Gender: Male. Not something I’m particularly proud of. Humans are not known for rapid evolution; as is most obvious by observing the male of the species in his habitat. I only mention it here so that anyone who wishes to file a complaint regarding me on a noticeboard can avoid awkward, cringe-inducing, chalkboard scraping, gender-neutral pronouns.

On civility: There's an old line in Poker. If you don't know who the sucker is at the table, it's you. Of course, Poker aphorisms often carry into "real life". In many interactions between humans, you will find that one of the folks at the table will be an asshole. Civility doesn’t just mean not being the asshole. It also means being reasonably polite to the asshole. This usually doesn’t work. But, on the whole, it’s better than increasing the number of assholes. Besides, as in Poker, their response will provide clues on how to proceed. Those temporarily afflicted with [assholism] are calmed by a polite response; while true assholes are enraged and/or confused when you’re polite to them. (I'm probably an asshole for posting this to my user page.)

On Wikipedia: Wikipedia is the only game I’ve played where so many players argue against the rules. It’s so simple. Follow the guidelines. (Which are brilliantly conceived, IMHO.) Look, if you’re a fan of the Astros, and the odds are that you will lose betting on them – why would you bet on them? In WP, like sports betting, you must ignore your own biases. You must examine everything from a neutral point of view. Non-human animals often appear to adapt far more quickly than humans as they are less prone to such psychological hang-ups. Yes, you can edit articles of other humans about whom you have strong opinions, negative or positive. That should in no way stop you from arguing against removal or additions that you do not feel are appropriate in an encyclopedia, even when this is contrary to your own personal views. WP must be honest in its presentation of any subject. Otherwise, it’s useless, and no one wins.

On bite and patience: One runs into new editors often. New blood is necessary. It often becomes an annoyance on controversial articles as they know better than we. Perhaps they do. They just don't yet understand that “truth” is not as important as verifiability; and this can be a difficult concept to transfer to someone that knows what they know. Epictetus explained the problem well: "It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows."

On truth: "Croyez ceux qui cherchent la vérité, doutez de ceux qui la trouvent". -- André Gide. Another Frenchman, Jacques de Biez, said: “Gray, which is the color of the sky in France, is also the color of truth itself.”

On the drama boards - I propose that this from Rochefoucauld be posted at the top of ANI and AE: If we had no faults of our own, we should not take so much pleasure in noticing those in others.

Literally: I literally avoid the word literally. It should be banned until people are taught what it means.

A dare: I dare anyone claim this quote is political: "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite." ― Nelson Mandela

IAR: Properly used, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, Wikipedia has no firm rules, shorthanded to ignore all rules, can be a highly useful rationale for successfully including an edit that might otherwise be rejected. Before using this tool, just keep in mind that Wikipedia has a very large number of no rules.

Advice to WP editors: You will occasionally find that an editor with whom you are debating, having run out of arguments, will look at your user page to find something about you to add to the argument. For that reason, you should not put anything on your user page. In particular, and this is important, never put any advice to editors on your user page as they will surely accuse you of not following your own advice.

On Context: "Take the text out of context and you are left with a con"