Last modified on 24 August 2014, at 00:18

User talk:DanielTom

Return to "DanielTom" page.
Archive
Archives

Welcome back — and a note of cautionEdit

  • I have just returned to my current residence and have had opportunity to scan recent edits. I am VERY glad that you are back, but I must assert that it would be beneficial to you and your general capabilities to do good in this world to be more patient and tolerant with the often over-bearing impatience and intolerance of others. There is MUCH I am inclined to INDICATE at present and the near future, but I am still actively considering MANY diverse options, and expect to be busy with many things in the weeks ahead. I hope to be able to express a few more things to you in the next day or so, which I believe you will find helpful and encouraging, but I wish you to retain editing abilities here, and not lose them because of any rash actions. I appreciate all the work you have done on many pages, especially that for Virgil, but I am slightly alarmed that you have begun removing some of the quotes, which I believe to be notable and worthy of inclusion. Such disagreements are such as I hope can be resolved amicably in the weeks ahead. ~ Kalki·· 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kalki, thanks for your kind words and sentiments, as always. I didn't remove any quote, though. They have all been moved to new pages (see Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid). I'm trying to see if this works better. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
(Was it a bad idea?) DanielTom (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I had only done a very brief scan earlier — and hadn't realized you were actually moving the quotes. I am neutral on the matter at this point, and defer to your preferences, as someone far more involved with the page than I. ~ Kalki·· 02:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Epic fail reverted. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowman drawing.svgWelcome back! Snowflake.svg

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!) --Spannerjam (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Spannerjam, very thoughtful & pretty! Happy Yule to you too! ;-) Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

BLOCK MY ACCOUNTEdit

I'M EDITING Talk:Justin Bieber You May Block 12.197.241.153 (Talk)

I don't think you should be blocked just because you like Justin Bieber. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Last words in Bleach mediaEdit

Would you be interested in providing more specific sourcing for the quotes on this page? Cheers! BD2412 T 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

How did your "certification exam" go, might I ask? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for asking - I passed, and did well enough to take a nice career step from it. Cheers again! BD2412 T 20:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Congratz. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I can trace many of these quotes to their source in the manga, but there are differences, as apparently all the quotes in this article are from the anime. And I have not watched the anime, except for the first few episodes, back in 2007. Anyway, I will try to adequately source these quotes in the next few days. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

VirgilEdit

I'm wondering why you felt the need to move all Virgil quotes back to a single page, rather than having separate pages for some of his works. Such splitting is common practice when there are enough quotes from an individual work to support its own page, with links to the individual pages provided (see Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare for example). This helps to streamline some pages. I don't wish to quibble over each work, but in particular, I could see having The Aeneid with its own page, given the number of quotes from it (and possibly also The Georgics and The Eclogues). ~ UDScott (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't feel the need, I just prefer it this way. It's a matter of taste. I split the works into different pages just as an experiment. In fact, doing so was not very proper in this particular case, as all quotes from Virgil come from those three works, and moving them to other pages would leave nothing in the main article. Obviously I left quite a few quotes behind, but it can become repetitive, not to mention sub-pages are rarely visited. I know you prefer to have separate pages for the works, and I do too when the main article is becoming too long, but in the case of Virgil, while the article's length is at a tipping point, I don't think (m)any new quotes will be added, so I favor letting it stay as it is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough - it's certainly not a big issue. I was just surprised to see the separated pages recombined into one. The one that jumped out at me was The Aeneid, which certainly seemed large enough for its own page. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

MantraEdit

Thanks for inserting the appropriate template. It has worked.--Nvvchar (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure, sir. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

O'Hair quoteEdit

  • Frieza-Force: first off, hiiii!!! Now if GoodReads isnt a reliable reference, then wat is?!! The late iconoclast did champion masturbation (check it out on the net) so i find it quite necessary to re-add the info. Find me a good source, please, alrighty then!!! WOO-HOO!!! Frieza-Force

answer the question, please.

