Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Relics associated with Buddha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Naga and Kala

Dionysus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lycurgus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Darth Vader has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Rubiscous (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Alternative reproduction in fiction

Category:Alternative reproduction in fiction, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Please restrict your edit summaries to what the edit is rather than a discussion about the article page. If you want to discuss points about the article do so in the talk pages. It makes things clearer. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Man of Steel

I apologize. There wasn't an edit summary originally, so when I saw "artificial uterus", I thought it was just vandalism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fictional sexists

Category:Fictional sexists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong 22:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories

I have to come and ask, can you calm down on the adding of the inappropriate categories to films and TV series, especially in the science fiction area. Over the last month or so I've seen you add dozens of categories to many articles that really aren't appropriate. Blade Runner being about immigration and slavery, artificial utereus category on Bablyon 5, ghosts to Star Wars articles and the list goes on. These categories are in many cases not actually appropriate and in the others not in any way defining or remotely what the article subjects are about. I also notice that many of the categories you're creating as well are being put up for and are being deleted. Some of the categories may be appropriate for a single episode of a TV series but are definitely not for entire shows. So I'm asking if you can be more careful in your choices of category creation and adding categories to articles as it seems to be creating a lot of work for others to clean up and most of the edits are disputed by many other editors and end up being removed. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Catherine of Alexandria. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate categories and implementing original research into the project as with edit. You have been asked by several editors, and your edits reverted on many occassions but you continue to push and create inappropriate categories on articles. I ask you again to please stop. If you continue then you may be at risk of losing your ability to edit the encyclopedia. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 02:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your final warning. If you continue to add unsourced original research categories to articles on Misplaced Pages you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 00:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Single-race worlds

A tag has been placed on Category:Single-race worlds, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Nicknack009 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a forum

Please stop using talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 00:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Body Swap article

I undid the Quantum Leap entry from Body swap appearances in media as it is not confirmed the transaction is two-way (target does not swap to source). The io9 article even makes this distinction of excluding body swaps. If you would like to make a section for that, which io9 calls "body squatting". Please see talk page for other examples that didn't make the main page. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Brain transplant in fiction

Category:Brain transplant in fiction, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong 03:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Body swapping in fiction

Category:Body swapping in fiction, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong 03:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong 03:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Scribe, you really need to start talking. If you don't participate in that ANI thread and explain your edits as best you can, you might well end up getting blocked--either for competence issues or for lack of communicativeness, or both. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your categories

You seem to be placing articles in categories they don't really fit. For example, you are putting series articles in categories intended for characters. You may wish to consider whether the inclusion of some characters in certain categories is your own interpretation based on original research. Britmax (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit that falls under this to Proven Guilty for reasons I specified on the article's talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with radiation abilities

Category:Fictional characters with radiation abilities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BDD (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Please stop adding categories based on your own synthesis. If, for example, we do not have a reliable source calling a character a "terrorist", do not add a category labeling the character a "terrorist". This has been an on-going problem. Please either stop doing this or discuss the issue here. Otherwise, I will have to start another AN/I thread and I'd rather not have you moving toward a block or restrictions. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop making stupid categories altogether. There is no reason to make an "Artificial souls in fiction" category or a "Terrorist" category or a "Individuals recognized by the UK government as terrorists" or "Slave owners". These categorizations are not necessary and are in fact extremely trivial. You have multiple warnings on this page informing you of your poor category creations. So stop voluntary before someone starts an injunction that makes you stop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to numerous editors reverting your additions, sending the categories for deletion and asking you to stop, please remember this thread. Although there was not a clear consensus to block or otherwise restrict you, a re-opening of the same issue for the same reason will likely not end so well. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fictional abolitionists

Freeing Mudokens does not make one an abolitionist. Abolitionism deals with 1) being part of a movement to 2) end human slavery. Your synthesis would (absurdly) characterize vegans fighting to free cows, chickens, cats and dogs as abolitionists. Please stop creating categories while the AN/I discussion is on-going. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous account

