Last modified on 18 December 2014, at 19:16

User talk:Kalki

Return to the user page of "Kalki".
Atom deBroglie.png

Rainbow diagram.svg
Sunburst Badge.svg
WikiProject Scouting going home symbol.svg
LuMaxArt Golden Family With World Religions.jpg
Caduceus color.svg
Blue Pacific.svg
Caput mortuum.svg
Quaker star-T.svg
SHAEF Shoulder Patch.svg

Love rules without rules.

Keel-billed Toucan-27527.jpg

What's So Bad About Feeling Good?
Compass Card transparent.png
Kalki · archives: X · index · iota · imago · αnima · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · controversies · assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · outrages · 2011 · contentions · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box · Heroes · OZ · OASIS ·
The imperialist ideology of force, from whatever side it comes, must be shattered for all time.
~ The White Rose ~
Yorkshire rose.svg
Libertarian Socialist Flag.svg
Anonymous Anarchist Flag.svg

The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.

~ George Orwell ~
COA George Washington.svg
I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy.
~ George Washington ~
Every morning
I shall concern myself anew about the boundary
Between the love-deed-Yes and the power-deed-No
And pressing forward honor reality.

We cannot avoid
Using power,
Cannot escape the compulsion
To afflict the world,
So let us, cautious in diction
And mighty in contradiction,
Love powerfully.

~ Martin Buber ~
Extracted pink rose.png
Black rose.pngUvit-ros.png
What's outside of Pleasantville?
~ Gary Ross ~
Anarco logo Wikiquote.svg
My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchyphilosophically understood, meaning abolition of control … The most improper job of any man … is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.
~ J. R. R. Tolkien ~
Wikipedia-logo A pt.svg
If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.
~ Lee Daniel Crocker ~
Circle-A red.svg

I AM an Anarchist.
All good men are Anarchists.

All cultured, kindly men; all gentlemen; all just men are Anarchists.
Jesus was an Anarchist.

~ Elbert Hubbard ~

Monad.svg Metatrons cube.svg Broken crossed circle.svg Sahasrara.svg Rod of asclepius left.svg Dove window St Peters Basilica (8504106313).jpg Rod of asclepius.svg Sahasrara.svg Broken crossed circle.svg Metatrons cube.svg Monad.svg
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves:
be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
~ Jesus ~
Matthew 10:16

Caduceus 1924.svg
Christian Socialism Anarchism.svg

Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee:
Love, and do what thou wilt.

~ Augustine of Hippo ~

Love works magic.
It is the final purpose
Of the world story,
The Amen of the Universe.
~ Novalis ~


Whatever pretended pessimists in search of notoriety may say, most people are naturally kind, at heart.

~ James Branch Cabell ~
The Cream of the Jest

Editor at large 1206.svg


Monad.svg Lancashire rose.svg Tudor Rose.svg Invisible Pink Unicorn.svg Tudor Rose.svg Lancashire rose.svg Monad.svg
Moderate strength is shown in violence, supreme strength is shown in levity.
~ G. K. Chesterton ~
The Man Who Was Thursday

Mensural time signature 1.svg
Her Testimony to the Truth (title page top).png
Ancient Egypt Wings.svg
The law of levity is allowed to supersede the law of gravity.

~ R. A. Lafferty ~

Terry Pratchett Arms.svg

Of course I'm sane, when trees start talking to me, I don't talk back.

~ Terry Pratchett ~
The Light Fantastic

Tree of life hebrew.svg
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.

~ William Blake ~
Tree of life with genome size.svg

Something always manages to draw me near the tree that lightning is about to fall upon.

~ Roger Zelazny ~
Lord of Light

Monad.svg Banner of Peace from the Roerich Pact.svgChakraserpent.svgBlue Pacific.svg Monad.svg

The realization that life is absurd and cannot be an end, but only a beginning. This is a truth nearly all great minds have taken as their starting point.
~ Albert Camus ~

Yyjpg.svgAncient version of the Taijitu by Lai Zhi-De, sideways.svgYin yang.svg


As soon as men live entirely in accord with the law of love natural to their hearts and now revealed to them, which excludes all resistance by violence, and therefore hold aloof from all participation in violence — as soon as this happens, not only will hundreds be unable to enslave millions, but not even millions will be able to enslave a single individual.
~ Leo Tolstoy ~


There is no justice in following unjust laws.
~ Aaron Swartz‎‎ ~


That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed.
~ Algernon Sydney ~

Flaming Chalice.svg

There is no greater mindlessness and absurdity than to force conscience and the spirit with external power, when only their creator has authority for them.
~ Ferenc Dávid ~

Christian Anarchist Blot.svg

Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your own home.
Good Omens


There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't.
~ John von Neumann ~
Electric steam iron.jpg
God is an Iron.
~ Spider Robinson ~
JUL Iris Soul Palm.png
Uffington White Horse layout.png
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
~ Albert Einstein ~
Clover symbol.svg
Dearinth Goddess.png
Dont panic.svg
Terry Pratchett Arms.svg
Circle-A red.svg
Noia 64 apps karm.png This user has been on Wikiquote for
11 years, 4 months, and 7 days.


Blue Pacific.svg
Caput mortuum.svg

With this and other accounts I have made over 118,888 contributive edits, created well over 1001 pages and done substantial work on well over 1000 more, some of which are listed here. JUL Soul Iris.png
Etruscan Horse 2.jpg

This is the primary account of Kalki, who has also used many other account-names here, some since the very first days of this Wiki.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
Foundational Principles against overly-controlling forces developing on the wikis.
Even if you have read them before, PLEASE EXAMINE ANEW: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and the other links available there, including the links delineating much which Wikipedia was NOT.
These were some of the earliest directives established by the founding workers on the Wikimedia projects.

"Ignore all rules: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." ~ RulesToConsider
"IAR is policy, always has been" ~ Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales


Anonymous Idea.jpg
I am in a period of very intermittent but gradually developing activity here : I was once an admin here (from 29 January 2004 to 1 December 2009), but being that no longer, there is far less usefulness or need for my regular presence, and I am far less inclined to spend as much time monitoring as many things. I continue to serve, protect and develop this project to the extent I can amidst many other concerns, but I follow no set schedule. A devotion to preserving and expanding many forms of Awareness, Life, Love and appreciation of the principles of Justice, Unity Liberty and Joyous Universalist Love in truly profound and genuine ways far beyond that of lip-service, based on an intense commitment to the crucial virtues of humility, courage, honesty and compassion, continues to guide me and abide with me. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC) + tweaks Kalki·· 04:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


Dr Manhattan symbol.svg
Rorschach like Inkblot.svg
We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions.
Yet seen from the another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away.

~ Alan Moore ~

ENG COA Newton.svg
Everybody is special.
Everybody is a hero, a lover, a fool, a villain, everybody.
Everybody has their story to tell...

~ Alan Moore ~
V for Vendetta

Love is Freedom.jpg
I love my BELOVED
… ooh …
ALL and Everywhere.

~ Kate Bush ~

A master in the art of living draws no sharp distinction between his work and his play; his labor and his leisure; his mind and his body; his education and his recreation.
He hardly knows which is which.
He simply pursues his vision of excellence through whatever he is doing, and leaves others to determine whether he is working or playing.
To himself, he always appears to be doing both.
~ L. P. Jacks ~


The Dude abides.
I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
It's good knowin' he's out there.
The Dude.
Takin' 'er easy for all us sinners.

