text:
User talk:Cbrown1023/archive2

Thanks for the welcomes
Thank you for joining the Welcoming Committee, not just literally but also effectively as you've been doing for the past few weeks. Since we're welcoming all new registered users and catching new anonymous users as we can, I really appreciate the assistance! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm on the Welcoming Committee and the English Wikipedia and frequently welcome users on Meta as well, so I'm used to it. :) If you need anything, please post a message on my talk page (even if it is something boring like welcoming the new users from the New user log). :)  Cbrown1023  talk  03:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I just wanted to second Jeff's thanks, and point to you something you may not have known about: the new user log. It lists all new users, and it's what we usually use to see new users (instead of just happening to catch their registration on Recentchanges). Generally, any long run of red "(talk)" links means that those users haven't been welcomed. You shouldn't feel obligated to welcome everyone, but I just figured I'd point you to this, if you didn't know about it. —LrdChaos (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)  Cbrown1023  talk  03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I started the campaign to welcome all newly registered users in March 2006 (and retroactively added everyone who registered since February 2006) because I saw it as a fairly simple way to ensure that everyone who used a username while editing would get one in-your-face "new messages" notice that revealed a set of useful links that they would (hopefully) read, and would at least be able to be tersely directed to if they made edits that showed a lack of awareness of Wikiquote's practices. It seemed to be a cheap investment for a potentially large gain. I believe it has paid off, as we've had plenty of registered users who manage to assimilate these practices or show other signs of having looked at them, while so many anons still routinely fail to follow even the most basic, general wiki guidelines. But I can't know this for sure, of course.

 * LrdChaos and I seem to be the two main editors who do this Special:Newusers-based welcoming, although others seem to pitch in from time to time. (Aphaia and others follow your Special:Recentchanges-based welcoming.) I'd love to have more people covering all new users; not only do we get as many as 50 new users a day sometimes, but also, I'm not especially happy that my huge edit count is perhaps 40% due to these welcome messages. (Some day I hope to run a bot to do this, as long as the message includes a clear pointer to specific users ready and willing to help newbies.) But every contribution through whatever means helps the cause. I also appreciate your efforts to welcome anon users, since they have been clearly "under-welcomed" by this strategy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * One of the main reasons that I welcome IP users is because they don't have an account yet. I feel that one of the main things we should do is get new users and then make sure the new users feel welcome.  I noticed (on RC Patrol) that most of our users are IPs, I think we should try greatly to change that and have more people get accounts.  I'm planning on importing the w:Wikipedia:Why create an account? page so that the anons can see the benefits.  Cbrown1023  talk  00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi, Cbrown1023. Welcome to the Welcoming committee ;) Have fun! --Aphaia 14:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :)  Cbrown1023  talk  00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Thanks. BenAveling 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem.  Cbrown1023  talk  22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy
Just figured I'd let you know that I reverted your split of Grey's Anatomy. I explained by at Talk:Grey's Anatomy, and I'd be more than happy to offer more explanation if I wasn't clear the first time. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's clear and understandable.  Cbrown1023  talk  21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick off the mark!
My that welcome came quickly. Thanks.--Cato 19:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the welcome! I have a few questions, if you don't mind:
 * 1) Is it permissible to copy/paste intro information from Wikipedia (with fixes to links and such)?
 * 2) Is there anything like "featured content" on Wikiquote? I'm looking for a great example page.
 * 3) Is there some reason the "redirect" quick text button does not appear in Wiktionary (next to the "bold", "italics", etc squares)? I've created a few redirects today by hand and hope they don't go against a guideline of some kind.

Thanks! --Fang Aili 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Answers:
 * It depends on the circumstances, and if you do it, you must copy the history from the page and post it on the talk page or an article subpage because of GFDL reasons. What types of instances are you talking about?
 * No, there isn't featured content as of yet. However, we have a listing of article templates that show you what you should do for different article subjects.
 * There isn't a redirect button because there just isn't. Redirects are frequently used and there is no problem using them, Templates has more information.
 * Feel free to contact me again if you have any more questions or problems.  Cbrown1023  talk  20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Re #1, I took the intro from Wikipedia (w:Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories) and basically inserted it here. I knew there might be some copyright issues, but I'm not certain on the details.
 * Thanks for the answers to the other questions as well, that helps. --Fang Aili 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