(See Kalki's edit.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin nominationEdit

I have just nominated myself for admin at Requests for adminship‎‎. I had actually prepared a brief statement for you a few days ago, of some of the reasons why I would currently be declining to seek this, but definitely altered my position just within the last day. Whatever comes or goes, I intend to remain active here, and probably more so in the coming year than I have been in many recent years. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 20:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kalki, very brave of you. I think it is clearly in the best interests of Wikiquote to have you as an admin. And relax, this will take a while, either way. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, Kalki, I am glad you can laugh at that canvassing of the worst type... I would comment there, but I'm afraid doing so would get me blocked (for a year this time?), and I don't particularly care for that. All I can do is shut down my computer in disgust. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not know exactly what restrictions you are under, but whatever they are, I advise you stick to them, and let He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and those pathetically akin to him in character and ambition, though thankfully not in power, find their own ways to their dooms. I am one of those people who is not so easily phased by difficulties as many are — and even when it seems that troubles must be borne, I usually find ways to turn them to the advantage of such causes as are truly worthy of devotion: Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love. So it goes. ~ Kalki·· 19:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

hey buddy...Edit

I have NOTHING to do with that Zarbond impersonator. Maybe if YOU put on your glasses, then your eyes will actually see the different IPs. Restore my comment right now, and thats an order! 166.147.123.35 17:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that. Your IPs are nearly the same. You will end up blocked soon if you continue to cause trouble, your only edits are insulting comments, and people don't have much patience for vandals such as yourself. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

TrollsEdit

Just a note - I moved this page back to the plural form since this is the common way we have such theme pages (see Dragons, Fairies, or even Cats). I left the redirect in a singular form though. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I noticed the WP page uses the singular form, and as the article itself started with "A Troll...", I thought its title should be changed to the singular as well. Thanks for the note. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

LOLEdit

Laugh out loud, take a peek at these two revisions: [1] and [2]. Heh, but I may never become a sysop, even though I am pretty active and editing content instead of asking for rights left and right, I do have a horrible past. --~~Goldenburg111 20:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You certainly don't have any "horrible past" on Wikiquote, so don't worry about that. As for becoming a sysop, well, first you need some time to familiarize yourself with Wikiquote's policies, and with its users. Remember, a person is only elected sysop if he/she has the trust of the community, and that takes longer than a few weeks to form and develop. Some people think that candidates for adminship should have made at least 600 edits before running, others say 1000+ edits. More importantly, you need to show great maturity. You may want to read through the archives of past requests for adminship to get a sense of what it is people are looking for in a candidate. All in all, though, I think that aiming for adminship is quite misguided. Being a sysop is very much overrated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Daniel for replying, and yes, I did look at the past archives. I am not eager for these rights. It's pretty much no one is blocking or deleting pages. That's pretty much why I need the rights, not want. Yet, once, me and a global sysop talked about my future. I asked him, he told me to what until someone asks you to go for sysop rights. Until then, stick to wiki content. --~~Goldenburg111 21:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Waiting until someone asks you is very good advice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank User:Rschen7754 --~~Goldenburg111 21:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Rschen, for giving good advice to Golden. ;-) DanielTom (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
+ :) --~~Goldenburg111 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiprojectEdit

Hey Daniel, you want to be the "co-founder" in my wikiproject. It's dedicated to clean up pages that are in need of cleanup. You want to help out? --~~Goldenburg111 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, quite an honor, but I have to decline. I don't join "clubs". There is a project, though, which I think could benefit Wikiquote: establishing a "good article" system. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thank you for your suggestion. I will accept your decline, and I will respect that. --~~Goldenburg111 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasnt Vandalism.Edit

There you happy?! Chirukane64 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and questionEdit

Thanks for the welcome. It popped up as I was creating my user page. :-)

I've just asked for help on an issue. Maybe you can help me with it?

(By the way, does Wikiquote have anything like Wikipedia's Ping template? It's very useful.) --Thnidu (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Thnidu, it was my pleasure – thanks for your recent efforts in the Carl Sagan page. You will note that I already replied to your question there: essentially, the quote in question appears in the book, is adequately sourced, and so should not be removed; I suggest adding a note next to said quote clarifying that it was Martin Rees who originally expressed it, instead of simply hiding it altogether. Finally, no, I don't think we have a Ping template here – maybe it would be a good idea for us to import it from WP, though. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Dear DanielTom, thank you so much for 'Welcome'! Meanwhile I have started the page of this artist. I hope, you like... Perhaps you could provide me with the Wikiquote-Tag (if there is any) to include the Link in the english site on Wikipedia of the artist. Thank you so much and have a nice day, best wishes and sincerestly, Larigot--Larigot (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Larigot, thanks for creating that article! You can now go here (the "external links" section of its Wikipedia page) and add the template {{wikiquote}}, which will make appear there a link to the page you created here. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello DanielTom, thank you so much! Have a nice time, cheers too, Larigot--Larigot (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

GoetheEdit

Thanks for looking up that quote! i've added the original and another translation, with references.—This unsigned comment is by Attila.lendvai (talkcontribs) .