~ The Stranger ~
~ The Big Lebowski ~
Rose Cross Lamen.svg

I am convinced that everyone can develop a good heart and a sense of universal responsibility with or without religion.
~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama ~
Tibetian Wheel.svg

The words "God is love" have this deep meaning: that everything that is against love is ultimately doomed and damned.
~ Halford E. Luccock ~

Taijitu polarity.PNG

I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.
~ Rudolf Rocker ~

I've never seen anybody really find the answer, but they think they have.
So they stop thinking.

But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom.
The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.
~ Ken Kesey ~

Tree-of-Life Flower-of-Life Stage.jpg


Kalki· archives: index · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · November 2009 Controversies · Assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · Outrages of 2010‎‎ · 2011 · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box ·

My years are not advancing as fast as you might think.
~ "Phil" ~
~ Groundhog Day ~

Ω Edit

Compass Card transparent.png
Kalki · archives: X · index · iota · imago · αnima · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · controversies · assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · outrages · 2011 · contentions · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box · Heroes · OZ · OASIS ·

A note to a friend about ALL and all such things… Edit

Angelic Entertainments of Amusing Education and Awakening Enlightenments proceed.
LuMaxArt Golden Family With World Religions.jpg
Atom of Atheism-Zanaq.svg
Universal Peace and Magic of ALL is with us all.
It is ever and always up to US to know it and show it.

Caput mortuum.svg
Quaker star-T.svg

~ Kalki ~

It has only been a few hours since we spoke, but MANY things have happened and are NOW happening which I must begin to deal with more extensively, and I am not sure about when we can next talk — probably not until at least next week, when perhaps we both can discuss matters of common and uncommon experience further. You might not even check in on things here until then, but I will note that I am currently back from the excursions in which I spoke with you and a few other people at a few places, and just briefly checking in here at my home to take care of a few of some routine or incidental matters here on this wiki, and make a few notes for you, before taking off again to deal with other urgent and passing matters elsewhere.

In your previous explorations of James Branch Cabell and your essay in which you mentioned his influence in the development of the heroes of Star Wars, you had probably not encountered much which you are likely to encounter here, presently, and in coming months, of his influence on MANY later writers, such as Robert A. Heinlein and Neil Gaiman.

Though we conversed a bit earlier on Next, Philip K. Dick's "The Golden Man", and I believe I just slightly might have touched upon Adam Warlock but not other Guardians of the Galaxy today, I actually was prompted to make this note simply because I thought of pointing out to you the importance of Frank Herbert's famous Dune series and a few other works, which I believe we have not discussed much in the past — but which obviously was also a major influence on Star Wars and many other works that came afterward, and that I have long had an interest in the work of Alicia Witt. Though her exposure has thus far been somewhat more limited and constrained by various obstacles than I would like them to be, I believe that some of her music and writings might well be more noticed and significant to many in coming years.

Since I am doing that, before taking care of maybe one more task here and taking off again, I will also point out a few other writers or philosophers with major elements of absurdism in their works, which I have found significant : Albert Camus, Simone Weil, who was a MAJOR influence on the development of many of the ideas of Camus, and Samuel Beckett. There are more I might list later, but each of these are worth exploring.

I also wish to remind you of the importance of Douglas Adams, who like Gaiman did some rather significant additions to the lore of The Doctor of the Doctor Who series. I hope to be able to do at least some work on his pages in coming months, among many others, and organize many sub-pages for his various works a bit better — but I know that will be a major and time-consuming effort and I currently have MANY other priorities.

Another thing I have been too distracted by activities to previously mention here, or to you personally, is that after MANY years of living a prudently private life, Kate Bush has taken to the stage again in recent weeks in her Before the Dawn tour, which has had broad acclaim — I will probably add to her pages some of the recent opinions on her work and works which have been coming from many diverse people in recent weeks.

I wish to repeat to you that I am very pleased at your pointing out to me some of the importance of Joss Whedon, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly to you, and though I of course can't entirely agree with your assessments of the importance of that particular series, relative to many others, I certainly believe it worth watching and especially liked much of the "wrap up" Whedon did in the film Serenity.

And as I review my notes, of what was initially intended to be just a brief reminder of a few things, as you intend to leave for Australia in November, I realize I forgot to mention that one of my nephews from there, who had been here in the US earlier in the year, is now back and the US, and will be staying with my brother in Massachucusetts to complete his senior year of high school here in the states, for the purposes of better exposure of his pitching abilities in the sport of Baseball, which probably could not be exhibited to as much effect in the lands "Down Under."

Though I have never been very much interested in competitive sports, on the whole, for many reasons, both my brothers were more prone than I to exhibit their athletic abilities, which were especially prominent in that particular sport, though my own abilities were of more broad and general ranges, which I usually declined to "show off" — and Ben seems to have notable abilities. I think I have mentioned my nephew had attracted the attention of various scouts for US teams, even a few years ago, because of his exhibited skills in Australia and the US a few years back. I don't know if you'd be interested in any info about things to do down there from him or not, but I thought I'd mention this.

Well, that about sums up all I have time to say right now — I hope that you find a few things interesting here at Wikiquote in coming weeks and months, and perhaps even eventually get involved with it significantly. There is MUCH which could be added to pages on Joss Whedon and his work, and many other pages on things aligned with your interests.

So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

PROBABLY daily, but VERY intermittent presence here to be expected from meEdit

… for at least a couple more weeks, and probably more.

I am just back from a few excursions and about to leave on another one, for at least a short while. I actually do intend to do quite a bit here in the next few weeks, in addition to my nearly daily observations and additions, but I'll definitely have to shoehorn it between much activity on other things, elsewhere, as my expectations of need for activity on many other things are increasing even more rapidly than some of my ideas for what I would like to do here, with what time I can spare, in coming weeks and months. Though I had been preparing to do much in these last months of the year, and into next year, I actually am beginning to expect a time of hyper-active "muiti-tasking" with an intensity extremely unusual even for myself into November, and probably beyond that. I do not expect to get much rest, but am going to try to schedule in at least a couple hours of relative relaxation for most days, watching some films I have intended to watch for quite some time. Just a note of commentary — and I am off again, for at least a little while. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

One ThingEdit

I was about to speedy delete the One Thing article as a hoax until I noticed you had already added it to the New pages template, so I didn't because I might be missing something.

It caught my eye because the dialog seemed a bit too strange, even for a genre that celebrates strangeness, so I looked a little closer. I could be mistaken about this, but the writer, director, and cast appear to be fictive and/or nonentities. The external links and tagline correspond to a different title, but that could conceivably be an innocent mistake of careless editing.