historical logs on commons
Hi, Cbrown1023 thank you for your works. But I am afraid you stepped beyond a limitation; you tagged them with "copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation". But in 2003 there was no policy about Wikimedia Foundation and its property, specially about logo. And those creators therefore showed no clear intention to give their copyright to the Foundation (it was then a paper-entity), how did you know they were willing to make such gifts? "They are good people so they should have done so, if they would have been asked" is persuasive but not a good argument unless you are in a position to legally speak on their behalf. --Aphaia 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't matter... no matter what they are now licensed to the WMF, because they are different images in a different file location. I had to save them locally on my computer and then re-upload them, so technically, they are new images and are now property of the WMF.  Cbrown1023  talk  17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is not true... then what do you think would be a better way to describe the licensing?  Cbrown1023  talk  21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * One cannot expect the assertion of a copyright to stick unless one has the right to assert that copyright. Only the creators of the relevant images can legally assert a copyright. Also, the copyright is for the illustration, not for the specific format or file that contains it. (Otherwise, I could take a picture of someone else's artwork, assert a copyright, and sell it without permission. This shouldn't be hard to see as very wrong.) Just because something has been placed within Wikimedia works does not give anyone in Wikimedia a right to assert any copyright. Uploaders' assertions of licenses are only as good as their right to make those assertions, which has nothing to do with the fact that they uploaded the material. We must be very careful and clear on this. That's one major reason, I think, that WMF is getting much more strict about ensuring every image is properly tagged with a specific claim from the uploader — we have someone to block and/or disavow if their assertions turn out to be meaningless. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant in the way that my computer changed it when I downloaded and re-uploaded... cause that's just what it does.  Cbrown1023  talk  23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I started, they weren't tagged as authorized at all, so I remain open to suggestions on how we can fix all this. If someone wants to check with the Office on how these should be handled, that's fine too, because it's obviously not going to be acceptable to delete them all.  Cbrown1023  talk  00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You could have simply left them, asking their creators to give license information. As for Commons logos, I recommend you to talk with Commons folks how to deal with misinformed licence data, since you are not the person in charge of giving the proper license information. See Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-1, logo should be Wikimedia property under its copyright, but in the discussion phase not every editor accepts this idea so your "copyrighted" tagging may have conflict with their original author. You put yourself in this mud and I daresay no one asked you to do so.
 * This kind of deed is what I meant recklessness and immaturity; you seemed not to know yet to distinct sensitive issues and other casual issues. Also your argument "I once saved it and it is technically different from the others" cannot be acceptable as JeffQ argued properly on the above.  Your saving are even not "derivatives" but simply copy of the original materials and still the properties of their original authors.--Aphaia 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As an experienced contributor to another project who has just recently come to this one, I am troubled by the tone of this comment, which I came across after reading through the RfA. I have not voted in the WQ RfA because I am a new contributor here but I have worked with Cbrown1023 as an administrator on WP and he has consistently done a superior job and I would recommend his adminship here as well, without reservation.
 * The matter at issue here involves a highly technical and complicated area of copyright policy. This specific situation is hardly a straightforward one. There do not appear to be any written guidelines on this issue either on this project or others and Cbrown1023 was doing his best to regularize the situation. The proper solution to the current dilemma is not obvious to me—and I am a corporate litigation attorney with 15 years of experience—and thus far no one has suggested one. If Cbrown1023 arguably made a mistake in addressing the issue, this could and should be explained and the mistake corrected in a reasonably polite fashion. Ascribing "recklessness and immaturity" to a good-faith effort to adjust copyright/licensing tags strikes me as uncivil and as potentially having the result of turning a technical dispute into an interpersonal one. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * As I have said, I meant it in a differant way than how it came out and you must forgive me for speaking incorrectly out of haste. I have problems with your comments.  I think that I show maturity by the fact that I am not just shoving this problem to the side for someone else to cleanup (you seem to be against this, especially my policy making ideas).  You seem to like to take things slow and push them aside for others to complete, I am not that way.  We are a community, and as such, need guidelines and policies to make discussion and actions easier and more productive.  A lack of action and policy shows a lack of care and is very negative.  Just so you know, the images are not properties of the given users, they have never been copyrighted and therefore belong to the authors under the GFDL, Wikimedia is a copyrighted trademark, as is the name "Wikiquote".  So, technically, anything that contains that name is illegal unless it is used under the discression of the Wikimedia Foundation, or the copyright holder of the name, if not the same.
 * Furthermore, I believe I showed boldness not recklesess, and that is not bad, it shows boundaries and allows others to learn, if we are all calm and stayed within tight boundaries, nothing would get done. I would admire a user and person more for their willingness to embark on something new, or to try to tackle a controversial issue.  That, to me, shows real maturity.
 * You state that no one has asked me to do it. Is that true?  Yes.  Has anyone asked you or I to contribute to Wikiquote?  No.  Do we still contribute anyway?  Yes.  Another way things won't get done is by waiting around for someone to suggest it be done.  I understand a great deal the difference between sensitive and casual issues, more than you will ever know.  I have taken actions that have caused great controversy, but were needed, followed policy, or stayed on the safe side of the law.  I am also not sure you are fully aware of United States Copyright laws (where the WMF and its servers are based) with you not being a current or past resident of the country.
 * If you have a better way to solve this issue than what I have done, please let me know. Remember, it takes a lot more thought and will-power to do something the best way you think possible than to criticize something another person does.  Cbrown1023  talk  00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe this discussion is getting out of hand. Aphaia occasionally uses words that have a more loaded meaning than she may realize. I would ask her to try to avoid the use of the terms "immaturity" and "reckless", which are deductions from actions, and focus more instead on the actions themselves.

 * At the same time, while I agree that Cbrown1023 is indeed being bold, there is an element of eagerness to solve many outstanding Wikiquote problems in so short a time that it is overwhelming the regular editors. The main reasons things move here at a glacial pace is because:
 * The vast majority of the community has no interest whatsoever in working policy issues, not even when they dislike the results.
 * The tiny group of frequent editors has had its hands full since Kalki was the only active sysop 2-3 years ago. (We lose active sysops almost as fast as we gain new ones, partly due, I'm sure, to burn-out.)
 * Too much work from too few people turns a Wikimedia project into an oligarchy — the very opposite of what a wiki should be — which leads many active editors to avoid trying to be too bold. (The wiki ideal of "Be bold" is countered by the admonition "but don't be reckless", which may be the point Aphaia is trying to make. Like Don't be a dick, which I noticed Cbrown1023 had on his/her user page at one time, it's a guideline that may be best rephrased for civil discourse.)
 * Wikiquote needs experienced, energetic editors like Cbrown1023. But it is necessary for eager editors to recognize the limitations and challenges of a project with a very small set of frequent editors. While we all want to flesh out material here, we don't want to simply impose half-formed ideas (like our draft attempt on WQ:SOURCE, which needs serious work) on the community, just to make it official. Patience, as well as boldness, is a virtue.

 * Finally, I appreciate the comments from Newyorkbrad, but I have serious concerns about someone whose statement of being "a corporate litigation attorney with 15 years of experience" seems to have been said to suggest he has more than average knowledge of the topic at hand — copyright law — and yet doesn't seem to acknowledge that U.S. law holds that the authors of modern creative works have an automatic copyright on their works. (See Copyright Basics: Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation from the U.S. Copyright Office. That same page also makes clear that no copyright is allowed where the work "contain[s] no original authorship"; e.g., an image simply downloaded and uploaded and/or reprocessed through a non-creative mechanical process.) If we have images without clear statements about their provenance, the most we can do is ask their uploaders for license assertions or delete them. Even if we get such assertions, that doesn't guarantee they're valid — it just shifts the responsibility (somewhat) to the uploader, provided Wikimedia has a clear process to remove materials that it suspects have invalid or no license assertions. If Cbrown1023 has taken images without licenses and re-uploaded them to Commons without getting permission from their copyright holders or providing evidence they are in the public domain or explicitly free-licensed, those images are not there legally (or following Commons requirements) and must be removed. One need not be a lawyer to recognize the logic of this.
 * Just a comment, Newyorkbrad had informed of the same information you just did about US Copyright law in private correspondance. Him and I have been discussing this heavily over the past few days trying to see what is the best way to fix this situation, but to no avail.  Cbrown1023  talk  04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a very common mistaken belief these days, especially among heavy Internet users, that if something makes its way on to the Internet without being blocked by the rights owner, it is fair game for any use. This is confusing the convenience of copying for the legality, similar to people feeling free to loot businesses during a blackout because they know there's virtually no chance that the overworked authorities will ever catch them. But, extending the analogy, the Wikimedia Foundation is a large, well-funded organization that makes such "looting" possible, and while no particular user may ever get "caught", WMF can certainly be hit with lawsuits for failing to do due diligence in addressing copyright concerns. (Witness the recent troubles YouTube has had because of its users' carelessness.) Anyone wishing to preserve unlicensed material must do so in a legally sound, not just technically convenient, manner. Unless this is done explicitly, the Foundation has the right to summarily delete suspect material. As with all other editing tasks, it does so primarily through the editors who commit themselves to policing licensing issues. But the Foundation can and will come down on us if we aren't careful, and we've already had one Wikiquote (French) shut down for a year because they caused WMF legal grief. We must work to become more sensitive to properly licensing material. I'd like to keep historically important material, too, but since we weren't especially careful in our history, we must face the possibility that preserving some historical material isn't worth the legal problems. (And just to be clear, I'm not accusing Cbrown1023 of intentionally doing something illegal, just of failing to realize the inadequate legal stance s/he is taking by these actions.)

