTom. Thanks for your message. You nailed the issue exactly by going to Adam Smith’s distinction between, on the one hand, the

splenetic philosophy, which in time of sickness or low spirits ... entirely depreciates those great objects of human desire

and, on the other hand, the

deception which rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind.

Smith concedes the “splenetic philosophy” is closer to the truth and the industry of mankind is based fundamentally on self-deception. My questions are: (1) If abundance demands self-deception, and therefore doesn’t include an abundance of truth, then is it really abundant enough? and (2) If I have to deceive myself to pursue abundance, how do I know I’m not also deceiving myself about what constitutes abundance?

Personally, I prefer the splenetic philosophy. I prefer truth to comfort and convenience. I grew up in an environment of material abundance and intellectual desolation and was very glad to leave it behind.

Another important turning point in the enlightenment is Francis Bacon’s 1603 essay Interpretation of Nature, where Bacon disparages the aloofness of his fellow philosophers, and demands they begin using their knowledge to master nature and alleviate human want and misery:

It is not the pleasure of curiosity, nor the quiet of resolution, nor the raising of the spirit, nor victory of wit, nor faculty of speech … that are the true ends of knowledge … but it is a restitution and reinvesting, in great part, of man to the sovereignty and power, for whensoever he shall be able to call the creatures by their true names, he shall again command them. ...
Knowledge, that tendeth but to satisfaction, is but as a courtesan, which is for pleasure, and not for fruit or generation. ...
For I find that even those that have sought knowledge for itself and not for benefit, or ostentation, or any practical enablement in the course of their life, have nevertheless propounded to themselves a wrong mark, namely, satisfaction, which men call truth, and not operation.

The question I have about Bacon’s program is: If we devote all our intellectual effort to putting truth into “operation,” how will we know if our operations are accomplishing something good? The modern mind is confident it knows what is valuable and need only exert itself to find the necessary operations to bring it into existence. But where does this confidence that we already know what is valuable come from?

Economists are fond of saying interpersonal comparisons of “utility” or “use value” are impossible. They measure the prosperity of a society by adding up exchange value. The problem is, many of the most valuable things in life have zero exchange value because they can’t be bought and sold. If talk about wisdom, virtue, piety and love sounds sentimental and flaky to us moderns, perhaps this is precisely because wisdom, virtue, piety and love have no value in the market, and therefore have no value in a society that has made the market the arbiter of value.

If prosperity is defined as the sum of all exchanges, there is a certain circularity to the argument that free trade produces prosperity. It really boils down to the tautology “free trade produces the maximum amount of trade.”

My question about D’Souza’s idea that there is a “knowledge class” and a “wealth creating class” is: If the wealth creating class lacks knowledge, how does it know what wealth is?

The Mises quote you cited states an accurate truth about an ideal libertarian society. But in present-day society, where big business controls the state, it is only partially true. Big business lobbies congress to create colossal barriers to entry for small business. It’s not only a corporation’s ability to deliver the goods to customers that keeps it in business, but sometimes also the barriers to entry it has lobbied congress to put in place. Whether a firm can exact monopoly rent when there are no state-imposed barriers to entry is debatable. But a firm that lobbies legislators to create a regulatory environment with huge barriers to entry will certainly exact prices far above the market level.

Returning to the question of rights-based and utility-based arguments, I think rights-based arguments have a lot of potential to produce a just society. But utility-based arguments don’t. Utility-based arguments assume the metric of utility is already settled, when in fact it is precisely here where the most fundamental political debate rages. A free society allows a plurality of conceptions of the good to simultaneously flourish. It doesn’t favor one over another.

When a utility-based argument concludes we must accept social institutions because they are efficient, I ask, “Efficient for what end? Who decides that end?” As Ayn Rand says, “What is practical depends on what you want to practice.”

If we allow people who want to trade the freedom to trade, that is one thing. But if we say that society should be organized to optimize the volume of trade, this is something completely different. It makes trade not one among several forms of social life but the one approved, preferred form of social life. The idea that social institutions must be optimized to produce the largest volume of trade implies those who would prefer to work and trade only enough for bare subsistence, and devote the greater part of their lives to meditation and prayer, should be put into forced work camps, since that would be, according to its metric of utility, more practical and efficient.