Is this something that you recognize as strange but true or, on closer examination, is this something that can just be deleted as a hoax? ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just going through RC and saw this one as well - and I guess I split the middle here and tagged it as a PROD. It certainly looks like a hoax to me and something that should be deleted. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a blatant hoax (or a piece of creative writing by some kid, we'd userfy this on Wikiversity in a flash, so the user can learn creative writing and maybe how to spell "shoot.") Here, this should be speedied. If this had been created by a registered user, I'd have suggested they take it to Wikiversity. But it wasn't. On the other hand, maybe the Prod will give them a little time. I'll comment on the page itself. I don't want to create a Talk page because this will be deleted, for sure. Long shot, but maybe they will see it. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I am just briefly back right now and noticed all this — and I have not even checked on things as yet, but I recognize that what is being said is probably true — I have NOTICED other likely hoax activity going on lately — and was not very attentive, and in a bit of a rush with other things when I made that "New pages" edit. Looking at things now, after the previous typing, I see it too is probably a bit more "cleanly made" hoax article than some of the others have been, and find NO REASON to keep it. Apologies for the error — I am attending to far too many things right now to do a thorough examination of everything, or even much more than a cursory examination of much. There are other matters I am attending to regarding other pages, as rapidly as I can, but many more urgent of important matters are also keeping me busy.  I now offer a bit of jovially tempered sorrow for not examining this article a bit more first. I probably won't stick around much today, despite being busy in efforts on a few things here, there are more pressing matters I will likely attend to. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 15:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer the original Prod, simply to create a possibility of the user seeing the reference to Wikiversity before it's deleted. ... thinking about this, I'm reverting your edit. Not a big deal, but I'll explain my thinking here.
These pages are often created by children. If they are not given an outlet, they will continue the behavior. It has happened that we have been able to engage a user like this on Wikiversity, and what looked like a cross-wiki vandal became a useful editor, gradually. He was seven years old when he was "vandalizing."
The page is obviously inappropriate here. Were this a registered user, I'd have warned the user, and, at the same time, invited them to Wikiversity and I'd have created a way that their wikitext could be recovered. I'd probably export it. But this is not a registered user, and the only way they are likely to see anything is if that page stays up for a little while. Prod is 7 days here. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I replaced the hoax speedy with big text HOAX at the time, and placed a Wikiversity template. It's a long shot, but the user probably put more than an hour into the page. On Wikiversity, I'd push page creations into user space and encourage the writer to learn creative writing, by writing whatever they like in their user space. (And then I'd watch them.) Deleting the page is pedagogically like a teacher tearing up the student's work. Okay, so the mission of Wikiquote is not education, but if users are not educated, harm will continue to be done, and we effectively train vandals. --Abd (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you reverted me, Kalki, replacing the speedy notice, I did not expect that. The instructions in that template have: Do not replace this notice if it was removed. List it on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion instead.
I'm certainly not going to revert you. Apparently, the policy and procedure is for ordinary mortals, not for Kalki. By removing the speedy notice, I "intended to fix it," though not necessarily in the way normally contemplated, since it was, after all, a hoax. I intended to fix it by assuring that the page is deleted with only a little delay, but "it" is also the situation, which includes the mind of the writer of the hoax, i.e., "fix it" by directing the writer to a place where they may be able to do what they want, have fun without causing harm.
I thank you for leaving the Wikiversity template in place. --Abd (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I can accept that one of the implicit goals of Wikiquote as well as the other Wikimedia projects and wikis elsewhere is education, but I tend to disagree here, and believe the harsher response of immediate rejection of the fruits of such obviously misused time is appropriate, and actually is the STANDARD policy here, which had been somewhat delayed because of my apparent acceptance of the article earlier — without much examination of it. I am not going to get into an edit war over a doomed article, as to how fast it should be expelled, and can admire what seems to be your general patience and tolerance with the closed minded, but believe it is probably somewhat misplaced in this particular incident. I have no strong concern about the matter, and have a few other things I will check on or work on here, before taking off again. ~ Kalki··
I had actually typed the above, and had an edit conflict with you, and having read your somewhat snide comments, I just removed HOAX speedy notice which I had ADDED and should NOT have been removed here merely to indulge a desire to promote Wikiversity. My summary was meant to be: "REMOVE the TEMPLATE because of a FUCKED UP TECHNICALITY and FUCKED up rationalities and irrationalities at play here" but "auto-correction" apparently shifted rarer "rationalities" into "nationalities" in a robotic way which I did not immediately notice. I might use mechanistic and robotic technologies at times, and many of us make errors because of them, and some of our distractions with other things, but one of the worst sorts of errors are those which promote enslavement to robotic procedures and technicalities, and help those MOST interested in causing and maintaining various forms of PETTY conflict so that they can SEEM calm and mature in their own petty little games. It might SEEM so, but I am NOT referring primarily to you here, because in this particular incident of citing petty technicalities you seem more inclined to keep some relatively healthy options open rather than out to close them. There are MANY more inclined to do otherwise, and who engage in such things to the constraint and control of others in ways I perceive to be very improper. I am a bit irritated because I have been rushing through many things lately and AM likely to be for some time, and do NOT wish to waste my time explaining or justifying my support for relatively routine actions and procedures, nor arguing against such acts as make VERY little sense to me — you yourself have noted by NORMAL procedures, this WOULD simply be deleted — attempting to preserve it for a time, on a technicality to promote Wikiversity is somewhat PETTY in my personal opinion. I have NOT entirely WASTED time here, as there are MANY diverse forms of human education ever at work, but I have spent far more of it attending to things I would MUCH prefer NOT to, and have lost time I had meant to be spending with OTHER urgent matters. I am not inclined to lose my patience easily, but am under MUCH stress at this time, and AM very LIKELY to lose my patience with OTHER forms of inanity soon, but I retain far more composure, relative to many forms of problems than I believe most would be ABLE to do. I do not believe your concerns are entirely petty ones, but believe they have been promoted in a rather petty way, and I have resorted to a few petty indications of somewhat petty anger and irritation in response to them. I firmly believe that WE all have MUCH more to concern ourselves with than THESE things. ~ Kalki·· 16:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