 * I suspect my soliloquy may not have defused this argument as I'd started out trying to do, but there are some serious issues that must be acknowleged and addressed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone care to read the license I placed the images? I just re-read it and found: "This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects..." If I am wrong, please show me where my line of thiking went wrong.  Cbrown1023  talk  04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The "Wikiquote" name is a copyrighted name (more like a registered trademark, but I supsect WMF includes that as well).
 * 2) Some of them are the logos themselves and some of them include parts of the logo, and therefore, it fits under that license.

Jeff, obviously I'm aware of the information you include in your comment to the effect that there is automatic copyright in the United States on material that was published, provided that such publication first occurred after the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect on January 1, 1978 (which obviously would be true with respect to these images or anything else that might have been designed for a wiki project), which abolished the doctrine of common-law copyright and replaced it with a regime of statutory copyright ab initio. My comment was not meant to adopt every word that Cbrown1023, who is not a lawyer, said regarding these issues. In fact, I was actually discussing some of these matters with him yesterday to help him bring a more nuanced analysis to these issues. (His seeking out a potentially more knowledgeable person to discuss an issue with when questioned strikes me as the epitome of responsible, rather than reckless, behavior.) No one here thinks that any image on the Internet is fair game for any use, and in fact the efforts that are being made here suggest that no one was operating on the basis of any such assumption. As a newcomer to this project, I will not offer further views at this point and in particular will not opine on whether some of the earlier images with licensing problems should be abandoned or whether OFFICE guidance should be sought on how best to handle them. Newyorkbrad 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please just recall that I would have liked these images to have been deleted because they had no reason for being here and were orphaned. This is also what you guys wanted, per the VfD discussion I read, you all seemed to want them uploaded to Commons.  Cbrown1023  talk  23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I'm not sure if I told you guys, but I have e-mailed the creator of the three of the images and have gotten no responses. The other three have no contact information nor a Wikiquote e-mail saved. If they don't do anything, I think that is silent agreement. (Please also note that this is common practice in law, see "Google Books" and the online Google Library in the works.)  Cbrown1023  talk  23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are now an admin...
Congratulations! You are now an administrator at Wikiquote. Your eagerness and skill has been appreciated. ~ Kalki 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for performing the change. :)  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! :) Newyorkbrad 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice Going! 5 outta 7 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats dude! :) Majorly 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I get to hand on the baton of "newbie admin", well done! Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello, great Cbrown1023! I'm new here and before I just "jump into things" I wanted to ask a few questions. I'm asking you because I was told you are a great leader here at Wikiquote. Here's the Q's dog:

1.) Are there any special rules or traditions I should know of?

2.) Is there a type of hierarchy here I should know of?

3.) Any ideas of where I should start?

4.) Anyone I should stay away from or be aware of? (Trouble makers, notorious vandals etc.?)

Thanks for your help,

5 outta 7 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Welcome message I put on your user page before this post should be of some help.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked you four questions, responses would be appricated.

Stay Blessed,

Nelson

Hmm?
Why are you being so rude? I didin't do anything to you? And why are you attacking Wikinews? 5 outta 7 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That was an imposter. Cbrown1023 was blocked indefinintly with nocreate. --68.187.184.139 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * in regards to wikinews. That was an impersonation account (I belive) and is not really this person. (I just blocked that acount name at wikinews, so if you have any questions about it please leave me a message, or contact me on irc.) I'm curious 5 outta 7, I'm suprised you know about the wikinews thing. it was on the site for less then a minute, and its been about three since the incident. You are not a user there, so how are you aware of it? Bawolff 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 outta 7, I am not accusing you of anything, but please edit here within the next 23 hours to see if you were blocked. Thank you,  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  00:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cbrown1023, I suggest you create an account on Wikinews to prevent further impersonation. FWN 00:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion, but I have one already and have had one for a while, but that was a different name, Cbrown1032.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might consider "confirming" that account, like Messedrocker does at the bottom of his userpage. Do you want a bureaucrat to move the account? --Thunderhead 00:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have a confirmation. :) I have a WikiMartix on Meta and a link to meta.  All my accounts have that. :)  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  00:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the vandal name was Cbrown1032 not Cbrown1023 so the real account is the right name. Its also been there for a while, so I doubt its fake. Bawolff 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for accusing you of being rude, I've been made aware that is was an impersonator of you that defaced my page. 5 outta 7 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Troll warning
''Jeff, you were right in all of what you said. I would just like to point out a few minute details so you are more "in the loop". 5 outta 7 was referring to a user vandalising his talk page when he stated that I was being rude, but it turned out that it was a user whose username was purposely almost identical to mine (i.e. an imposter). (You can see the bottom of my talk page for more information.) The same thing happened to me at Wikinews, I think the users are the same person. Here, I blocked the user in question indefinitely and enabled an autoblock. In case you are not aware, an autoblock is a, normally 24 hour, block on an IP address that was used by a blocked user or that the blocked user tried to use. My reasoning behind this was to see if the imposter (who caused havoc at Wikinews and was an imposter/troll here) was in fact 5 outta 7. A possible confirmation of this is that 5 outta 7 has not edited since my enabling the autoblock. This should be a simple way to solve this without checkuser.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)''