It really made my day that you honed in directly on the Adam Smith quote, which, for me, is precisely the most relevant to the question we’re talking about. It really defines something essential about modernity, and something essential we have lost from an earlier age. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. Just a few brief comments:
"Smith concedes the “splenetic philosophy” is closer to the truth and the industry of mankind is based fundamentally on self-deception. My questions are: (1) If abundance demands self-deception, and therefore doesn’t include an abundance of truth, then is it really abundant enough? and (2) If I have to deceive myself to pursue abundance, how do I know I’m not also deceiving myself about what constitutes abundance?"
(1) "Truth" is a problematic term here, because we are dealing with personal contentment, which varies from person to person. You and I may agree, that he is rich who is contented with very little, and that the proper way to get rich is to diminish our desires – but one could argue that this too is a form of "self-deception" (or a "mental trick" at best). (2) One could be deceived about what constitutes abundance even if deception were not required to pursue it.
"Personally, I prefer the splenetic philosophy. I prefer truth to comfort and convenience. I grew up in an environment of material abundance and intellectual desolation and was very glad to leave it behind."
But the splenetic philosophy is comfort – immediate psychological comfort; remember Adam Smith talks of "a real tranquility that is at all times in [our] power" – and as Cicero says, "a happy life consists in tranquility of mind".
Philosophy brings you enjoyment ("very glad") and fulfillment, but to many people it does not. I personally have spent countless afternoons studying Go, or memorizing Camões, but am aware that most people would consider such enterprises the very definition of hell. And while they might love to "party", you and I may not: different strokes for different folks. This is not to say that we are not justified in valuing certain things over others – for instance, even I don't like to see people ever more concerned with their outward appearance (say, dressing provocatively just to get more "likes" on Facebook) rather than with what's inside their heads – but it is to say that we have to be careful not to project our own preferences onto others, or (worse) onto the universe itself – pretending them to be universal laws that everyone should follow, when in fact they are not.
In any case, at present most people have to work to make a living. Not everybody can dedicate their lives to the study of philosophy. But this might change in the future, thanks to the very scientific advances Francis Bacon (and others) advocated for, and which you seem to deprecate(?).
"The question I have about Bacon’s program is: If we devote all our intellectual effort to putting truth into “operation,” how will we know if our operations are accomplishing something good? The modern mind is confident it knows what is valuable and need only exert itself to find the necessary operations to bring it into existence. But where does this confidence that we already know what is valuable come from?
How is "alleviat[ing] human want and misery" not good?
(To go back to Adam Smith: "It is this deception which rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind. It is this which first prompted them to cultivate the ground, to build houses, to found cities and commonwealths, and to invent and improve all the sciences and arts, which ennoble and embellish human life; which have entirely changed the whole face of the globe, have turned the rude forests of nature into agreeable and fertile plains, and made the trackless and barren ocean a new fund of subsistence, and the great high road of communication to the different nations of the earth." — Inventas aut qui vitam excoluere per artes.)
"Economists are fond of saying interpersonal comparisons of “utility” or “use value” are impossible."
Not necessarily impossible. I actually remember seeing, when I was studying for a second-year microeconomics class at the University of Porto, old exams from the 1990s in which "utils" were used as a measure of cardinal utility, but this seem to have gone out of fashion. It just makes more sense to work with preferences, that can be ordered, than to pretend that we can determine exactly by how much one person is happier than another.
"They measure the prosperity of a society by adding up exchange value."
I'm not sure what you mean by "adding up exchange value". GDP (or GDP per capita) is often used as a proxy for well-being. More complex indicators (composite indices such as the Human Development Index) can also be used.
"The problem is, many of the most valuable things in life have zero exchange value because they can’t be bought and sold. If talk about wisdom, virtue, piety and love sounds sentimental and flaky to us moderns, perhaps this is precisely because wisdom, virtue, piety and love have no value in the market, and therefore have no value in a society that has made the market the arbiter of value."
But they do have value in the market. In this very discussion, we have both given up some of our time to exchange ideas that we consider to be of value (hopefully); money doesn't necessarily need to be exchanged – fortunately so, because it would corrupt philosophy. "Talk" (as opposed to writing) of virtues today takes place mainly in religious institutions (like the church or the mosque), but there is demand for it in academic institutions (think philosophy classes) as well.
"The market" is simply a place where supply and demand meet. When you say, "made the market the arbiter of value", you are actually saying "made people the arbiter of value". If you think about it, it's very democratic. Better than having any one person decide what is valuable for everybody else.
"If prosperity is defined as the sum of all exchanges, there is a certain circularity to the argument that free trade produces prosperity. It really boils down to the tautology “free trade produces the maximum amount of trade.”"
Again, this is a straw man.
"Big business lobbies congress to create colossal barriers to entry for small business."
"Colossal barriers"? Over 500,000 small businesses are started in the US, every month.
"The idea that social institutions must be optimized to produce the largest volume of trade implies those who would prefer to work and trade only enough for bare subsistence, and devote the greater part of their lives to meditation and prayer, should be put into forced work camps, since that would be, according to its metric of utility, more practical and efficient."
Utilitarians would argue, that "social institutions must be optimized to produce the largest volume of trades greatest possible happiness". And people generally don't like to be put into forced work camps. You could say, that their misery would still be justified, if such slavery could somehow bring increased happiness to society as a whole – just as in the classic example, where a terrorist has escaped, and the people are frightened: it would seem, that the police would be justified in arresting an innocent man, whom the public believes to be guilty of the terrorist attack, if doing so made the people relieved, and the overall happiness of society increase. But people in a society that adopted this principle would rightly feel afraid, that they too could be made slaves, or arrested when innocent, etc., for the "greater good" – and this leads us to "indirect Utilitarianism", which in my opinion is the real basis for personal rights (not counting God).
"It really made my day that you honed in directly on the Adam Smith quote, which, for me, is precisely the most relevant to the question we’re talking about. It really defines something essential about modernity, and something essential we have lost from an earlier age."
Well, Adam Smith was writing in 1759, so you may be looking at the past through rose-colored glasses... :) Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You make a number of excellent arguments, DanielTom. In particular I have been thinking a lot about your idea that individuals might not be risk-averse, and might even be gamblers. This seems to have profound implications. The gambler deliberately seeks an element of unreason in the outcome of his games. He craves the irrational outcome so much that he is even willing to bet when the expected value of the game is negative. The implications for political theory are very significant. When a soul unfortunate enough to be born into a poor family asks for a rational account of his situation, the answer he will hear is, “That was the luck of the draw.” For a non-gambling mind like mine, this points to irrationality and injustice. But for the gambling mind, it poses no problem. In fact, the gambling mind might prefer a world with irrational institutions that introduce a small chance of being born wealthy, even if their expected value is negative and he must therefore resign himself in the average case to being poorer.