I do value your presence Abd (talk · contributions), and encourage you to stick around and add some of your views about things here. It is I who am usually arguing against needless constraints rather than for some of the relatively necessary and routine ones, but I do believe the routine procedure of deleting this immediately as a hoax should have and would have occurred, if not for my own earlier error. I will probably be around here for a bit longer, but do intend to be gone much of the day, after a few brief excursions within the next few hours. ~ Kalki·· 16:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC) + tweak
Thanks, Kalki, for what I'm taking as a welcome. What I see is a piece of "creative writing" -- you can call it a hoax, as all creative writing is -- that could be hosted on Wikiversity. Yes, I understand why you deal with it "harshly." However, that harsh approach has the effect of creating enemies of the projects among the young. It's not necessary. Deleting that page quickly will not stop "vandalism." Now, this was a case on the edge, or maybe even over it. On Wikiversity, the page might also be speedied, because there is no "user." We don't move IP-edited pages into IP user space, because normally the user doesn't own the IP. (I have moved IP-created pages, not appropriate for WV mainspace, into a "Playspace," in my user space, where I can watch the pages and eventually speedy them, though there is no rush about that. In some cases these pages have been claimed by the original creator and moved to their user space.) While such a page is fresh, even though IP, the user might see a note, however. It was a long shot, but, after all, it only took placing a template. I'm more interested in what happens with inappropriate pages like this created by a named user. An IP deletion is not likely to create an enemy. A named-user-created page is more likely to do that.
I would not be raising the point if not for seeing how a different approach can nip vandalism in the bud, and create cooperation, while, at the same time, keeping mainspace clean (and not just on Wikiversity, this can generate cooperation with "cross-wiki vandals").
For Wikiquote, it would not be what we do on Wikiversity, except maybe transiently. I.e., had a named user created the page, it could be moved to user space *and prodded." We use a long-expiration prod (our standard is 90 days), though we don't normally prod user space pages (that might change and it might be done by bot). A template would be placed suggesting Wikiversity. This is all just as easy to do as what was done, yet it can be done in a very friendly and helpful manner. The result as to content would be the same. The page would be removed from mainspace (if it's done by a sysop, no redirect; when I do this, I immediately speedy the redirect). The page would ultimately be deleted, because it's not working on Wikiquote content. And Wikiversity might gain a user who learns something. Or no harm is done. Even more, this does not require a sysop, except for thoroughly uncontroversial actions
It's quite obvious to me that as the community wakes up and realizes what has been happening the last decade, it will go in this direction. We have been fouling our nest, creating wells of mistrust of the WMF wikis out there, and without necessity. We developed a particular vision of what is "good content," and it can differ from the general public perception, and that creates a collision, plus, of course, spammers, vandals, -- and subteens and hormone-impaired young males. We don't stop and think what it is like for a new user to spend hours on a page, figuring out how to use wikitext, etc., and then their work is unceremoniously deleted, often with no explanation that they can understand. What we find on Wikiversity is that they never have a problem with their work being moved to user space, and often appreciate the help.
For me, it goes back to an AfD I saw on Wikipedia, for a fan article. That article was a labor of love, weeks of work, and intricate and beautiful (and highly informative if one was interested in in-universe fact. And not encyclopedic by Wikipedia standards because it was all OR from primary source. And it was deleted in far less time and effort than it took to create, with zero appreciation and consideration. Now, if the user is sophisticated, they'd know they could request it be undeleted into their user space on Wikipedia, or have it emailed to them. But often fans are not sophisticated. And the atmosphere around the AfD was hostile. "Fancruft," "junk," etc.
Completely unnecessary. Deletion, yes, ultiamtely but how it's done is essential. We'd have accepted that page on Wikiversity, because OR is allowed, and fictional universes are studied academically. There is a transwiki template for material to be moved to Wikiversity. Hardly ever used. A page could be moved to user space (for any willing user), and given a transwiki template. At the WV end, we'd welcome the material and place it within our educational structure, where it could stimulate discussion and many other educational activities. When it's transwiki'd, it could then be deleted. With templates, all this takes less community labor than a single AfD. That final deletion would be a standard speedy, the page no longer needed, the history preserved on Wikiversity.
In other words, the standard process is highly inefficient. But we have a community that is entirely accustomed to conflict and highly tolerant of the massive Sysiphean mess of WP and similar process, which may have as well been designed to create conflict, with long-time users disappearing, tired of rolling that boulder up the hill. --Abd (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This is just a brief note to say that I tend to agree with your apparent disposition to preserve work that is relatively competent, and protect it so much as practically possible from censorious and deletion-prone gangs which have often formed amidst the Wikimedia wikis, but this is far different from accepting or retaining even briefly such articles as are clearly created as hoaxes by very short-sighted individuals, often as part of attempts at broader attacks on the worth and integrity of the projects. I do not approve of going very far to cater to many of their personal inclinations. I will probably elaborate further later, but once again I am just briefly checking in here to take care of some routine tasks and and then must again be leaving. I expect to have a bit more time to work here in the next couple of days than I have had in the last couple. ~ Kalki·· 23:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
For Wikiquote, your position is appropriate. However, consider this: that user may be a ten-year-old kid, precocious to be able to write so well. I was born in 1944, and most young people are, to me, "short-sighted." But they are the future. Essentially, being short-sighted is being untrained. It's normal before being trained! I haven't suggested "going far out your way," and, in fact, you can do what you like. However, what I'm saying is that the judgmental attitude doesn't work with children and it doesn't take short-sighted people and turn them into those with vision. I work with children, I have seven and six grandchildren and deal with developmental disorders and all that, and if I didn't have patience, I'd be dead meat. Literally.
So what I'm suggesting are some ideas that could, long-term, make it easier to maintain and improve Wikiquote. If you don't understand that, ask. I am not suggesting anything that would be more work than what you already do. --Abd (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate and welcome your apparent attitude of general tolerance, but I still have some contentions with some assertions, which I don’t have time to elaborate on right now. I do hope you find more to become involved with here, but I don’t agree with accommodating hoaxers here, even if from children, even briefly. There is enough hoaxing going on by people pretending that what are and should be treated as relatively loose guidelines on this wiki represent legally mandated imperatives which it would involve "copyright violations" to surpass. That is one of the longest standing hoaxes or assertions of sheer ignorance which I know of here, and I do not approve it, and have never pretended to. But that is getting into other matters which I don’t have much time to deal with right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As the one the initiated this thread and subsequently deleted the page, I offer some thoughts:

The only reason I enquired here before deleting the page is because Kalki's action suggested a remote possibility that it was not actually a hoax. All four participants in this discussion opined that it was indeed a hoax. Therefore I deleted it as "Silly vandalism". That it was not tagged with a speedy deletion template at the time, that a template had been added and removed, has no bearing. Whether or not something is a hoax may be open to debate. Whether to speedily delete vandalism is not.

Completely necessary. Yes, how it's done is essential: it is essential to do it promptly. As in the alternate reality of bricks and mortar, failure to quickly clean up vandalism invites more of the same, and leads to accelerated decline of the community environment.

I respect the earnest desire to engage and educate people who are immature or misguided, but this is not the way to go about it. I appreciate the impracticality of engaging IP editors on user talk pages because the address may be dynamically allocated; it is one of the drawbacks of allowing people to post without logging in. I recognize that some people will be embittered by unceremonious deletion, but others will take a constructive lesson from the experience of what happens to vandalism. Most will grow into responsible adults without need of ceremonial recognition when we mop up a childish mess. There are limits to the reasonable accommodations we can make for those who have psychological or developmental disorders. Retaining vandalism, for any duration, is not a reasonable accommodation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. I've demonstrated that this position isn't true. It cannot be demonstrated with the position as effective policy. Nobody is embittered. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the "earnest desire," though there is no such intense desire, there is only a stand and a history of activity toward that stand, testing what actually happens if we take simple steps. The issue here is not "reasonable accomodation for disorders," but disorder is not in question here, I am talking normal development. Nor, in fact, am I talking "vandalism," except in a very technical way. I.e., kids scribble on sidewalk with chalk. Is that "vandalism"?
Legally, "reasonable accomodation" is what can be done withour creating an onerous burden. What I'm seeing is actually an unwillingness to shift behavior, even in ways that create no burden. Behind that, I'll speculate, is a belief that "vandalism" is "wrong" and must be "punished" by immediate deletion. Just like "copyright violation" is "wrong." Even though there is no actual copyright violation, only potential ones.
The fear is that if "vandalism" is "tolerated," it will multiply, as littering encourages more littering (which it does). However, that's only true, about littering, if the mess is not promptly cleaned up and dominates the landscape. What I have been suggesting are ways to immediately clean up the mess, while making a reasonable accommodation, that actually takes little more time than the standing procedure, and sometimes less time. And nobody is forced to do this. The question is if the accommodation is allowed, and the defacto position, with an admin like Ningauble, is, no, it is not allowed. Because we must immediately delete what looks like vandalism. Or else the sky will fall. --Abd (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, I can admire our disposition to be tolerant towards people, even to the misguided who vandalize, and I do accept and assert that even those which can be identified, CAN and SHOULD be forgiven, and ALSO pardoned from needless burdens themselves, IF they clearly alter their intentions and aims sufficiently towards genuinely useful contributions, but on this particular issue, I do agree that hoax/vandalism articles or activities themselves SHOULD generally be deleted as swiftly as possible — because otherwise it can encourage repetition of such behavior, by that vandal or by others. I do believe you seem to have ideas on altering people's inclinations which I can and do agree with, but here we clearly have definite disagreement on some things to tolerate or not tolerate, or how best to respond to them. ~ Kalki·· 15:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
I have more than ideas, Kalki, I have experience. I should be very clear that what I suggest does not involve allowing inappropriate content to remain in mainspace, and only allowing it, under some circumstances, a transient existence in user space -- so the IP was a very long shot, and that was shot down because the IP is unlikely to ever see the alternative suggested. What I'm suggesting is, in fact, fostered by prompt handling of inappropriate material. In ordinary language, vandalism is distinct from accidental damage. Vandalism is damage with intent to harm. For this reason, Wikipedia policy suggests avoiding labelling inappropriate content as vandalism, unless a pattern is established that shows intention. And that can be difficult to assess, and it is, in fact, unnecessary. What I have in mind are edits by young editors that are developmentally normal. There may be an attempt to be "funny," which can be very unfunny to adults. Hey, Justin Bieber Poop! But that's not a page. We just revert that, and I do it all the time, "rvv." No fuss. If it's an IP and no pattern is established, that's the end of it. However, a registered account I may see something different. And what is relevant here is a page creation. If that same page, One Thing had been created by a registered account, say with no other contributions, is it vandalism?
I don't think so. I think it is the creative writing of a young user, most likely. There is a substantial possibility that the user could be engaged and encouraged toward other behavior. If the page is deleted, the user may recreate it, possibly. If the user is blocked, the user is likely to create a new account, they have nothing invested in that account. The "harsh" approach actually creates more need for itself.
Creative writing is not part of the mission of Wikiquote. So if that's what the user wants to do, they have two ways to do it. Continue what they already did, getting a rise out of us (which can be part of the motive, and they don't see that as "harm," they will see it as "fun." Or do it somewhere, where they can actually build some content, some fun fantasy, and show it to their friends. "Look, I made this page!" And it's in their user space on Wikiversity, where we are happy to help them with learning wikitext, and learning to write and make an interesting story, and, as well, how to interact with a community without getting their *** blocked. The harsh approach does not hold out the carrot, it is pure stick, and the kids learn fast that the stick has no sting at all. A 7-year old learned that if he was blocked, reboot his modem and he could register a new account. So do we go to range blocks and ever-increasing escalation of response? So that he learns how to get around *that*?
The alternative, the Wikiversity route, will usually fail. Usually, these users don't show back up and see anything, and whether you delete the page or block them makes no difference at all.
I should make it crystal clear: I am not suggesting "tolerating vandalism," i.e., leaving those pages where they cause damage to the function of Wikiquote. One Thing was a hoax page, that took me a few seconds to strongly suspect and a couple of minutes to confirm. That is, it was "creative writing," and not welcome on Wikiquote. So, when the kids are on their skate boards downtown, where it's illegal, do the police arrest them, or do they tell them where the skate park or other options are where they can do what they want? I can tell you what most police do, and it's not the first option. If they arrest them, it can cause a cycle of behavior that goes nowhere but down. It gets more and more serious, and police know that. But they do tell them it's illegal, and that if they continue, they will have to arrest them. Kids are not stupid, at least not usually. --Abd (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"Kids are not stupid, at least not usually."—Kids are generally stupid; they have small brains and low IQ. (Not their fault, though.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, contrary to the assessments of many, I actually believe most children are in many ways MORE intelligent and LESS stupid than most adults — simply and naturally less KNOWLEDGEABLE about many things and their relationships to other things than adult are, and thus often not as wise or prudent in some clearly important ways. I believe they are to a great extent more open to both rational and mystical forms of learning — the confluence of which are ever in the aesthetic and ethical realms of Awareness, Life and Love. The sooner THESE are appreciated, the stronger their influences can be throughout their lives. It is adult inclinations to ignore or deny MANY forms of artistic and ethical capacities, as well as rational and mystical ideas which they have learned to ignore, deny or belittle, quite often because they have been taught or trained to do so through the influences of the habits and customs of others, and modes of providing rewards and punishments to various forms of attitudes, inclinations or behaviors, whether they be innately just or not, which cause many forms of corruption and contentions away from youthful acceptance and versatility amidst the splendors of ALL things.
I am now once again in preparation for at least a couple more excursions today, and am glad one of my more irritating tasks of recent days has now been completed. There are a few other things I intend to address here later, to the extent I can, but for now, I part with an inclination towards addressing further tasks and Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 18:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
I was just kidding. Actually, one of the most extraordinary experiences I've had recently was being outplayed in Go by a really young kid: Last week I was in Korea, and visited a Go school, the Korean Baduk Institute, where many kids study hard to become Go professionals. There I played against a 6–7 year old kid, was crushed in the beginning, and lost the game. Most people don't like losing to kids, but I enjoyed it – of course it somewhat trivializes one's own accomplishments, but it's a humbling experience, and we all need to be put in our place every once in a while. These kids (hundreds of them) are studying Go 10 hours a day, from a very young age (I saw 3-year-old kids in that school); however, because only very few of them (about 5) can turn professional each year, most of them will unfortunately but inevitably be soon left to pick up the pieces of a completely wasted and ruined childhood... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of significant observations to expand upon from such points of awareness and appreciation — but unfortunately I must be leaving soon. I might make a few comments on my assessments of the various paths of learning, teaching and avoiding overly constrained systems of either, within a few days — but might remain reserved abut much for a while longer. MANY things are in my consideration right now, and will likely to remain so for a few months. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I will note one reason I brought up the "copyright violation" issue is because I have spent FAR more time than I had intended in recent days, working to save an article I had NO inclination to work on from deletion, and it is ONE of many things that has left me somewhat more irritable than normal for me, for rather extended periods in recent days. Your examination of my arguments for its preservation at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Robot Chicken would be welcome, because for some years now those most prone to delete many things HAVE dominated he VfD process here, and though I can and do agree with some of their actions without reservations, I rarely get involved in even many I disagree with, because I am accustomed to the general futility of some types of efforts, or simply I lack the time to get very involved in many of them. ~ Kalki·· 16:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


I simply note a moment of Time and Eternity as seasons pass and a harvest autumn begins in the north and an awakening spring wells up in the south, and Furthur adventures are to be expected. ~ Kalki·· 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Extending on this section I began at the time of the Equinox a few days ago:
LuMaxArt Golden Family With World Religions.jpg

I had intended to do much away from home today, but was delayed by several things, and am just about to leave on a couple excursions, but will make a few notes: I just happened to check in earlier today, just moments after an inane troll-vandal began to assault the wiki — thankfully, this soon ended with admin intervention, but though I expect to be checking in sporadically rather regularly, several times a day, amidst various excursions and activities, I do not intend to spend a great deal of time here for at least a few days, as I expect to be far too busy with MANY other things, especially for the next couple of days. Unfortunately, I often tend to stick around longer than I intend, when I do check in, so, though I will probably do so a few times over coming days, I will probably also hold to firmer resolves NOT to check in here every chance I get, for at least another day or two — too many things exist for me to take care of, and I have VERY limited time to do some of them.…So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 20:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Liv And MaddieEdit

Liv And Maddie needs to be moved to Liv and Maddie, but I can't do it. Can you? 04:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. ~ Kalki·· 04:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The 48-star flagEdit

Nice touchallixpeeke (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is usually good to provide historical details as accurate aids to one's considerations of various incidents of the past. ~ Kalki·· 06:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ironic Angelic MichaelmasEdit

Mike is our Prometheus — but that's all. Mike keeps emphasizing this. Thou art God, I am God, he is Godall that groks. Mike is a man like the rest of us. A superior man admittedly — a lesser man taught the things the Martians know, might have set himself up as a pipsqueak god. Mike is above that temptation. ~ Robert A. Heinlein, in Stranger in a Strange Land
Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not. ~ Jacob
A note on Ironic Angelic Michaelmas celebrations of the present and the past, and anticipating many futures.