 * Oh, and I was not meaning any bad faith by this, I just wanted to make sure you informed of this incident in its interity. I also appreciate greatly you sticking up for me and what is right. :)  Thanks (and thanks for your support in my RfA). :)  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the details. It's good to have the absence after the autoblock to suggest our suspicions are accurate. You might want to read my detailed description of the last attack we had along these lines, to see why it was reasonable for Wikiquote sysops (yourself now included — congrats!) to deduce bad faith from this user, even without that evidence or a checkuser. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikiqoute Cbrown1023, I feel like I'm a valued member here.--BrianGriffin-FG 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. :)  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Do You Torture Me So?
You accuse me of being a...troll! How so, may I ask? What did I do deserving of this shameful title? From my edit history, It has been proved that I am not the one who tried to mimick you name, as I edited within 24 hours of his block. So I ask...Why Do You Torture Me So? 5 outta 7 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can state that as a reason, it is probable that you just went to a different comptuer or set up a proxy.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well done on your promotion. I must check RfA more often - had I known you were standing, I'd have voted for you!--Poetlister 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey, Cbrown! I noticed that you are an administrator on both Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Just out of curiousity, what does it take to become an admin on Wikiquote? My interest here isn't nearly as large as it is on WP, but I thought that it would be pretty cool to become an admin here someday. I'm also trying to become one at WP, but I'm not quite sure I'm ready yet. If you ever get the chance, do you mind telling me a bit about the requirements, expectations, etc. required for adminship here (or if it's included in an article, just show me the way and I'll figure it out on my own)? And I hate to ask you this, but do you also mind just glancing at my Wikipedia account and telling me if I'm ready for adminship? I'll understand if you don't want to do this. It's not really be that big of a deal. Well thanks in advance, whatever your answers may be, and I hope to talk to you again soon. Happy editing! // Decaimiento  Poético  23:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy to, I'll get back to you after I review you. :)  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  02:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:
 * Your editor review basicallly sums up what I wanted to say. Try to get active in administrative areas so people notice you and allow them to see that you can be trusted with the tools and that you will put them to use.  You should also at least read RfAs and occasionally !vote in them to see what the current standards are.  Then, try to meet those standards.
 * Wikiquote:
 * The same things apply for Wikiquote, try to spend time in administrative areas. You should read the Adminstrators' noticeboard and Village Pump and also comment in discussions.  I would suggest voting in VfDs and doing Recent changes patrol (possibly also welcoming new users).  You should try to stay around a while on Wikiquote and get quite a few edits so that users know you and will be able to see that you are a good user and can be trusted.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to do this for me. I'll read up on those pages and get involved in more administrative areas like you suggest. I hope it wasn't too much trouble for you. Happy editing! // Decaimiento  Poético  03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"What links here" before deletion
You may not have noticed that when you deleted Elix Skipper per its VfD discussion, it left a prominent red link on Main Page. Please check the "What links here" links before deleting articles, not just because of this normally rare occurrence (although it's the second time someone has done this in less than two weeks), but also because many to-be-deleted articles include links in theme or other articles that should also be removed. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where the link was! I did check it, and saw that it was linked from the main page and was like "wth?!"  I didn't see it anywhere, but I guess I didn't check hard enough.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ekans block
I had two problems and a question about your recent permanent block on and the message you left for the user. First, the message begins with a vandalblock, but I saw only a single edit, a quote added to Russell Peters that may not have been accurate but doesn't appear to be vandalism. I also found nothing in the deletion log that had been edited by this user, let alone something to suggest vandalism.

Second, the idea that this username is a trademark is questionable:

 * It is not obviously an attempt to infringe on a trademark, given that it follows a very common practice of reversing a common word or phrase for a username.
 * Username has no policy about trademarked names at this time.
 * Even w:Wikipedia:Username disallows names that "undoubtedly refer to the owner of the trademark" (or presumably the trademarked name), which this does not, even for Pokemon fans.
 * The WP policy itself is the current subject of heated debate over overzealous interpretation by non-lawyers.

Basically, we have so few sysops and editors, relative to Wikipedia, that we usually try to err on the side of acceptance, not banning, unless there is clear and persistent vandalism involved, which does not seem to be the case here.

Finally, my question is, are you using a template for your inappropriate-username message? It looks like it's a partially adapted from Wikipedia, and probably needs some more work, especially given that it doesn't refer to existing Wikiquote-specific policies and points to a non-existent request page. We tend to make our messages here more personal and specific to Wikiquote unless and until we have a properly tested template and supporting set of cited pages in place to address any specific issue.

We have few enough editors, mostly novices and many not even familiar with Wikipedia, that we must be sure to assume good faith from everyone who doesn't cause rampant, obvious vandalism. Please consider this when reviewing user names and edits. Thank you for your attention. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It's your template, Template:UsernameBlock.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  15:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel it warrants an unblock then unblock. I did not ban the user, just the username.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

bot
I only have a few minutes right now, on a wi-fi link: what is the name of the bot you would like to use: If I can't give it a bot flag right now, I will be able to in about 3 hrs, when I will have a bit more time. ~ Kalki 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * User:BrownBot now has bot status. ~ Kalki 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, starting it now. If there are any problems, block first and ask questions later. (Some people take it as a personal insult, I do not mind.)  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  10:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lynx deprecation
Uh, Cbrown1023, might I suggest an announcement at the village pump of your deprecation of Template:lynx and bot-removal from potentially thousands of pages before you get too far? While I concede that it's a logical thing to do, there has been some discussion of alternatives in the past (see MediaWiki talk:Sidebar and Template talk:Lynx), and no conclusions had been reached yet. Even though it may get a resounding yawn from the community, you never know. (I happen to agree with the change and have already removed "lynx" from the Templates subpages as "deprecated", so I'm at least complicit at this point. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Oops! I notice now that you've been calling for this for a bit and I somehow failed to notice your posts. (I must be developing early senility ☺) Still, it affects everyone, so it should be mentioned at VP. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

''It has been mentioned at VP.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)''
 * I will be restarting the bot then.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No, this hasn't been "mentioned", let alone discussed, at VP. What was said was an innocuous statement that "The sidebar has been updated to included wikquote links." What's a "sidebar"? What specific "wikiquote links" are being discussed? "Lynx" isn't even mentioned!