In your attempted end-run appeal on Jimbo's talk page, you directly imply that you've been blocked before. Since this account has no blocks, what was your previous account and why were you blocked? Was the previous account Levineps (talk · contribs)? --Calton | Talk 04:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have more flare than Levineps, that's not a very memorable name. I chose CensoredScribe because it sounded like a super hero journalist, a mysterious wizard, or Demothenes and Locke from Ender's Game. I would have made a much more mundanely named account if I was a sock puppet. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Bzzt. Clumsy dodge is clumsy. Try actually answering the questions actually asked instead of spouting non sequiters. To repeat, broken down to make it simpler for you:

• You directly implied that you've been blocked before.

• This account has no blocks.
• Therefore you were blocked using a different, previous account.

Question 1: What was the name of the previous account under which you were blocked?

Question 2: Why were you blocked from using your previous account?

Question 3: Is your previous account still blocked?

Question 4: If the answer to Question 3 is "Yes", why are you continuing to edit?

Question 5: Was your previous acount name "Levineps"?

Question 6: Are you also running the account Tranquility of Soul (talk · contribs)?

Question 7: If the answer to Question 6 is "Yes", are you aware of the rules regarding sockpuppetry?

If these questions are still too difficult to answer, let me know and I'll use shorter words and more diagrams. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous questions deserve ridiculous answers. The answer is this is my first account. I am aware of what sock puppetry is. What I was referring to was that I was not able to access my account or edit from my IP for roughly one week. If the correct term for this is ban; than perhaps I was banned for a week. That is why I did not reply more quickly to the very first ANI thread. My apologies if I used the wrong term, would this have been a temporary ban I mysteriously underwent? CensoredScribe (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The explanation for this is simple. When CensoredScribe was taken to ANI previously they made a comment believing they had already been blocked when they had not. I believe this was a misunderstanding and it was pointed out to them at the time, but CensoredScribe for whatever reason believed they had been blocked during that period. At least from my reading of the previous ANI comments. Canterbury Tail talk 00:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mythological abolitionists

Category:Mythological abolitionists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ender's Game

Hi,

Just noticed this edit. I don't understand - what was the point of the edit, and the edit summary, which are apparently unconnected with each other? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I should have said alphacats; I alphabetized the categories. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Righto. It's considered good etiquette if you make a mistake like that to do a null edit afterwards and clarify what was meant in the new edit summary. Misleading edit summaries are often used by vandals to try and sneak them under the radar. I'm not suggesting that's what your intention was at all, but other editors may not bother to take the time to clarify what you meant. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to X-23 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[https://www.facebook.com/pages/X23/432828686774272?ref=tn_tnmn X23) for fans X23
• [[Category:Fictional super soldiers}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Category creation

I'd suggest proposing categories at WP:Cfd and then waiting for some consensus before creating the categories. It's not an area I usually contribute to, so I can't give you guidance on how long to wait or how many replies you should get before proceeding. NE Ent 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Please cease doing anything regarding categories until the thread at WP:ANI has concluded. You should not add categories to pages just because of one instance of a fictional character being defined by that category. It does not help things and it is always based on your personal interpretation of the work of fiction, which is not allowed per WP:SYN.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, 166.147.120.166 was used by a banned user. He has been lying to people. I have not been placed under a 1RR restriction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

166.147.120.166 doesn't even have a block record much less have been banned. You shouldn't have removed their comment even if it was untrue. Liz 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "blocked". I said "banned". A ban is not on an account but the user of that account, and all edits by a user who is banned, regardless of the account being used, are to be removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, who is 166.147.120.166 an account for? Who do you think this is a sock puppet account for? I see it's got a 72 hour block but there is no identification tying it with a banned account. Liz 02:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You were informed about this on your usertalk page, Liz.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Help me make a category, expand it, etc.