This has long been a cherished day for me, for many reasons, and many years ago, on this date, I first emphasized this to another person in ways interesting and intriguing to us both. Though I have a keen reverence for many diverse traditions, of many types, I have long had special regard for the symbolic value of the Angel Michael, in a very monistic mystical way, as a keen assessor of the divergences and diversity of humankind. I have no scorn for the symbolic value of the notions of adversarial and rebellious Serpents, Dragons, and Lucifer either, and can see the worth of many traditions which use such symbols differently than others and realize that there are many forms of balances and imbalances and distortions of truths about facts and fantasies which go unrecognized among many of the associations of signs and symbols humanity regularly and always uses and often misuses.

If anything impels me to scornfulness, it is the absolutist scorning of the arts and sciences and symbols of the past, AS IF they were of little or no importance in the emergence and emergencies of the present and the resolutions of the present and the future. Since infancy I have essentially transcended attachments to creeds and concepts, and like Francis Bacon and Spinoza and Simone Weil and Albert Camus seek to ever remain wise enough to embrace no idolatries of stupidityincluding those of the most zealous iconoclasts, eager to destroy all respect or even traces of such signs and symbols of others ideas as they idolatrously take to be idols, whether they actually are or not. Idolatry ever involves how one perceives and fails to perceive certain aspects of Reality and Appearances — not necessarily any particular physical objects or identifiable entities taken to be an idol. I have long found those who are most convinced there is no idolatry in their own systems of thought and scornfulness quite amusing, though more often tiresome and troublesome, whether these systems of association be labelled religious, scientific, political, social, artistic or in any other way people might devise.

I had intended to have a few things done by this day which I continue to work on, unsatisfied as yet. I actually slept more than I usually do, earlier today, and had somewhat unusual dreams. Though I have accomplished much in recent weeks, I am now resigned to accepting the fact that some of the things I had hoped to get finished very soon should be finessed and developed for at least another month or so... and now I must be leaving for at least another hour or so.… So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 22:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks


[1] – Nice little essay! ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2003 I thought it proper to indicate some proper uses of "fair use" options, in the development of the site, as well as the worth of it, at least on the end of such extensive pages as could then be created without much hassle or pre-emptive constraints and controls which some have thought it necessary to develop. ~ Kalki·· 11:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC) + tweak


Thanks for the advice, Kalki. I have removed the boldface type from the JTH quotes page.—This unsigned comment is by Writershouseusa (talkcontribs) .

I never sought to imply that all of the bolding needed to be removed. I saw that UDScott (talk · contributions) had removed some of it earlier, after my note to you. The page is probably small enough, with short enough quotes that a great deal of bolding isn't very useful at this point, but occasional use of it remains an option for quotes one finds particularly notable for various reasons. As I had stated, there are occasional disputes about the use of this, but they are actually rather rare, and usually brief, and amicably resolved. And thanks for creating that John Twelve Hawks page. ~ Kalki·· 15:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC) + tweak
Yes, I never meant for you to remove all bolding. I too find it useful when used in moderation to emphasize certain quotes. I just found that when every quote is bolded, it really loses that exact goal of emphasizing certain quotes. I would recommend that you take another try and bold some, but not all of the quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Helpful tipEdit

When marking something for deletion, it's nice to leave the content of the page untouched so that the admin deleting it can see the contents of the page without having to look in the revision history :) Just a helpful tip :) Cheers, Razorflame (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

With many other forms of vandalism, I usually do retain the content, but I usually delete the content of most spam postings or attack pages immediately, so as to discourage them as vigorously as I can as swiftly as I can. I would expect the admin would take a swift look at the history before deleting, if there were any doubts of the accuracy of my assertion of it being spam or an attack page. ~ Kalki·· 03:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my accidental deletionEdit

As a general rule of thumb, I usually prefer pages to have more content rather than less.  I'm not exactly sure how I deleted the picture, although I suppose it happened while I was trying to move a few things around.  In any event, thanks for catching that and restoring it!  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was pleased to learn it was accidental, for my inclinations in such regards are very similar — I believe that it is generally better to let more interesting information accumulate than might be convenient for some than to exclude a great deal that might be very helpful or even vitally important for many, or most. ~ Kalki·· 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyperactive Absurdist…Edit

I am currently engaged in MANY projects demanding some of my time, and might only be active here a few minutes a day for most days of the upcoming weeks. Some days I might have a few hours at a time to spare, to do some work here, but I doubt it. I expect to be extraordinarily busy with many "real world" and many other "online" concerns until at least 11 November. After that I might actually have a brief chance to relax to an extent I haven't had in a few months, but … I'm not counting on it. After this period of labors are finished, I actually expect to increase much my workload of activities for a few more months, which means I will probably further neglect some things of personal concern and relatively trivial public concerns. I fully intend to remain active here MOST days until Armistice Day, but there are likely to be many where I will be too busy offline and with other projects to do a great deal here.

Even though I might often be offline, or dealing with many things elsewhere online, I will probably spend some of my spare moments doing some work on new pages for the wiki, that I have had in mind for some time, and post them when I have the chance. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I had intended to just briefly check in earlier to take care of QOTD layout work — it took me a bit longer than I expected, but is finished for the next couple of days — and now I must be leaving — but with some of my plans for the day discarded, I might be back to finish up more work within a few hours... So it goes ~ Kalki·· 00:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello. Is it just me or did the Watchlist change? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, and I probably am not the one to ask — I very rarely look at my Watchlist page directly, and usually just take note of what changes occur on "Recent changes" where the pages on it appear in bold, and I can better be attentive to general vandalism, which I usually attended to VERY rapidly, when I was an admin. I actually believe I might not have looked at that page directly in years, until your question arose. ~ Kalki·· 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay. How many times does the page (e.g.) "User talk:Kalki‎" appear in your watchlist? (It used to appear only once—the last change—but now all recent changes to the page appear listed in the watchlist too.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have mine set in "preferences" to "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" — and see these in a collapsible layout — perhaps if you prefer other options you might see if that is checked in your prefs. ~ Kalki·· 19:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I missed that. (I must have changed my preferences somehow without noticing it...) Ok, thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
That happened to me too (and I know I didn't change my prefs, so it has to be something the higher-ups are doing). BD2412 T 03:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not seeing any change. My watchlist shows only the last change to each page, as it always has by default. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Dipavali!Edit