Great, thanks for your additions. Take care, DanielTom (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your brotherEdit

I would love to meet your brother if I get the opportunity. :) --~~Goldenburg111 20:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have two. You probably mean my twin. He is quite evil. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'll bring a sword with me ;) --~~Goldenburg111 20:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
So where can I talk to him? --~~Goldenburg111 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You shouldn't talk to strangers. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinionEdit

Greetings Daniel! You seem to be my first (and only?) subscriber. If my proverb pages ever become "a thing" you can brag about it :). I would love to hear what you have to say about my content. The hardest part is to decide which should be included. --Spannerjam (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Spannerjam. Just a quick note to ask for your patience – I'm in the middle of some research for Portuguese Wikipedia, and then I'll need time to go over your proverb pages here, before replying. Take care ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Proverb pages were a great idea for Wikiquote, and I see you created most of them here. The amount of work you put into them, and what you managed to do almost single-handedly, is very impressive. Your contributions have already helped create some of the most visited pages on WQ, with much content of both historical and cultural interest, and I guess many native speakers of languages other than English also enjoy going through their own proverbs (as I did reading Portuguese proverbs). I don't know that I am qualified to give advice on how to improve these proverb pages, at least I would certainly prefer to turn to other, more experienced, users for their opinions (e.g., BD2412, Kalki, etc.). In any case, the proverb pages here, for the most widely spoken languages, are already pretty extensive. If I had any criticism, it would be of the occasional awkward mistranslations. There is no need to translate proverbs by yourself, when it is so easy to find scholarly translations of said proverbs, on Google Books. There are also very good, freely available, dictionary of proverbs on Google Books, some of which I have used, for example, to add to the Latin proverbs page. Modern dictionaries are also available, freely, that give both the original and the translation, sometimes the meaning as well. If you are still in doubt, of which proverbs to add, you may want to look at Wikiquote on other languages, and their proverb pages. Finally, re. presentation, perhaps it would be nice to include a few pictures, so as to illustrate and highlight the most popular proverbs. An easy way to tell if a proverb is widely used, or popular, in a language, is to do a Google search and see the number of hits. In the end, though, I think you should just do what you enjoy, and include the proverbs that most speak to you; chances are they will be meaningful to most other people as well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. Theoretically I agree with you 100 %. --Spannerjam (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You Only Live OnceEdit

I 'd be careful fuckin around with others if "I" were u. Blue Shrek, YODO, and Zarbon are still hear.—This unsigned comment is by This Is the End (talkcontribs) .

You mean here* (—why do vandals always have trouble with spelling?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
DanielTom, because these vandals are too busy being retarded than studying English Grammar. --~~Goldenburg111 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

VirgilEdit

Why did you restore some of the image sizes on this page - images really should not have a size mandated for them. Rather, they should be left to the default size (220 px). For reference, see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Size. Also, you do not need to add 'right' to them - simply use the format of [[FILENAME|thumb|xxx (either text on the subject or a quote)]]. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The default size is fine, except when it breaks poetry verses. See, for example, in your revision, Endure the hardships of your present state, / Live, and reserve yourselves for better fate. – "state" appears alone in the second next line, and that's not good aesthetically. Ditto for In length of train descends her sweeping gown; / And by her graceful walk the Queen of Love is known – the lines break. Compare also Dying, he slew; and, stagg'ring on the plain, &tc., which breaks too under your version. I don't like this. And that's why I tweaked the size of some pictures. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, a good reason - perhaps such reasoning belongs in the edit summary so that it is understood why it was done). But, I would again call your attention to this part of the WP Image use policy: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference, so the use of upright with a scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible." Your use of a 260px size, while it may look nice to you (and to me by the way), may cause problems for other users, and is generally discouraged. I encourage further experimentation to get the desired effect you wish for without causing such issues for others (I'm not sure what the best answer is). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I can imagine some problems with forcing large sizes. The previous format, where the pictures were smaller, looked fine to me (it still "forced" sizes, though). I too don't know what is best, but the pictures are not many, so hopefully they don't pose too big a challenge to any of our readers. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