Well, hello. I see you made attempts to add several categories; many attempts have been undone. I necessitate your assistance in creating Category:Fictional characters with superhuman durability, and include it on sourced entities. Please make this possible for me. Thank you kindly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerousGame (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC) That sounds like a great category; however it should exclude characters who are invulnerable because of technology like Green Lantern. Unless that character is completely a robot. I'm guessing being able to withstand getting shot with out any damage would be a good qualifier; like kid Goku. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that you have to decide what is or isn't "superhuman durability", the category you are considering creating is synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This thread was also started by a Dragonron sock...—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That same thing can be said of super strength; which is already a category. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To review: Numerous editors have found that you have been creating problematic categories. A known sock of a banned editor who is trying to get you in trouble has suggested you create a category. Established editors recommend not creating the category suggested by the banned editor. With all of that in mind, you still think the category is a good idea? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel it's a good enough category to discuss on talk pages; not for me to create. I don't know hat the penalty for sock puppets is however as I've been accused of being one falsely I would need to see some evidence. I think DangerousGame mostly wanted opinions on the category; which should be mostly in approval given fictional characters with super human strength is already a category. I've not been making any categories recently. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories are ONLY for defining characteristics

Please read our guideline on categories, particularly Misplaced Pages:Category#Articles:

"A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. A category embodies one or more defining characteristics—how this is achieved in practice is described in the following sections."

While, for example, Hannibal Lecter may have used hypnosis, he is not "commonly and consistently define(d)" as being a hypnotist. Select a dozen sources that discuss Lector at length. Do the overwhelming majority call him a hypnotist? Heck, do any of them? Now try the same thing with Caravaggio: Do the overwhelming majority call it "Italian", "artist", "Baroque"?

This is the difference between two characters who use psychology with one being categorized as a psychologist (such as Alfred Adler) and another not being categorized (Batman).

Without this guideline, we would have Category:Fictional princesses who eat pizza left handed, Category:Obese heads of state with halitosis and billions of other categories on every article. Yes, we can argue that Batman is thousands of things. However, most of those things are not defining characteristics. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Is this thing on? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fictional cancer survivors

Category:Fictional cancer survivors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Secret Plot

The article Secret Plot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non Notability manga.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hitro talk 19:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• You can create a manga article at manga.wikia.com for any manga that exist. No scribes get censored there. Dream Focus 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Fever (2005 film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Fever (2005 film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Secret Plot

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Secret Plot, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Jungle de Ikou!, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Misplaced Pages's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. One episode does not justify the categorization. One character out of several does not justify categorization. This is your final warning. This is beyond your final warning. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Boccaccio '70, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Misplaced Pages's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. I do not see one mention of the word "giant" on the page. Stop adding categories based on single instances of these things appearing. It must reflect the whole. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because there are several telepaths in X-Men does not mean the whole concept of X-Men is "Telepathy in fiction". Just because a giantess is found in one scene in a film or in one episode of an anime does not mean that the whole concept of that film or that anime is "giantesses in fiction". Please stop before you are blocked and stop shifting blame on me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Lilith, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Misplaced Pages's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Drmies, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Canterbury Tail talk 03:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop adding the header for WP:CFD for Category:Giants in fiction and Category:Fictional giants. My removals are not "historical revisionism". Those tags are meant for linking to existing discussions. Please do not add them back without first reading how to make a discussion on WP:CFD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption block

The ongoing disruption between CensoredScribe and Ryulong is bidirectional and both are symmetrically blocked for 72 hours for continuing it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Community editing restriction

Per the community has concluded that the following editing restriction is placed on your editing, going forwards:

CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank)

Regarding appropriate venues - I am going to add that I believe it's ok for you to inquire about whether a particular venue (beyond CFD or a topic-related Project page) is appropriate or not by asking at the CFD page, getting any administrator to approve a venue after a request (and confirming it here for the record), or at AN or ANI. I strongly urge you to link to the discussion with consensus when you create any new categories going forwards, so that everyone can see that it was OKed without having to dig through records. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please only add mythological characters to categories dealing with mythological characters

I've reverted you at El Cid. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Due to the apparent violation of your topic ban, I have raised your edits for discussion at WP:ANI#CensoredScribe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your actions did not violate the first topic ban, but have started discussion on a second, wider one.