Wishing you a very happy, prosperous, and joyful Dipavali (Divali). Thanks for your deep interest in Indian themes. I will be adding to Shiva soon after I finish the articles on planets. If you have not been to India so far, then pl make a visit to places of your choice including New Delhi. Thanks for the QOTD. I am presently in the US holidaying in Mouvi, Hawaii and will be returning to San Diego to stay till mid December. --Nvvchar (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the suggestion for the quote on Diwali — it prompted me to make a page for the author of the quote, and reading some of his essays I did find some more of his statements notable, some of which I have now quoted on his page. I hope your travels are pleasing. At this point it seems I will most likely remain in New England for at least a couple months yet, but even beyond that I have no definite plans for further travels, and am presently cautious about making too definite a mention of past or future travels. Still, being a very intelligent person, even at a very early age, I became interested in many diverse aspects of many of the world's cultures, and have long held the Advaita Vedanta and other monistic elements of many of the world's mystical traditions of philosophies, religions and sciences to be very advanced in their diverse insights upon venerable awareness and appreciation of many of the infinite aspects of the ALL — by the age of 5 or 6 at the latest, because it avoided many sectarian disputations, "the ALL" was one of my favorite terms for that which is beyond all definitions but variously indicated by many words, names, and statements of humble awe, or hubristic dismissal of the ideas, notions and names used by others. The fundamental and ultimate being or essence which fools often seek to constrain or define to fit into rather paltry notions which they believe to be exhaustive, exclusively divine, and even absolutely beyond compare — which usually indicates to an absurdist like me the presence of MANY laughable delusions, which I sometimes try to remedy, if I do not believe it will be more trouble to them, or me, or to others, than the matters warrant. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 20:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

Christian UniversalismEdit

Thanks! Do you want to collaborate on this page? By the way, you have two links to Kenosis amongst your icons above. If you respond, please use {{Ping|Koavf}} to let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that we can both contribute well to the article, but I am too busy now to spend a great deal of time on it. I have sporadic activity here, as other concerns and work on other sites are currently keeping me busy. Thanks for initiating the page, and prompting me to find a couple quotes for it — it is one of the MANY pages I have had in mind to start for some time. I actually was just about to do a few final things around here and then leave, for at least an hour or so, but might be back to work here a bit later. ~ Kalki·· 22:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Brackets in quotationsEdit

Thanks for your other adjustments in the J.Q. Adams page, but I question your removal of the brackets at the beginning of the quotation to "deemphasize capitalization." If we are going to be accurate in our quotations then we have to put brackets there in order to disclose that in the original quotation that was not the beginning of the sentence. Anything else is deceptive. Using brackets that way is accepted and necessary in any scholarly work. If there is some thoroughly discussed and accepted exception to this rule for Wikiquote, please point me to it. Otherwise, we should put those brackets back around the initial "T". - Embram (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I welcome your concern and interest in our project, and will provide some of my thoughts on the matters. I actually do commend and appreciate the use of brackets in works of translation or presentation which are primarily scholarly presentations of historical nuances, even as I tend to be irritated by the distraction of them or other conventions, in those designed to be simply presentations of ideas and statements, admittedly provisional and relatively unconstrained by various scholarly forms of symbolism and syntax which can often provide many a FALSE sense of absolute accuracy and reliability.
There are subtle and obvious deceits and mild innocuous ones and there are also major and very consequential deceits — how we define these are usually quite provisional on many things, and not absolute. There are subsequently broad ranges of opinion on things of major and minor importance, and how to respond to these.
WE have long been collecting quotes here, and most people can realize that sometimes even the most famous and accurate of quotes have often been used in very deceptive ways, and fuller context can provide IMPORTANT remedies to that. When this occurs, I believe the importance can be major and of enduring significance. I don't believe that capitalizing an initial Letter to a word that is being used as the initial word of a quote is actually so much of a "deception" as to be absolutely deplored.
I believe that the wise should stress that most people should be able to recognize that MANY or most quotes are parts of larger statements, and even assume there many significant nuances and contexts lost by emphasizing them, to the exclusion of others. Even so one MUST exclude many related contextual ideas in a compendium of quotes.
I confess that I KNOW that I have VERY peculiar perspectives on MANY things, because at a VERY young age, I clearly and strongly realized the semiotic principle that All assertions and all assessments about ANY thing are in some ways deceptive, no matter how true and honest they might be in others, or apparent nonsense in others, especially those which are most inclined to foster delusions which assume that there are no illusions or deceptions possible, with enough sincerity and earnestness and elaboration and precision; for sometimes the most sincere also are in many ways the MOST deceptive, and sometimes they clearly KNOW this, even though they sincerely strive to minimize deceptions, and unfortunately, sometimes they do not, as they go about sincerely believing they are telling the absolute and incorruptible truth, including their faith in such beliefs as those that deceptions can be absolutely eliminated from human discourse, and that they should strive to make it so.
Some of us do quite scholarly work here on a regular basis, and try to be as accurate as we can be in citing sources, and providing notable variants, but I believe we should be counted as primarily a place for the PRESENTATION of ideas, of various sorts, and I don’t believe we should foster any pretensions or belief that we are an absolutely reliable or FINAL authority on the wit and wisdom of the ages, despite some who actually seem to wish we could be so, ignoring all the limits on ourselves and others.
In further assertion of some of my own attitudes and positions on such matters, I would note the fact that ALL translations are alterations, and that nearly all use of punctuation which has developed in recent centuries, and is clearly convenient for many, and sometimes confusing to others, is an alteration from the most ancient sources, which often had little or no punctuation, and sometimes no clear separations of words, which has sometimes led to extremely different interpretations of what is declared.
We have and continue to encourage inclusion of original language transcriptions and original typography, especially in some of the more noted or notable quotes, but I do not believe most of us have been very attentive to capitalization concerns, in general, and I personally don't see it as a major matter, though I would tend to not promote the extensive use of brackets here, especially for mere capitalization variants, but rather provide slight extensions of some quotes, IF any matters were of any clearly relevant significance, OR links to any online sources. ~ Kalki·· 20:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
I just had to go outside briefly, and must be leaving soon, but a summary thought occurred to me while outside — Everywhere and always there are "failures to communicate" MANY things — it is an aspect of ALL mortal conditions. Yet everywhere and always we must strive to communicate those things we find most interesting and important, relative to the situations we find ourselves in, and that we believe can be helpful to others. This is one of the major tasks of ALL Awareness, Life and Love. And with that, I must begin attending to a few other things, and preparing to leave. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 20:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief thoughts on eternal matters… Edit

MANY magicians use slight of hand to deceive people in amiable and entertaining fashion, and pickpockets and frauds use it in less amiable fashion to entertain and indulge their own foul impulses, but the foulest phenomena I know of is the slighting of mind amidst those slight in mindfulness, by which truths, facts, errors, fallacies and idolatries of all sorts of ostensibly religious or secular truths or assumptions are misused to deceive many into accepting foul, dangerous and detrimental falsehoods as if they were truth, and valid and true associations are mistranslated into apparent or actual support of false and foul ones. Bigotries and crimes are built upon such slights of mind, and the practice is all too common, and all too powerful to be easily or swiftly remedied, but many are those who can and do attempt to do what can be done and MUST be done to EXPOSE the practices, and the pernicious and pervasive delusions and deceits, by which many are deceived and deluded, NOT least of all, those who most DESIRE and AIM to delude and deceive others.