 * Wikiquote is not Wikipedia, with thousands of experienced wiki editors involved in architectural discussions. Nearly everyone participating here knows just enough to use the "edit" tab to make changes to articles, and if we're lucky, they follow the formatting they can observe in the articles they're editing. Announcements or discussions with the community must include context appropriate for the general community if they're going to be mean anything. You might look at some of my VP posts responding to non-sysop questions to see how I fill in the contextual gaps that we wiki-savvy editors tend to assume (incorrectly) that everyone understands (like expanding acronyms like "VP" at least once in any conversation and making sure there's always a link to whatever's being discussed, instead of expecting any interested party to already know all the relevant pages and discussions).

 * I have posted what I believe is a more useful announcement of the situation. It may very well generate nothing but yawns, but it fulfills our responsibility to keep the entire community informed.

 * I had no real problems with the bot. I only stopped it after reading your acceptance of unprejudicial blocks and noticing that you were still making BrownBot changes after I posted some comments, including on your talk page. (That's one thing I find annoying about separate accounts for bot or other special activity. I can't wait until they get a cross-account message notification system working.) Despite my concern about the lack of community involvement, I am quite happy that you tackled this issue energetically. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The users I had notified responded happily to it saying that it was a great idea. Anyone who had any further questions could have felt free to ask.  Thank you for "expanding my wiki-speak".  I had not found your message for over 10 hours because I was out all day, hence my asking any sysops to block immediately.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo, dawg.
So can I run my bot, Tapernoc Bot? Thanks. Tapernoc 19:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tapernoc 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - no hard feelings.
From the VfD page, in reply to Tyrenius's suggestion that VfD should be a last resort and implying I should have been emailed: "Yes, I am sorry about that. As you may have seen, I have been busy around Wikiquote with the Sidebar and Lynx... I overlooked that accidentally and did not e-mail him after you said that you had already. Cbrown1023 talk 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

 * No hard feelings. Thanks for the compromise. I only wish Wikipedia admin hierarchy were as fair. Take care,--GordonWatts 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Button URLs
O possessor of arcane wiki-wisdom, where'd you come up with a toolbar-worthy URL for Image:Button hr halfwidth.png? ☺ Seriously, thanks for updating it in MediaWiki:Common.js, but I'd also like to know how one might deduce in which "upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en" subdirectories one might find one's new buttons. My brain is too feeble at the moment to make the connection. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Click on the image link you gave, below the image, there is a little link that has the image name (in this case, "Button_hr_halfwidth.png (23 × 22 pixel, file size: 1,012 B, MIME type: image/png)"). You click that link and you get the link.  Read the italics when your mind isn't so feeble. :) The files aren't actually located at the image descriptor page, that is just how we access them.  (It is very similar to the fact that all Wikimedia pages are /wiki/ but the directory is index.php (that's what it says when you edit).)  The files are actually located at that URL in upload.wikimedia.org.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I'll get back to my Jell-O and reruns of Sky King now. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks
thank you for welcoming me! --Wpktsfs 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletions
Can I ask that you check the list of films or TV shows (or whatever) when you delete pages, just to be sure that the deleted page is no longer shown as an active page (or is removed entirely from a list if appropriate)? I already demoted a couple of the films and one of the TV shows you recently deleted. Thanks. ~ UDScott 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, may I ask why? The pages I delete are not pages that I recently deleted are not pages that should never be on Wikiquote.  The pages just have no content at that time and for a while (hence my summary).  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, there is a section for requested titles on the same page.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Username
I'm sorry, but I do doubt I will get blocked. Anyways, have a fun wikibreak. —This unsigned comment is by Joe @Wikiquote44.com (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 March 2007.
 * Okay, but I find it funny that I am on a public computer and cannot even access your userpage because of your username (for some reason, the computer will not let me due to your username (the pagename)).  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

IP block
Hey you editor whatever. u sent me a message about last warning or something and I didn't even edit anything. What is up freak.
 * Well, you can't be blocked if you could edit my talk page.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter
You may wish to check Wikipedia's Administrators' Noticeboard with regard to PatPeter, who I presume is the same username on Wikipedia. There was a particularly concerning incident a few days ago. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking a 1-year block there classifies him under Username's "notorious Wikipedian usernames" and he needs to be blocked immediately. Also, for his well-being, wikis obviously cause him a lot of stress and possible suicide, so this is preventative.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Fakes
Just for your notice, I undeleted Dennis Fakes. I understand each speedied page can be restored without consensus as same as its deletion, and I don't think it acceptable to speedy a page which once survived VfD in a not so much different shape. Relevant discussion may be found at User talk:Jeffq. Cheers, --Aphaia 02:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

AWB
Greetings! I uploaded the new version of AWB, and suddenly find myself unable to use it on Wikiquote. Can you fix this? Cheers! <font style="background:lightgreen">BD2412 T 13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been added to the list.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers! <font style="background:lightgreen">BD2412 T 23:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Metalocalypse
I see you have added a line in the Snakes N' Barrels episode.

Line 1,543, Pickles never says "or some shit"

I watched this episode hundreds of times on youtube and the quote isn't there. So stop adding it, thanks.
 * I reverted all your edits to that page, because many of them appeared incorrect. It seems that is the only edit (out of 10) that I was wrong about.  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  03:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How are you?
I wish you've enjoyed your trip. --Aphaia 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have, I am still on it, but snuck online to edit a bit! You've caught me!  Thank you, though!  I hope you have been well, I see that you guys have been rather busy whilst I was away!  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

 * Cbrown1023 is now known as timicha1
 * timicha1 is now known as jwa1es
 * jwa1es is now known as Cbrown1023
 * Cbrown1023 is now known as Crazytales3
 * Crazytales3 is now known as bad
 * bad is now known as Cbrown1023
 * Crazytales2 is now known as Crazytales3
 * Crazytales3 is now known as Crazytales2
 * Cbrown1023 is now known as Mr_Gustafson
 * Mr_Gustafson is now known as Cbrown1023
 * Cbrown1023 is now known as yousmellworse
 * yousmellworse left #wikinews []

Was it you who made these changes? Just checking. FWN 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * he-he... unfortunately, yes, we were all joking together.... in #wikimedia, #vandalism-meta, and #wikipedia-en-admins. Thanks for checking! Although the ones mentioned below were not me (but a user I was talking with).  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Crazytales2 is now known as Crazytales3
 * Crazytales3 is now known as Crazytales2