Please cease all category related edits while the ANI discussion happens.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread

While I objected to the proposed expansion of your topic ban, I did so mainly on procedural grounds, I think such a request out to be done properly . However, I do see evidence that you are making many edits which are problematic. I do see some involvement by you on this talk page, but not much. I urge you to take more care with your edits, and use the talk page to discuss issues. More experienced editors will be happy to discuss issues with you, and help you learn what is appropriate and what is not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not the proper forum to discuss power rangers. If you think the categories were appropriate, please discuss on the talk page of the article, or on your talk page if it is a general discussion about the addition of categories.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Martial arts tournament anime and manga

Category:Martial arts tournament anime and manga, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional edit restriction per community consensus

Per the ANI discussion and community consensus , I am enacting the topic ban proposed by TParis:

CensoredScribe is banned from any mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions, and any other large changes to categories. He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically.

If implementation of this is not clear to you, ask any administrator or on the AN or ANI noticeboards whether a particular edit you propose making would violate the edit restriction or not.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, @Georgewilliamherbert:, adding 15 articles to two similar categories (starting at 01:02, February 16, 2014, Category:Television programs featuring puppetry and Category:Films featuring puppetry) would be a mass addition. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yep. Floquenbeam beat me to it. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS

It seems you do not understand what we mean by "synthesis". As you have been repeatedly directed to the guideline, I can only assume you have read it by now. Please explain this edit with that guideline in mind. Is it synthesis? Why or why not? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Misplaced Pages has higher standards for reviewing works of fiction than a medical journal. At least it had a source. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Was your addition synthesis? Why or why not? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The example provided is thus, "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." These two facts have nothing to do with each other. Now compare that to "James bond drinking 130 plus units of alcohol a week was defined by doctors as being alcohol abuse." That is a single source; not a synthesis so the answer to your question is no. This statement was not synthesis because it uses a single source to suggest what the source was quite clearly suggesting. This also demonstrates doctors are not allowed to categorize fictional characters; as only the opinions of literary journals are usable for defining fiction, academics are not allowed to be literary reviewers unless they meet the strict professional qualifications well beyond the comprehension of doctors untrained in the complex literary sciences. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been removed as "not a defining characteristic". I actually don't fully agree with that, but hey. Thing is, you need to ask yourself if James Bond should in hindsight be characterized by more modern standards as an abuser. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Having now established that you do understand WP:SYN, please explain: "Like Genocide who is one of Wonder Womans foes already listed as a Golem. Wonder Woman is mentioned in the article as being created from earth." This is Genocide is listed as a Golem* (That's "A") + Wonder Woman is mentioned as created from earth (That's "B") = Wonder Woman is a Golem (That's "C"). So, A + B = C, right? (*Incidentally, that another article has a category or says anything does not in any way support what is done in another article.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not synthesis because Wonder Woman being made of earth is not dependant on genocide; in her origin story she is described as being made from amazonian earth. Simply comparing definitions is not synthesis by any definition. I call this a witch hunt. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Summer, I took this challenge, but I cannot possibly parse the grammar of that edit summary. I do know that "golem" isn't mentioned in the article and so certainly isn't verified. Also, I know what a golem is (CensoredScribe, we have an article on the topic!), and I know that this cartoon character is not a golem. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