This was just a moments summary that occurred to me, as I scanned over things here and elsewhere on the internet, before taking off again. ~ Kalki·· 23:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

Krishna (Hindu deity)Edit

Thanks for liking my recent three articles. However, I have made a small error in the title Krishna (Hindi deity). It should read Krishna (Hindu deity). I am not conversant with the procedure. Can you kindly help? I have also expanded Shiva. --Nvvchar (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have moved this to Krishna (Hindu deity), and had been puzzled by the earlier error, but will note that the article should eventually be moved into Krishna to match the Wikipedia article, and the quotes of Leo Tolstoy presently there merged elsewhere. I might do that merger soon, but haven't had the time to do so in recent days, and remain busy with many other concerns. I am doing a few things here before leaving again, and might do a few hours work here a bit later today or tomorrow. ~ Kalki·· 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Intensely busy…Edit

I expect to remain intensely busy for at least another week, and though there may be days I can spend several hours at work on the internet and some of it here, there might be some days I just have a few minutes to spare here, as was the case today, thus far. After that there might still be a period of sporadic attention to things here, but I expect that within a few weeks I will have far more time free to do more things here. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am currently only briefly back from an excursion, have to go out on another one soon, and expect to be much too busy elsewhere for the next few days, to spend much time here, but will do so to the extent I have the opportunity. Just making note of this, as I prepare to leave, and hope to be back soon, for perhaps a few hours, later. ~ Kalki·· 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I remain FAR busier on many other things than I expected to be in recent days, and might be for a time yet. I am just briefly checking in now before leaving again, but hope to be more extensively active here within a few days. ~ Kalki·· 22:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I am still in hyperactive mode, with many things, but continue to expect to be done with many of these things soon, and perhaps have more time to do things here. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 01:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


Kalki, just a quick comment: you made this page a redirect to Apathy, but although they are similar, I'm not sure I would equate the two terms. To me, apathy reflects a lack of interest in something (which could well include a lack of interest in the well being of others), while inhumanity reflects something more specific and often with more drastic results - namely the lack of compassion for other humans. I agree that it is a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. Of course, I don't have any quotes ready to go for inhumanity, but I was just a bit surprised to see the two terms equated. Perhaps if I can find quotes that reflect the difference I mentioned, I will make inhumanity its own page. Do you agree? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and added some quotes - hopefully you have no objections! :-) ~ UDScott (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I was just briefly checking in here, before leaving again, and just noticed your recent comments. I, of course, fully approve the creation of the new page, as the redirect was simply the closest concept I could think of connecting to, without making a new page myself, with relatively limited time. There are many "concept" and theme pages which could use creation and further work, and I intend to devote more time to these in the coming year or so. Thanks for creating the page. ~ Kalki·· 16:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

James D. WatsonEdit

I was just reading about him in the news, and was immediately reminded of Sam Harris's advice: "not everything worth saying is worth saying oneself." I remember reading Dinesh D'Souza's book The End of Racism (1995), not so long ago—in it, he blames black culture (not genetics) for "black failure" in America, but even this (coming from someone who is not, er, 'white') proved controversial. In terms of moral philosophy, as far as my understanding goes, differences in IQ (just as those in height, running speed, etc.) do nothing to undermine the principle of equality (properly understood). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many inclinations towards MANY forms of contention and intolerance which are generally misguided and misdirected, and people DO have to learn how to avoid aiding or abetting the processes of many forms of misdirection towards extreme hatred, intolerance, tyranny and terrorism, especially those involving widely defined "racial" or cultural differences. There are MANY examples of these at work in the world today, and an urgent need for more rational, humble and courageous paths of promoting dialogue and the growth of understanding, and a will to promote awareness and appreciation of differences and diversity of many potentials rather than to limit what can be said or even thought into very narrow confines of various forms of political agenda, and especially the will to demand deference to absolutist notions, and dangerous or detrimental will to impose generally undesired uniformity, and punish or exclude considerations of the will of any without clear and fair need or reason that accords well with ALL. There is a need for greater empathy and capacity for a healthy forgiveness of errors and acceptance of many weaknesses, with a wise and resolute strength, rather than a promotion of many of the foulest of errors with reliance and dependence upon the manipulation and promotion of needless fears, hatred, prejudices and presumptions towards general hostilities and apathy about Humanity as a whole, and all its most splendrous and sometimes contentious forms of diversity. ~ Kalki·· 22:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC) + tweak

Peace still "in use"?Edit

Do you plan to have the tag up there much longer? I have further work I plan to do on that page. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have finished the major work I was doing on the page, in moving all the quotes into fully alphabetized sections, as well as removing unneeded and unwanted uses of an extraneous styling which is clearly AGAINST community consensus, and removed the tag. ~ Kalki·· 18:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Maybe I should have added this quote to [[Life]] rather than [[Living]], what do you think? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually do not know if "Living" should even be a separate article, as any distinctions which can be made between various uses of the words "Life" and "Living" can be applied in diverse and even contrary ways. It is not a primary concern to me at this point, and I am too busy to contend much about it now, but I believe all of "Living" should probably eventually be merged into Life. ~ Kalki·· 20:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
'The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn / No traveller returns' — was Shakespeare not a Christian? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This is obviously a somewhat rhetorical question, as it his character "Hamlet" who is questioning various aspects of his own beliefs and resolves, as well as those of others, in his contemplations of many aspects of life and death, free will and determination. Of course an author can speak to some extent through all of his characters, but completely through none and to no-one, other than perhaps, the Self, and the Eternal All. ~ Kalki·· 20:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's another question I have: If Jesus really did rise physically from the dead, where is his body now? (My guess is he is still floating around the Milky Way.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I decline to make any speculations on such matters, as I work here to quote and present the opinions of others, more than to present any of my own. Let each believe as they will or must, truths ever remain beautiful, and often beyond the reach of mortal minds filled with mortal aims and mortal ends. ~ Kalki·· 21:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


My thanks to all those who have helped revert, block and eliminate much of the spate of vandalism and trolling which has occurred in recent days and weeks. I have at times had to leave quickly, sometimes even while some was occurring, and had to trust that others would deal with it, as I did not have the time or opportunity to do so. I simply make this note now, as I have noticed there was more such vandalism just after some of my earlier work on pages today, and I now must be leaving again soon. ~ Kalki·· 23:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pope FrancisEdit

[2] (Peculiar edit summary.) The quote that used to be under the first picture is actually characteristic of Francis' papacy; the one you've replaced it with, besides not being original, is quite boring and commonplace. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out an inadvertent error on my part: I had NOT meant to REMOVE the image, and its caption, but only MOVE them, to around where the comment occurs on the page. Though I certainly agree the quote "This is what I want, a poor Church for the poor" IS impressive, I believe the statement "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!" is also quite characteristic of his papacy — and coming from a Pope is also a quite remarkable annulment of many arguments of adamant hostility to non-Catholic traditions, which is not boring at all, but quite broadening in many ways. ~ Kalki·· 01:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(Compare Matthew 10:5-6: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." & Matthew 15:24: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.") ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course all the Gospels themselves have had their proponents and opponents as to their accuracy in various regards. The wise can take all things with grains of salt, amidst the sour and the sweet, and focus on the best insights which experiences and awareness of reality beyond experiences can provide. And now I must once again be leaving... So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)