(Eliminating irrationality costs money, as the expected negative return on an insurance policy attests, so accepting irrationality may even have a net positive effect on overall economic output. Or it might have a negative effect, as people withdraw from what they perceive to be an irrational system. I’m not sure which effect predominates.)

An economic system contrived in accordance with the gambler’s wishes should deliberately introduce irrational institutions whose outcome is more a matter of chance than of logic, just as a casino uses cards and dice to create unpredictable, irrational outcomes. The idea of seeking rational and just outcomes is not in the intellectual repertoire of the mind of the gambler, who is accustomed not only to accepting irrational outcomes with equanimity, but even to seeking out irrational outcomes deliberately. If the majority of citizens are gamblers, then it would be undemocratic for an intellectual elite to impose a rational economic system on a populace that would prefer a casino. It’s unfortunate for uptight minds like mine that prefer reason to blind chance that we happened to be born into a society with the opposite preference. But I suppose that’s the luck of the draw!

These conclusions about non-risk-averse economic actors are exaggerated and only partly serious, but seriously I do think the gambler mindset might explain a great deal about U. S. politics, where the economically underprivileged are more interested in gawking at the wealthy on celebrity channels than in politically organizing to fight for economic justice. I think many of the underprivileged actually like the fact that there is a vast wealth disparity, no matter how irrational and arbitrary its origins, because they imagine, I suppose, that in some future life the luck of the draw might be in their favor and they might be born wealthy. In any case they can fantasize about the life of the wealthy and live it vicariously.