doubts of a Gnostic Agnostic …Edit

I am not familiar enough with the details of the beliefs or attitudes of all those you have recently labeled "atheists" to dispute most of them, but I am sufficiently familiar with some of the complex aspects of the views of Burton, Proudhon, and Van Gogh to strongly contest assessments of them as atheists in any fixed, certain or absolutist ways. I believe that it should be remembered that among many of the Pagans, the early Christians were labeled "atheists" because they rejected the conventional norms of reverence and respect for the pagan traditions about the gods. I would characterize Proudhon and Van Gogh as doubters and rejectors of many theistic assumptions, and particular Christian traditions, but so far as I am aware, not absolute deniers of all notions of some sort of God, though they may have had strong tendencies to doubt many aspects of many theistic traditions. Burton may indeed have been reported on one occasion to have described himself as "atheist" but it is difficult to determine how casual or measured such a statement was, or even that the report is actually accurate.

To provide some comparisons, as to why I am skeptical and object to such assessments, I can assert that I, as an absurdist, can conceive people who are generally ethical fair, despite having some beliefs I would consider ethical errors or delusions of major significance, and know there are notions of "Divinity" that are not easily described in many of the conventional assumptions of many theists. The simplistic assumptions of those who like to frame things in terms of their own perceptions AS IF they could be properly described as entirely and absolutely theistic/atheistic, ethical/unethical, or even aesthetically valuable or worthless, upon very limited or casual assertions, are not such as I am prone to give a great deal of confidence. I know that I literally do NOT believe and disbelieve in quite the same terms of conceptions which many others do; though there certainly is much in common, yet I know that I often perceive Reality in somewhat peculiar terms, somewhat "divergent" from many of the norms of others in various ways. ~ Kalki·· 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