A thread regarding your editing has been opened here. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Violation of editing restriction by CensorScribe. MarnetteD | Talk 02:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 31 hours for a clear violation of the topic ban Georgewilliamherbert notified you about yesterday. It is for 31 hours only because it is your first violation, but your disruption is not going to be allowed to go on, nor the boundaries of the topic ban constantly tested. So the next time you violate the topic ban, assuming I'm notified, the block will be for 1 month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree John Carpenters The Thing has puppetry? People always focus on me to distract from the actual edits; you know that. Why do you punish people for adding a category but not a reference? A google search would reveal that information to you but no one bothers to validate what I say. Seriously; there is a ridiculous amount of puppets in some of these movies; but I guess everything needs to be sourced even when it's obvious. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This comment leads me to believe I should consider increasing the block to indefinite, since you don't appear to understand enough of what is going on around you. I'll quote from your topic ban one more time. "CensoredScribe is banned from any mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions, and any other large changes to categories. He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically." Do you understand this? If not, ask now, because if you violate it again you will be blocked for a long time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass has never defined; is it anything more than four? You need to be more clear when imposing sanctions; like the police. Also I have proposed for deletion several bad articles and proposed articles at talk pages; which shows improvement. I suggest a new category before a select few elite oligarchs of wikipedia merit forget the importance of their own age in the acquisition of their abilities. I would like for someone to propose Category:Elections in fiction. I was thinking The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, and Election (1999 film) no doubt other works of fiction that feature an election. It's very different from a film about the life of an elected official like say the Lincoln. It is distinct from politics in fiction as it could plenty of mayoral elections, or pirate captain elections.

On a related note; Category:Politics in fiction doesn't even cover Animal Farm; which is pathetic, Franchise (short story) would be another good example of elections and politics in fiction. Misplaced Pages categorization of fictional war is far better than it's categorization of fictional politics; even in the basic act of defining what works are about politicians; works like Animal Farm taught in high schools; which allegedly reveals nothing of political process. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Changing the subject is not going to work. "Mass has never defined; is it anything more than four?" - see, that's what I mean about testing the boundaries. You changed categorization in about 15 articles in a row. If you do not understand this to have been a violation of your topic ban, then you are not competent enough to edit here. If you do understand this, then you are intentionally testing the boundaries of your topic ban. Seriously, last warning. Any further screwing around will be met with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As a last ditch effort: "mass", for you, is anything more than one. You must have been working on a specific article, focusing on other things, before you can do anything related to categorization for that article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And any additional category will need to be rigorously sourced, with references found in or added to the article. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume in general that references which have lasted a few weeks like my one on Superman can be used for categories. I think Superman being a vigilante should be categorized because he does it multiple times in different ways, originally that is how he is viewed, than later his arch enemy becomes the president. I'm sure there is a third example someone could cite which establishes this is a reoccuring element as important as Spiderman being a vigilante. Also the article for the Wasp (comics) mentions she is a socialite in her first appearance so I don't know why that is still reverted. I think I will just stop adding categories; deleting them seems to be going fine though; ironically WMDs in fiction is not a real category like fairies in popular culture. As soon as you describe someone blowing up a planet like Cell (Dragon Ball) that person should be listed as a weapon of mas destruction by any reasonable persons standard. Also The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask games have fairies for close to 100% of the game who are major characters. Also Lisa Simpson should be listed as a fictional US. President; their are only two future episodes of the Simpsons, and Kitty Pryde should be removed from that category. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• We keep pulling our hair out at these responses of yours. Floquenbeam is probably half bald by now. I just told you that these things need to be verified--just to make this extra clear, VERIFIED. That Wasp article actually has a few things that could qualify as references, unlike most of that comic crap, but where is the reference that verified that she is a socialite and (given how many of your categories are correctly removed as "not a defining character) does that reference verify that this is somehow important or defining? Also, someone who blows a planet isn't a weapon of mass destruction, though they may use one. And it's in a comic--which means you're trivializing Category:Weapons of mass destruction, which deals with real weapons of mass destruction. Yes, by all means, refrain from adding categories. I don't know why you keep giving these examples: they are irrelevant and only confirm that this entire discussion, ban and all, is going over your head. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I only added to Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction not real ones; however I think even Category:Weapons of mass destruction is deeply flawed. Just look at the inclusion of pressure cookers in the category for real weapons of mass destruction; that is clearly inappropriate unless you want to include semi automatic assault rifles, drones and dynamite as well. If I was going to be pointy I would have added the general concept of pollution to Category:Weapons of mass destruction. Look at the section for the environmental effects of plastic; I'm aware much of that plastic pollution is from action figures or toys of these various giant robots, monsters and super hero's I've been categorizing. As the great pacific garbage patch poisons millions of fish, is this mass poison not a weapon of mass destruction; just a slow acting one? Oil was a chemical weapon used by Saddam Hussein used in the Kuwaiti oil fires to kill fast with fire as well as slow with smoke. Without oil it would have been very difficult to move massive amounts of military vehicles; is not oil a weapon of mass destruction or at least a chemical weapon like tear gas? Should the Wardenclyffe tower or charged particle accelerators like CERN be added as WMDs; they could theoretically be used as such?