 * Thanks. We had a vandal in IRC before so I just wanted to double check with you. FWN 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion archive/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/w/index.php
Please delete. Seems like I taged it right after you deleted it. FWN 01:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, and listed now on WQ:PT.--Aphaia 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those pages are created by bots that are open proxies. They should be blocked indef. See: FWN 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions, while my favorite proxychecker says 89.149.217.187 may not be an open proxy, but it may be wrong. By the way I am not sure if we need to block indef those proxies (most of them don't rest for a year, and some of them are just zombie machines). We are rather better to use meta list to block those open proxies. Cbrown1023, could you please consider to run your bot for blocking those listed IP addresses on meta? --Aphaia 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try, remind me tomorrow on IRC. Also, how shall we block them?  Anon-only?  Account-creation disable?  (I am thinking anon-only.)  Cbrown1023  <font color="#002bb8">talk  02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "anon-only" might make a little sense .... we have seen vandalism accounts accessing through open proxies on other projects. Unless the exceptional cases (for Qatar, or people behind the Great Firewall), I find no good reason to allow registered users to use open proxies. If we let registered users to edit through open proxies, I am afraid it may give a room for sockpuppetry. --Aphaia 09:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename
I noticed your message earlier and then forgot about it until now. What project is Skenmy on, so I can send an email with a new password, after moving and blocking the current Skenmy here? ~ Kalki 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk page and matter has been settled. :)  Cbrown1023   talk   17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome bot
Might be an idea to get it flagged from an RC point of view, keeps it cleaner (doing a good job tho - if I could get Wikibooks interested I might get some more info about it from you). Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I currently have a request at Bots... (as I have had for a while... any b'crats watching? :-P) you are welcome to support it if you like. :)  Cbrown1023    talk   17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - still finding pages!! Done -- Herby talk thyme 18:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

naughty users
Check out Special:Contributions/205.251.143.106 and the history for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. --Charitwo 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been warned, if he does it again, tell me, and I will block him.  Cbrown1023   talk   21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta
Thanks for the welcome. I keep finding things to put here and finally took the plunge. Regards, Fred.e 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * no problem. :)  Cbrown1023   talk   20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks for the infoAFUSCO 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Review
You said the following about The Wikipedia Review at WQ:VP:

 * As admins, we have access to information that is sensitive or otherwise not-readily accessible to the public and should not be able to be posted on that site. I believe that Poetlister should be one or the other, not both (a WQ admin or a WR user).

Now you have me worried. I'd just registered my usual username at TWR (with a different password, of course) as my standard practice in avoiding impersonators. Am I now causing an inherent problem being both a WQ admin and a WR user? I'm inferring (weakly, as I clearly don't know much about this situation) that Poetlister is being accused of sharing privileged information on TWR. That would obviously be extremely inappropriate if done intentionally (or accidentally but repeatedly, although even one instance should clearly be avoided).

I guess the problem I have with this whole matter is it appears to be based on an investigation done out of the public eye, with not a shred of linked evidence provided thus far. Even if done by trusted users, some summary, with as much information as can reasonably be made public, should be presented somewhere to allow editors across the relevant projects to understand the decision. I might grudgingly even go along with information privately emailed to sysops. But the idea of de-sysopping or banning someone without documented evidence, solely on the word of trusted (but fallible) human beings, is far too caballistic for my tastes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I really trust you, but the fact of the matter is, you shouldn't have just given me your username here (it should be different, if you are going to comment). :) It's one thing to have an account there just to have one and to comment innocently (or refute negative comments about your "friends") and it is a completely different thing to be an admin there.  That shows a great level of depth in the community and is not the kind of community we want our admins to be in.  This is a very large Wikimedia problem, but I don't think they have done anything very bad recently.  The fact of the matter is, this is just icing on the cake.  Please also Requests for CheckUser information.  Cbrown1023    talk   01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Ahhh. I just got an email from Aphaia that explains something that I was not aware of. It says that TWR is an anti-Wikipedia site. I sure wish I'd seen that mentioned somewhere before I joined — I wouldn't have bothered. Although I'm not especially worried about my email address, as I routinely use different email addresses for different situations, I suppose those admins might have access to my IP address. Actually, that's not exactly a secret I care much about, either. I certainly hadn't had any intention of adding any personal information to that site, even before I realized its purpose. I even log in in in "invisible" mode, so I don't show up as an active user. Is there some other privacy problem I should be aware of? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * You probably also do not know this because you do not view meta often, are not on IRC, and do not have access to the CU logs... but there's been CU confirmation here that Poetlister here is the same there (and possibly other things... I'm not sure, ask Dmcdevit).  Cbrown1023   talk   01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I've been digging for details on this situation. I found the w:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport case associating w:User:Brownlee with w:User:Poetlister utterly unconvincing. Heck, it would implicate me as a sockpuppet of hundreds of users in hundreds of articles. (Maybe I'm unusual in that I actually read old discussions before I start hacking on an article I've just come across. ☺ ) I'm still looking into the CheckUser angle. I appreciate the link to the new CU request. I'd seen references to another CheckUser request, but I was troubled by the vague statements and lack of specific account names cited. I'll keep reading. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no request, you have to realize that most CheckUser are not done with a written request on the wiki. It is really rather complicated.  Any information can be found by e-mailing arbcom-l@Wikipedia.org or contacting dmcdevit.  Just make sure you use a descriptive subject for your e-mail because they get held for approval.  Cbrown1023    talk   20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile
<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks. :)  Cbrown1023   talk   16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WelcomeBot
Hey, WelcomeBot stuffs up adding to the log when there are usernames that contain a space, as the format of external links means the last half of their name and the rest of the URL is taken as part of the link title. You can fix this by replacing spaces with %20's in their name before making it into URL form. Thanks! 202.36.224.9 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (User:TheFeaorw on enwiki)
 * Thanks. I've fixed it by adding the urlencode magic word to the log template (Template:WLE).  Cbrown1023    talk   16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

wikiquote
My first time posting Wikiquotes, at ~Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira. Can you help me? Ludovicapipa 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello! What is it that you need help with?  For the article you are currently working on, it may be best to cite where those people said those things and include lines that were actually said or sang by Simone.  Cbrown1023    talk   00:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail!