I have removed the "atheist" tag from Burton and Van Gogh, as I have some confidence that they should probably described as agnostics or even untraditional theists; I am not so confident with Proudhon at this point, but of what little I know, I am more inclined to label him agnostic, perhaps with a strong lean towards atheism, but I really haven't studied his religious views sufficiently to act with as much confidence, at this point, as I have with the others. ~ Kalki·· 03:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Richard Feynman also, whom I greatly admire generally, strongly rejected many traditional theistic assumptions, but I would tend to characterize as an agnostic with a strong lean toward atheism. That he did not believe in any sort of personal "afterlife" and most theistic assumptions, does not necessarily equate with an absolute "atheism." ~ Kalki·· 03:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I had only done a rather casual glance earlier, but on further scanning, I altered Clarence Darrow, George Santayana‎, and Jawaharlal Nehru into the agnostic category, all of which assessments are supported at Wikipedia. I know I am in a minority, among both theist and atheist assessors of Friedrich Nietzsche, but I would actually label him an agnostic, and a rejector of many aspects of traditional faiths, rather than an outright and definite atheist, despite the famous remark by one of his characters in a richly poetic work that "God is Dead." ~ Kalki·· 03:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I just reviewed Feynman, further, and accept the designation as atheist, but still am inclined to personally think of him as atheistic with yet room for doubt of that, in the way some theists are such, with much room for doubt. Generally, from what I know, I have no objections among those you labelled agnostic — and thank you for your general work in adding both labels, but I would advise more caution about using "athiest", more so than agnostic — even many of various traditional faiths often concede room for many types of doubts about some aspects of their dogma. ~ Kalki·· 04:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
To indicate some of the ambiguities that people can have in the way they use some terms, while avoiding some of the complexities of such concepts as those of Spinoza and many mystics, I present a couple of statements by Simone Weil which I have long considered profoundly insightful in ways which are paradoxical and likely to confound many casual assessments about some complexities of faiths: "Every atheist is an idolater — unless he is worshipping the true God in his impersonal aspect. The majority of the pious are idolaters." + "Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong." These assertions might easily be dismissed as "nonsense" by various theists and atheists with particular suppositions, and yet sincerely indicate a complex assessment of many diverse forms of perception. ~ Kalki·· 04:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I just reviewed Niels Bohr a bit more, whom I had always tended to think of as a "Strong agnostic", and even though he seems to have become classified as an atheist in the Wikipedia article, I dispute that assessment, and continue to think of him as a "strong agnostic" with statements like "The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality." ~ Kalki·· 09:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a slight difference, categorizing vs. "labeling". And please note the category is not "Fixed Atheists", "Absolute Atheists", "Entirely Atheist", "Outright Atheists", "Definite Atheists", or whatever you're suggesting here. You will find that all these people appear in Wikipedia's lists of atheists, and though I am happy to revise and address the ones you dispute, I am currently too busy with other things (but I'll try to respond this afternoon). ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree there are some differences that can be specified, in various ways. It is simply that "atheist" is generally used in a strongly definite manner, sometimes quite wrongly, even as "theist" or various forms of theism are, in ways which often assume one MUST be one of two things: a theist or an atheist — or else a "coward" or a "liar" or simply ignorant and confused and not "knowledgeable enough" to definitely "decide" between the two. As an agnostic gnostic absurdist I confess such ignorance, and must often laugh at such tendencies to establish narrow dichotomies as to keep from weeping at them. I know that the ranges of human thoughts and ideas are far more extensive and expansive than the categories and labels people have devised for themselves and each other. I believe it should be apparent to those familiar with me, that I embrace a more open acceptance of diverse ranges of thoughts and ideas than labels and categories often permit, and such intensely celebratory attitudes as exist among many diverse mystics, and broadly inclusive and expansive social alliances and congregations as those found among Unitarian Universalists, which are open to many diverse ideas and forms of good will have long held special appeal to me. ~ Kalki·· 10:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
That agnostics are just cowardly atheists is indeed a common view, though not one that I hold. It just so happens that "atheism" and "agnosticism" answer different questions. If I ask, do you know there is no God, you have to say "no", which makes you an agnostic. But if I ask, do you believe there is a God, you can't simply shy away from the question and repeat that you don't know, you have to say what you believe, and if your answer is "no, I don't believe there is a God", that means you are an atheist. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your weak rebuttal of Burton's atheism is unconvincing to me. The episode where Burton himself admits to being an atheist is very believable. Unless you can show that Sir Proby Cautley had some extraordinary reason to be lying, I think we should accept his report. Burton writes, in an annotation to his translation of the Arabian Nights, "The more I study religions, the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself." [1] Both the "agnostic" and "atheist" categories would be acceptable, the latter being perhaps the most accurate. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I do NOT claim Cautley was lying, in such terms as I use the word, meaning deliberately deceiving, but I believe it quite possible that he might be mistaken in various ways: Burton might not have actually used that word, and even if he did, was subtle enough of mind to know it has ranges of meanings that the crudest assessors of human thought rarely discern. As many have noted, he loved to disguise himself, and not directly confront many forms of human error and presumption. I am much more prone to trust his own words, in describing the author of The Kasîdah of Hâjî Abdû El-Yezdî which was in fact himself: "he seeks to discover a system which will prove them all right, and all wrong; which will reconcile their differences; will unite past creeds; will account for the present, and will anticipate the future with a continuous and uninterrupted development; this, too, by a process, not negative and distinctive, but, on the contrary, intensely positive and constructive." I also hold as more reliable than Cautley's his wife's assertion: "His idea of God was so immeasurably grander than anything people are usually taught to think about God. It always seemed to him that we dwindled God down to our own mean imaginations; that we made something like ourselves, only bigger, and far crueller. There is some truth in this; we are always talking about God just as if we understood Him. His idea of a Divine Being was so infinite, so great, that to pray to Him was an impertinence; that it was monstrous that we should expect Him to alter one of His decrees, because we prayed for it; that He was a God of big universal love, but so far off, as to be far above anything we can understand."
I certainly do not deny Burton rejected MANY conventional and common concepts of God, but so do I, and I do not consider myself an atheist, though much like Giordano Bruno, Spinoza, and many mystics, I am one who has confidence of states of Awareness and Being far greater than those attainable by mortal minds, and thus doubt or strong agnostic rejection of any anticipations of any human entirely understanding such states, though I actually have no strong doubts that such are real — and not merely "wishful thinking" — and yet certainly am aware that many others have the right and need to believe differently, based on their different levels of awareness and perception. ~ Kalki·· 12:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
(You are operating under the erroneous assumption that greater levels of awareness, awe, and transcendental, or mystical, experiences, are denied to atheists, which is simply not true.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed this, after reading your comment in the section below, and I must simply respond that here you are operating under erroneous assumptions about my assumptions, and the worth or value of various assumptions in general. In regard to mystical, ethical and rational insights, I do not perceive that the adherence or divergence from various theistic or atheistic assumptions is the primary factor in attaining or failing to attain various forms of lucid awareness — but they can be significant in various capacities of human beings to transcend their own particular forms of ego-involvment — and not despising any forms of involvements that might actually be vitally important for others, even if not for oneself. There are always many forms of complexity involved that cannot be perceived by either casual or intense observers of various sorts of situations. Such is the type of Knowledge and Awareness which does not make one "prideful" of the fact that one possesses it, but knows that it helps to keep one from being prideful and needlessly intolerant even to those who are. Complexities abound within what seem to be the simplicities of ALL, and Simplicities abound in what seem to be the complexities of MANY. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