I get that I should not add categories unless there is a reference even if I am the one that adds that reference and waits to see it approved. Most fictional chemicals are extremely dangerous; WMD in the real world is a fairly meaningless term used to distract people from real terms. An atomic reactor on an air plane would be a WMD because it's nuclear and mobile so that's all space ships with fancier reactors than nuclear. Most fictional chemicals are extremely deadly; I can't really think of any mundane ones like metals less durable than iron. Any living organisms like Doomsday (comics) or Lexxwould not be classified as WMDs in the real world; even as bio weapons like anthrax or small pox.

I realized after adding those examples that the category should be deleted; often being able to add to a category that much indicates it is a poorly thought out category it is or how worthless the word it's self is. I still think its strange Misplaced Pages can't define Osama Bin Laden as an internationally recognized terrorist (or as a terrorist designated by the UK even), nor can the community define a historical slave owner (which would include Washington but not Hitler). Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction is pretty much like having Category:Fictional doomsday machines, it's far to subjective to be of use. What qualifies as a WMD, wouldn't most fictional plagues like zombie viruses be WMDs? That just leads back into classifying people themselves as WMD's if a zombie counts than so do mutants from Marvel.

I grow tired of this; I will be taking a long break from Misplaced Pages of my own volition regardless of what happens if I return it will be for science where I've yet to have one of these blocks. I actually learned about referencing and ended up using quality review and secondary sources towards the end of my edits on medical articles; that experience taught me how to do research and how to edit wikipedia better. I did not always agree with the doctors who reverted my edits on potential research avenues still in phase two studies; but I did learn from them and I did respect their obvious ability in the subject, even if I thought they were being overly cautious. My edits to chemistry have never been reverted; the bio remediation of steel by oceanic bacteria may take several decades but does not require phase IV trials that mega corp pharmacological cancermancers prefer not occur because the cure is worth less than the extended treatment. I have yet to meet anyone on wikipedia who is specifically a professional of anime, television,film or video games. I suppose I should figure out what academic video game, television, film and anime journals there are and use them in the future before adding categories. It was incorrect to assume fiction had lower standards than chemistry on wikipedia. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• You were right on at least one thing, and I dedicate this edit to you. Thanks for pointing that out. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think in one of these discussions about me being blocked; someone who isn't me should just go through and list my contributions to fiction categories which have lasted. The downside is it makes those edits more likely to be reverted but it shows competence. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because a blind man pulls the trigger on a machine gun and sprays bullets all over the place may mean he successfully hits a target once or twice. That doesn't mean it was a good idea to give him a gun. Elizium23 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I also realized that all the and the Prometheus (film) feature cryonics; waiting questionably dead and frozen is just as much a theme as alien rapists in those films. Enough time is spent dealing with Han Solo frozen in carbonite Return of the Jedi is about that as well; Han Solo is listed as cryonically frozen; rescuing frozen Han is the plot of the first. One last thing; Raiders of the Lost Ark Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade are as much about biblical conspiracy theories as the Da Vinci Code; Steven Spielberg used actual locations the ark and grail were rumored to have been. That's basically the same thing as the Da Vinci code; both revolve around museums, libraries, history and temple archaeology. It's not clear whether this category is for films about bible conspiracies or for actual bible conspiracies. The category for conspiracies in general is quite small. Oh; one last thing; the novel Ender's Game should be categorized as Category:Fictional video games; because the war is presented to him as a training simulator. First Person Shooter (The X-Files) is listed in this category, and Ender's Game is just as much about fictional video games as that episode. The South Park episodes Guitar Queer-O and Towelie are also about fictional video games. The more recent episodes have actual video game systems and games. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that you don't understand why you were blocked, you don't understand why you still have access to your own user talk page at this point, and you are unwilling to apologize for the behavior which got you blocked, so good luck on your way to an indef. Elizium23 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand why I was blocked; I added like 30 instances of giants in fiction when they only appeared for perhaps ten minutes in a film. That I apologize for; I ended up adding size change in fiction to categories working with Ryulong who has reverted the most of my edits. I apologize for not nominating Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction for deletion sooner. If this is about wasting time than I apologize so many people don't believe Jurassic Park (film) has enough animatronics to count as a film with puppets; or that a planet killing entity counts as a weapon of mass destruction. Jurassic park uses puppets more than Star Wars Episode 1 which is listed as such despite the film being predominately CGI. I'm sure someone can provide a reference to the use of animatronic raptors. Now I expect someone to apologize to me for wasting my time; if indeed I have to apologize for wasting theirs. Review my ALL OF my contributions; focusing on FICTION in particular; compare the good and bad before condemning me. I've made a lasting category contribution to most marvel superhero's which is unquestionable without ignoring the original character. I am also correct on the Matrix and Starwars; a third of Darth Vaders categories from the prequels were added by me I did not have to cite those mediocre disappointment movies or reviews about them. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not why you are currently blocked. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am blocked specifically because of the categories puppets in films and television and weapons of mass destruction. I'll select the film with the least amount of time spent with the puppet; The Fly (1986 film). Anyone who has seen this movie would say their is a puppet at the end; Dr. Brundle becoming that puppet is the point of the movie. The Thing (1982 film) is not listed as a film with puppets in it despite the heavy use of puppets for the transformations of the creature. I realized the entire category for WMDs in fiction was bogus so I nominated it for deletion. Please discuss at least one of these examples being puppets in film or television and what the definition of a fictional WMD should be when the category for real WMDs includes pressure cookers but not a single disease? Please revert my edits to darth vader for being unsourced if you are going to needlessly enforce guidelines. I will be taking a break from wikipedia for about a week because of how ridiculous this has become; I've explained everything I'm going to explain and asked all the questions I need. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not currently blocked because any of the "Puppets in __________" categories were necessarily incorrect, inappropriate or unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I see; so even when I am right I am wrong now because of the restriction; like that episode of the powerpuff girls where they break out of jail to stop crimes. Please add Category:Fictional telekinetics to Ness (character). Also; Ant-man is a roboticist because he invented Ultron; I should not need a source for that. Wasp (comics)is a socialite in her first appearance; it's as essential to her characters as the or . Ultimate Wasp is a scientist not a model; so really her character like Ant-man doesn't have much of a core to it which is why they are unpopular. Inventing Ultron is probably the most recognizable aspect of ant-man perhaps even more so than the size changing powers; just look at the next avengers movie. I'll be back. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, man, I think the best way forward for you right now is to just ignore categories entirely and just focus on content when you come back. It's really become abundantly clear that this issue isn't going to be resolved, so instead of trying to figure it out, just completely move past it. GRAPPLE X 23:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "so even when I am right I am wrong". Right or wrong you can expect to be blocked if you go from article to article modifying categories. The community has banned you from this activity.