 * :) I've replied.  Cbrown1023    talk   19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for welcoming. I'm adding some interwiki links for Croatia and I figured that I don't want to do that anonymously. :) --Modra 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! Nice to see a Croatian, we don't get many of them!  I like diversity. :)  Cbrown1023    talk   19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :)
Thank you so much for the beautiful, kind welcome, my dear Cbrown! :) It means the world to me to be welcomed by a wonderful person and a great editor I look up to. It's beautiful to be part of Wikiquote, and to share this space with friends like you. And do check your email - I'll continue this there :) Love, <font color="#009900">P<font color="#00AA00">h<font color="#00BB00">a<font color="#00CC00">e<font color="#00DD00">d r i e l  - 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for welcoming me! It is so important to be welcomed. -JohnManuel 10:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. :)  Cbrown1023   talk   16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sir!
Thanks very much for the welcome, mate. Very kind of you. I think I'll like it here..... The Great Number 8 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'm always glad to see us get new contributors! :)  Cbrown1023    talk   00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow
Thanks for the welcome, that was fast. Modernist 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no problem. You just happened to created an account at the right time. :)  Cbrown1023    talk   03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thanks for the welcome-bot. It made me feel like someone actually cared about me joining.--Freiberg 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! Glad you are here! :-)  Cbrown1023    talk   15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that! The links are helpful too. Anthrcer 16:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Cbrown1023   talk   01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back WB (and its botmaster)
Now I realize more and more how helpful it is :) --Aphaia 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, thanks! :-) I still need to get it fixed on the toolserver though (the ts was being difficult, so I just ran it from my own computer, now I need to work on getting that part fixed!).  Cbrown1023    talk   23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your bot's welcoming. I'm not a new user in Wiki, but a new user in English Wikiquote. I know that you use your bot to welcome the new users here, but if I'm a real new user, I'll not feeling good after your bot welcomed me. I'll think that, to welcome the new users is a job your bot must do here, and I'll think that my account creating is not that important to be welcomed by a real Wikiquote user. You should think more about that, and I would like to be your friend. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4.5" color="#7777ff"> King of King Chaplin  ♨Discuss with me please! 09:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cbrown1023/archive2


text:
Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a movement in late-20th century philosophy and criticism typically defined by skepticism or distrust of grand narratives, ideologies, and Enlightenment rationality.

A

 * The idea of the postmodern ... was in one way or another an appanage of the right. ... For Lyotard the very parameters of the new conditions were set by the discrediting of socialism as the last grand narrative. ... There could be nothing but capitalism. The postmodern was a sentence on alternative illusions.
 * Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity (Verso:1998), pp. 45-46

B

 * Postmodernity is said to be a culture of fragmentary sensations, eclectic nostalgia, disposable simulacra, and promiscuous superficiality, in which the traditionally valued qualities of depth, coherence, meaning, originality, and authenticity are evacuated or dissolved amid the random swirl of empty signals.
 * Jean Baudrillard, quoted in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (2008), p. 266

 * At the end of a life spent in the pursuit of knowledge Faust has to confess: "I now see that we can nothing know." That is the answer to a sum, it is the outcome of a long experience. But as Kierkegaard observed, it is quite a different thing when a freshman comes up to the university and uses the same sentiment to justify his indolence. As the answer to a sum it is perfectly true, but as the initial data it is a piece of self-deception.
 * Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nachfolge (1937), The Cost of Discipleship (1959), p. 51

 * The final dismantling of the great master narratives is itself a grand narrative—why else would people get so excited about it?
 * Nicholas Brown and Imre Szemán, “Twenty-five Theses on Philosophy in the Age of Finance Capital,” in Leftist Ontology, edited by Carsten Strathausen (2009), p. 34

C

 * For about a couple of decades I've had a very simple question that I've been posing to my postmodern friends: "Can you find something in postmodernism which is not either a triviality cloaked in polysyllables or is false?", and nobody's answered it yet.
 * Noam Chomsky, in a 2019 interview (at 34:56)

D

 * Surely at least some of our logical principles … are far more evident and obvious to us than are any of the empirical generalizations we find in psychology, or in any other of the empirical sciences. Thus, to attempt to explain logic in terms of psychology is to explain the more certain by the less certain. It is, in short, to commit the fallacy of obscurum per obscurius.
 * David Detmer, Challenging Postmodernism (New York: 2003), p. 24

 * There is an obscurum per obscurius problem as well. In order to know whether or not giraffes are taller than ants we must first know (a) whether or not there is a consensus that giraffes are taller than ants, and (b) if there is, whether or not the communication that produces that consensus was free, open, and undistorted. But isn’t it obvious that it is easier to determine whether or not giraffes are taller than ants than it is to determine either (a) or (b)? Or, to put it another way, wouldn’t any skeptical doubts about our ability to determine even something so obvious as that giraffes are taller than ants also be more than sufficient to wipe out any hope of being able to know about the outcome, and degree of openness, of any process of public communication?
 * David Detmer, Challenging Postmodernism (New York: 2003), pp. 128-129

 * Is it easier to know what our culture’s epistemic norms are in terms of which it is to be determined whether or not giraffes are taller than ants than it is to know that giraffes are taller than ants? Is our knowledge concerning the identity of those norms to be construed on a realist model, or must we rather consult our culture’s epistemic norms in order to use them to figure out the identity of those norms? If the former, why is it that we can have objective knowledge concerning the identity of our culture’s epistemic norms when we can’t have it with regard to the relative height of giraffes and ants? And if the latter, how is an infinite regress to be avoided?
 * David Detmer, Challenging Postmodernism (New York: 2003), p. 130

H

 * Thinking about my own sense of identity, I realise that it has always depended on the fact of being a migrant. ... Now that, in the postmodern age, you all feel so dispersed, I become centred. What I've thought of as dispersed and fragmented comes, paradoxically, to be the representative modern experience! This is "coming home" with a vengeance! Most of it I much enjoy—welcome to migranthood.
 * Stuart Hall, The Real Me: Postmodernism and the Question of Identity (1984), p. 44

 * Through a vicious circle of pure reason skepsis itself becomes dogma.
 * Johann Georg Hamann, Briefwechsel, ed. Arthur Henkel (1955-1975), vol. V, p. 432

 * There are signs, these days, that the cultural hegemony of postmodernism is weakening in the West. When even the developers tell an architect like Moshe Safdie that they are tired of it, then can philosophical thinking be far behind?
 * David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (1989), p. ix