¿☯?Edit

May the farce be with you. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had a good laugh, hope you did too... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert LeyEdit

Thanks for re-adding my edit to this page. I'm not an entire newbee by the way, but I mainly edit Wikipedia.—This unsigned comment is by Ollieinc (talkcontribs) .

No problem; thanks for your work here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Virgil's AeneidEdit

Hi. Thank you very much for your opinion you stated on my talk page with respect to Virgil's Aeneid. I responded to your objections and hope that my response will help you to understand why I did this edit and the following ones before and after you posted your opinion on my talk page. Wishing you well! --P3Y229 (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attackEdit

Hi Daniel, thank you for your attentions to me, but please don't forget personal attacks are explicitly forbidden by local policies. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and I am amazed how you haven't been blocked here yet. Maybe our local admins still haven't realized that you are just here to troll, and influence the community decision making by intimidation, and sarcastic comments. Shouldn't you be reading Tasso, and perhaps doing a few article edits, instead of wasting my time? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Reading you and Kalki it seems I'm here to being trolled. Seriously, you seem to be a smart guy, then why do you *always* need to insult other people? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I knew after that fake compliment you would make a personal attack, and there you have it. (Proud of yourself, are you?) Again, please stop wasting my time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Which personal attack did I do? Please don't lie. I give a sarcastic answer to a blatant personal attack. Having to deal with continuous wikilawyering and harassments is the actual waste of time which unfortunately affects me. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yet another personal attack by you – 1) "why do you *always* need to insult other people"; 2) "Please don't lie." I'll report you to AN now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop, especially you Vituzzu, stewards are not suppose to behave like this. Peace --~ Goldenburg111 20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Systeme of the World: in Four Dialogues (1661)Edit

Thanks for your help in temporarily keeping this original English translation of Galileo afloat as the public domain work of an individual translator.ELApro (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

RamanujaEdit

Could you give a second opinion on the cleanup I made of the Ramanuja article, especially the removal of all quotes from the hinduonline.co website.

It seems the specific hinduonline.co website is an exact copy of the foreword by Swami Adidevananda in the 1978 Vedartha Sangraha of Sri Ramanujacarya, English Translation by S.S. Raghavachar, which can be found online here.

Now I have stating, that none of the phrases from that introduction could be considered quotes. Could you agree with that assessment? -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the author (Ramanujacharya) doesn't use quotation marks ("..."), so he is probably just paraphrasing. Maybe we could place these quotes (by Ramanujacharya) under the "Quotes about Ramanuja" section, though. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The author of the foreword (Swami Adidevananda) indeed seem to be paraphrasing. Adding this kind of text the "Quotes about Ramanuja" section could only complicate things. I guess a more appropriate approach would be to seek out to what original text the lines are referring to, and add that to the "Quotes" section. -- Mdd (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

CuriousEdit

I am just curious as to why you are wishing to have a deletion of your user page. There is no need to answer that if you do not wish to, but I do hope you do plan to stick around. ~ Kalki·· 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey DanielEdit

Long time no see :-) --~ Goldenburg111 23:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Hope you did well in your school exams. :^) DanielTom (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I finished my school at a high note (as my father says). I also spend time on this gaming website until my father told me to leave xD --~ Goldenburg111 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Good, good. Congratulations. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)