I reviewed the topic ban discussion () and noticed that five of the eleven people who supported it wanted it to be a complete ban on anything related to categories. I think TParis was trying to be kind to you in suggesting that you be allowed to modify categories on articles that you are actively editing. However, I fear this is just going to give you enough rope to get yourself repeatedly blocked.

I agree with Grapple X, the best way to ensure you are not blocked again is to treat this as a complete topic ban and just focus on content until you can get the ban lifted. If you come to articles focused on the categories, and not on the content, you are going to run afoul of the ban again. ParacusForward (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...well I did violate the ban undeniably I understand why that many people are irritated. However those films and television do all have puppetry. Seriously though; when I was having problems with the medical article people suggested medical journals and data bases and explained sourcing to me; it was educational. What film sources would work for categories if they indeed need to be sourced; just tell me and I will use them. This category business should be less complicated than finding the review article that suggests the shamanic use of snake venom for cancer may have some scientific merit. No one seems to recall some of the ridiculous and accurate things I've said that amazingly weren't already on the wikipedia article; including categories. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if you are trolling because people keep telling you to stop digging yourself into a deeper hole but you keep arguing about individual editing choices and providing rationales for making those edits. That is a discussion best done on an article Talk Page, not on your User Talk Page. You are asking for people to go to great lengths to try to understand your editing decisions, arguing why you were right and the community is saying that they don't have time for that so just please stop. If you are very lucky, after your block expires you might find someone who would volunteer to mentor you and answer all of your many questions.

The bottom line is that the time has passed for you to justify your editing choices. The admins are telling you that they are out of patience and if you continue in this manner you will receive an indefinite block. Your big decision now is whether you listen to their advice, live with the editing restrictions and continue on as an editor or persist with this bargaining and pushing of boundaries and get indefinitely blocked. It's up to you. Liz 18:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification needed

Starting at 23:24, 17 February 2014, I see these edits by CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) to articles: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9.

I thought that the topic ban prevented "mass-additions", and only permitted changing a category in one article that was being focused on with other edits. Could someone please clarify. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, mass additions; because nominating the categories themselves for deletion doesn't actually delete them. Define WMD's in terms of fiction please because the concept it's self if fictional if it doesn't list all the possible pathogens. Which means my additions to Category:Fictional swordsmen were apparently not welcomed; despite helping bring awareness to the fact that accounting for video games and anime characters their re quite a number of women swordsmen (It should be called Category:Fictional sword fighters). I just recently proposed Category:Fictional gun fighters for characters who have guns in a work but don't have a profession. Vash the Stampede was the first example that came to mind. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the post by @Floquenbeam: here refers to the need to have done other work on the article before adding a cat. I cannot find where that has occurred in the cats added since the block expired. I have pinged F so that clarification or correction of my understanding of the situation can be provided. MarnetteD | Talk 03:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought control F was all that was needed, seriously multiple uses of the category name in the article is a pretty decent indication don't you think? The article for The Crow mentions telepathy how many times? Will you please tell me what the equivalent to pub med but for film and television journals is? There has to be some vast database out there that would be incredibly useful to remind people of on fiction pages; like how Pubmed is mentioned when editing medical topics. If the actual problem is me making more than 2 edits that are obvious; than that is simply draconian (I apologize to any nice dragons for comparing them to this). I believe mass addition to the same article should not count either, look what I did for Darth Vader. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again, this time for a month

As promised. Topic bans are not toys to be played with, they are evidence that you've exhausted the patience of your fellow editors. You have demonstrated a complete inability or unwillingness to follow this one. The next one is indefinite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Alien (franchise) films
• Fictional models
• Fictional people in fashion