 * Despite the best intentions, then, the postmodernist politics of difference not only is ineffective against but can even coincide with and support the functions and practices of imperial rule. The danger is that postmodernist theories focus their attention so resolutely on the old forms of power they are running from, with their heads turned backwards, that they tumble unwittingly into the welcoming arms of the new power.
 * Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (2000), p. 142

 * Simplifying a great deal, one could argue that postmodernist discourses appeal primarily to the winners in the processes of globalization and fundamentalist discourses to the losers.
 * Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (2000), p. 150

 * Whether the accused in a murder trial is or is not guilty depends on the assessment of old-fashioned positivist evidence, if such evidence is available. Any innocent readers who find themselves in the dock will do well to appeal to it. It is the lawyers for the guilty ones who fall back on postmodern lines of defence.
 * Eric Hobsbawm, On History (1997), p. viii

L

 * Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives.
 * Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979)

M

 * Postmodernism has made it fashionable to deconstruct what its adherents called the 'grand narratives' of history, seeing these as little more than the stories of the triumph of Western progress which was largely achieved by suppressing or violently overthrowing other groups. More problematically, postmodernists advocate that all identities be dismantled or blurred and view all positively distinctive cultures as being oppressive to weaker or less assertive ones. This idea might at first seem reasonable, especially when viewed through a postcolonial or subaltern lens, but it opens the door to a pervasive cynicism and narrowness of vision with no workable criteria of value in aesthetics, politics or philosophy. The postmodern insistence on denying such identities as Indian and Western leaves non-Western cultures vulnerable to even further exploitation because they are denied the security of possessing a difference which is real and defensible. Postmodernism, then, tends to undermine the particular reality of the non-Western culture that might be in need of being affirmed, protected and developed.
 * Malhotra, R., & Infinity Foundation (Princeton, N.J.). (2018). Being different: An Indian challenge to western universalism.

 * Postmodernism resembles dharma philosophies in several ways. Both, for example, are frameworks for the deconstruction of identity. Also, both approaches share the notion that all concepts are mental constructions which are ultimately empty or devoid of self-existence. Many of the postmodern thinkers have been influenced by these Indian traditions. But there is at least one important difference: Dharma deconstructs the individual ego whereas postmodernism deconstructs the collective cultural identity. Furthermore, postmodernism lacks the yoga of the dharma traditions as a means to achieve a state of consciousness transcending differences experientially. This process is far more challenging than merely a matter of discursive deconstruction as an intellectual exercise.
 * Malhotra, R., & Infinity Foundation (Princeton, N.J.). (2018). Being different: An Indian challenge to western universalism.

R

 * The collegiate young are being re-educated before they have been educated. From our collegiate ranks, the therapeutic will appear a re-educated man, one who can conquer even his subtler inhibitions; his final know-how will be to irrationalize his rationality and play games, however intellectualized, with all god-terms in order to be ruled by none. In their moral modestly therapeutics will be capable of anything; they will know that everything is possible because they will not be inhibited by any truth. Far more destructively than earlier interdict-burdened character types, the therapeutic will be the warring state writ small; he may be even cannier, less sentimental, stronger in ego, shifting about his principles and impulses like so many stage props.
 * Philip Rieff, Fellow Teachers (1973)

S

 * The intellectual origins of literary theory in Europe were, I think it is accurate to say, insurrectionary. The traditional university, the hegemony of determinism and positivism, the reification of ideological bourgeois “humanism,” the rigid barriers between academic specialties: it was powerful responses to all these that linked together such influential progenitors of today’s literary theorist as Saussure, Lukács, Bataille, Lévi-Strauss, Freud, Nietzsche, and Marx. Theory proposed itself as a synthesis overriding the petty fiefdoms within the world of intellectual production, and it was manifestly to be hoped as a result that all the domains of human activity could be seen, and lived, as a unity. … Literary theory, whether of the Left or the Right, has turned its back on these things. This can be considered, I think, the triumph of the ethic of professionalism. But it is no accident that the emergence of so narrowly defined a philosophy of pure textuality and critical noninterference has coincided with the ascendancy of Reaganism.
 * Edward Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic (1983), pp. 3-4

 * She went on to dismiss much of postmodernism as having “an overengineered archness” and, except for a few exemplary authors, being a refuge for those writers whose “disregard for traditional narrative (was) an attempt to disguise either their laziness or their inability to master it.”
 * Lucius Shepard, Dog-Eared Paperback of My Life (2009), in Nick Gevers and Jay Lake (eds.), Other Earths (p. 237)

T

 * In former days the free-thinker was a man who had been brought up in ideas of religion, law, and morality, and only through conflict and struggle came to free-thought; but now there has sprung up a new type of born free-thinkers who grow up without even having heard of principles of morality or of religion, of the existence of authorities, who grow up directly in ideas of negation in everything, that is to say, savages.
 * Leo Tolstoy, Professor Golenishtchev in Anna Karenina, C. Garnett, trans. (New York: 2003), Part 5, Chapter 9, p. 434

 * In old times, you see, a man who wanted to educate himself—a Frenchman, for instance—would have set to work to study all the classics and theologians and tragedians and historians and philosophers, and, you know, all the intellectual work that came in his way. But in our day he goes straight for the literature of negation, very quickly assimilates all the extracts of the science of negation, and he's ready.
 * Leo Tolstoy, Professor Golenishtchev in Anna Karenina, C. Garnett, trans. (New York: 2003), Part 5, Chapter 9, p. 434

W

 * Those who say that all historical accounts are ideological constructs (which is one version of the idea that there is really no historical truth) rely on some story which must itself claim historical truth. They show that supposedly "objective" historians have tendentiously told their stories from some particular perspective; they describe, for example, the biasses that have gone into constructing various histories of the United States. Such an account, as a particular piece of history, may very well be true, but truth is a virtue that is embarrassingly unhelpful to a critic who wants not just to unmask past historians of America but to tell us that at the end of the line there is no historical truth. It is remarkable how complacent some "deconstructive" histories are about the status of the history that they deploy themselves.
 * Bernard Williams, Truth and Truthfulness (2002)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Postmodernism


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: speedy delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series
List of quotes from every episodes of a non-notable YouTube video series. Wikipedia article about the series itself has been deleted repeatedly (see: w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series, w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series). Also nominating Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series, a duplicate of the page. NeoChaosX 02:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closed early. Result: speedy delete, unremarkable subject. Even if this article had asserted notability, we have ample evidence from 2 Wikipedia AfDs that it can't possibly demonstrate it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.