Personally, I think I really do owe a rational account to the soul unfortunate enough to be born poor. And if I can’t give him a rational account, he is perfectly justified in robbing me. An economic system that has abandoned its claim to rationality and accepted that it will be ruled by chance can’t exactly complain when it has the bad luck to be robbed. The tendency of libertarians like Walter Williams to gloss over the distinction between de facto property rights and legitimate property rights is symptomatic of a generally optimistic outlook toward power, which Hegel notoriously expressed as “The real is the rational and the rational is the real.” As an antidote to what Kevin Carson aptly calls “vulgar libertarianism,” I strongly recommend checking out some of the more level-headed, rational libertarians. The one I most admire is Roderick Long.

Could you please review the graffiti page?[edit]

You are my senior here, so I was wondering if you would please demonstrate what the page for graffiti should look like; it seems ironic you clean up so much vandalism but don't have an opinion on that page. Clearly I could use your help, so by showing me that one page as an example; you would be doing the wiki and me a lot of good. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi CensoredScribe. Thanks for your message. I like the graffiti article. I added some more detailed source information to some quotes and made a few formatting fixes. Maybe some quotes should be shorter, but otherwise it looks good. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be interested in reviewing moe (slang)?[edit]

Moe (slang) seems even more niche than crowdfunding at the moment, so I thought you might like to nominate it for deletion for lacking evidence of notability. I wasn't sure if you knew about it. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry about the VFD on crowdfunding, that was a mistake on my part. I found wikipedia articles for most of the sources you cited, so that was just my ignorance for not recognizing them.
Regarding Moe (slang), the only I issue I see so far is length of quotes. The fact that there's an article on Wikipedia means it is definitely notable (as long as Wikipedia article doesn't get a VFD), and you have at least one source with a Wikipedia article, so there's definitely no notability issue there. That's my opinion, for whatever it's worth. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I was toldthat dialogue on theme pages is acceptable.[edit]

I've been told previously, (either by User:BD2412 or User:UDScott), that dialogue on theme pages is acceptable; though my formatting a the the time was not I was still thanked for several of these quots, like at the war page. The power page was even given its own section for dialogue quotes. I've even been thanked for some of those edits; so I was wondering if you could show me where does it say that it dialogue isn't acceptable for theme sections? I'm also a bit confused why the evidence of notability seems to differ for the graffiti page as I've looked at the notability guidelines recently. Thanks again. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi CensoredScribe. Thanks for your message. I wasn't sure about dialog quotes. I've had some of mine removed, so I thought it was not in WQ scope. I stand corrected on that.
The main concern I have with the quotes I removed is that, although they contain the title word of the theme page, they do not, as far as I can understand, convey any viewpoint on the theme that is interesting, coherent, and different from the viewpoints already presented. Many of them are essentially unintelligible outside the context of the work from which they are taken, referring to characters with which the audience can't be assumed to be familiar. Many of them are also long by WQ standards, particularly given that they do not make an intricate argument that requires some length to reach its conclusion. The quotes seem to convey far more information about the characters and plotlines of the story than about the theme of the article.
If there are quotes that you feel do succinctly convey a coherent and interesting position on the topic of the theme page, maybe we could discuss them individually and try to understand why our opinions differ (or why I made a mistake, as in Meditation). That could be a learning experience for me, which is the main reason I am volunteering here. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be interested in improving the page for Michael Badnarik?[edit]

The page for Michael Badnarik requires a lot of additional citations, I was wondering if you might be interested. Also; if you could please say at least the last names of the author of each quote you remove using the edit summaries. I noticed you left a non notable quote from science fiction author Orson Scott Card on Solitude from the book Ender's Shadow. Thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be interested in applying the quote length guidelines to the page for evolution?[edit]

I'm sure you can figure out the maximum acceptable length of a Clarence Darrow trial transcript, the exact maximum must be official policy somewhere on wikiquote and Kalki, ELApro and I are simply ignorant of it. I believe it is longer than 0 but am not sure the magic number. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Pedro Martinez[edit]

I am new i have no idea what I am doing, could you help me out with how to add sourced quotes? Pedro Martinez is what I am interested in for right now. thank you. --Quoter1989 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Quoter1989, thank you for your interest in Wikiquote. You can find hints on how to create your first article at Help:Starting a new page. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you but I have no properly sourced quotes i need to know where to find some then create the page. thank you. --Quoter1989 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Try Google books, or your local public library. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)