User talk:Kalki

BUSY—BUSY—BUSY & BUSIER, AM I…Edit

I have MUCH to do in coming days and nights — and I do NOT expect to have much time to spend here for at least another month, and perhaps several beyond that. On most days I do expect to be able to spare perhaps an hour or so here on QOTD activities — but it is not likely I will be able to very often spend much more than that for at least a month. ~ Kalki·· 18:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + substantial revision — MANY things are keeping me increasingly busy — and many unanticipated problems demand attention within the next month. Kalki·· 19:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I have only VERY briefly checked in today to update the QOTD — and must be leaving again soon. I do not expect to have the time to engage in many discussions for at least the next few days, as I have many matters to attend to locally, and am not likely to spend even as much time on the internet as I recently have, which is far less than normal. I will probably attend to a few matters to the extent I can, in what brief periods I might find some free time to check in here, within the next week, but do not expect to have much more than a few minutes at a time to spend here on most days, though I might be able to spend perhaps an hour or so within the next day or so. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Monad.svg
Atom deBroglie.png

Rainbow diagram.svg
Sunburst Badge.svg
WikiProject Scouting going home symbol.svg
Polytat.svg
LuMaxArt Golden Family With World Religions.jpg
Caduceus color.svg
Ankh-Symbol.svg
Blue Pacific.svg
Caput mortuum.svg
Caduceus.png
Quaker Star JUL.png
SHAEF Shoulder Patch.svg

Dudeism.svg
Love rules without rules.

Keel-billed Toucan-27527.jpg

What's So Bad About Feeling Good?
Compass Card transparent.png
Swirlyclock.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 · 2015 · RfA4 · 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
Quaker Peace Star.png
Libertarian Socialist Flag.svg
THE CORRUPT FEAR US · THE HONEST SUPPORT US · THE HEROIC JOIN US.
~ ANONYMOUS ~
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 ~
HexagramForWiki5.png
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 ~
in
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 ~
Yyjpg.svg

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

Sahasrara.svg

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

~ James Branch Cabell ~
in
The Cream of the Jest

Editor at large 1206.svg

Aegishjalmr.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 ~
in
The Man Who Was Thursday

Rainbow-diagram-ROYGBIV.svg
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 COA.svg

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

~ Terry Pratchett ~
in
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 ~
in
Lord of Light

Edit

Monad.svg
DBC-Hope.jpg
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
Monad.svg

Bbrot225x225x24.PNG

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 ~

Anonymous.svg

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

Lotus.svg

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

UNchangedcolorBLUE.png

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
Yyjpg.svg
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
~ Albert Einstein ~
A+O.svg
Monad.svg
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
12 years, 9 months, and 10 days.
117,777+
Sahasrara.svg

Devanagari-Ka.svg

KemetismSymbolWhite.PNG
Blue Pacific.svg
Caput mortuum.svg
Monad.svg

With this and other accounts I have made over 129,007 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

NotSuckBanner.jpg

Anonymous Idea.jpg
I am one of the administrators here, which doesn't give me any special authority… only a bit more ability to keep others from misusing the privileges provided. I am in a period of very intermittent but gradually developing activity here, and follow no set schedule. ~ Kalki·· 03:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit

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 ~
in
Watchmen

Prism-rainbow-black.svg
Anonymous.jpg
ENG COA Newton.svg
Everybody is special.
Everybody.
Everybody is a hero, a lover, a fool, a villain, everybody.
Everybody has their story to tell...

~ Alan Moore ~
in
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 ~

Dudeism.svg

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 ~
in
~ 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 ~
AforAnarcho.svg

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



Edit

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 · 2015 · RfA4 · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box ·

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


Edit

Sahasrara.svg Alphaomega.png Quaker Peace Star.png Alphaomega.png Sahasrara.svg        

Compass Card transparent.png
Swirlyclock.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 · 2015 · RfA4 · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box · Heroes · OZ · OASIS ·

QOTDEdit

Sup, Kalk. I'd like to nominate a quote for QOTD, but I have no idea how to go about doing it. Could you help me? Thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister 13:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to return home very soon after you posted this and can give a relatively prompt reply: with any quotes you wish to suggest, simply find a date with which they have some relevance, such as the author's birthdate, or some other anniversary with which they might have strong associations, and post the quote at the bottom of the suggestions on the page for that date (such as today 4 August), with a ranking and your signature. 3 is the ranking I generally use on such quotes as I suggest, and believe to be very good ones, and 4 is the top ranking, to be used only such quotes as one believes to be the best available among the suggestions, and one would like to see used as soon as possible. If there are no dates which seem to provide some relevance to a quote, relevance to a date is not a pre-requisite, but usually quotes with relevance are given greater rankings and priority by most people who have been involved. Today is a somewhat unusual day for me, and I might have a bit of time to get a few things done here before leaving again within a couple of hours. After that I will probably be busy elsewhere most of the day. ~ Kalki·· 13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Though it is not required, and is an innovation of recent years, I generally now use the "QOTD" template format in making suggestions on the date pages:

{{quote of the day | quote = oxo | author = xox }}

This template could be copied from the edit pane of this page and used for any suggestions for QOTD which you might wish to propose. ~ Kalki·· 14:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Kalk-Kalk. I've added some quotes for nomination. – Illegitimate Barrister 21:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your additions to the pages. I should have specifically noted in my earlier remarks that "4" is highly weighted in my considerations (as is 0), and I have generally asserted it should only be used for one's top choice in any year, by any person, thus at most once on any date page rankings by any person. Otherwise one person's ranges of preferences could have inordinate traction for many years after their ranking. Generally, most of the time, I rank my own and other people's suggestions from 1 to 3 (with stated "leans" upwards or downwards quite often), or very rarely a 0, when it seems to me to that a quote is extremely inappropriate for use as QOTD. ~ Kalki·· 23:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations not working?Edit

Am I doing something wrong? See here. Eurodyne (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In your earlier attempt to direct a link of the word "acts" directly to the page for "action" you were placing "action" in the displayed second portion of the link, rather than in the first portion which provides the name of the linked page itself. ~ Kalki·· 05:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, just had a HUGE brain fart. ;) Eurodyne (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Btw, is hotcat also not working for you? Eurodyne (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I rarely use hotcat, so I don't know what might be going on with that — but I have noticed the time clock I usually have displayed in the corner on my pages has been missing most of the time since my last sessions a few hours ago, so something might be screwed up with the gadgets for some reason. ~ Kalki·· 06:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I know you're an active editor here and I was wondering what tasks you do to actively contribute. I prefer maintenance work and small gnome like tasks. ;) Eurodyne (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been as active here lately as I would like to be, busy with other things elsewhere, but I generally like expanding and creating pages when I have the time. Other than that I'm here at least a few minutes to an hour on most days to do the Quote of the Day selections and layouts. I hope to be doing more page creation and expansion soon. ~ Kalki·· 06:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

complete Plato quote in Pirsig/Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maint.Edit

I don't understand why you reverted my recent edit in "Robert M. Pirsig". The full Plato quote actually is present in the book exactly as I entered it. I took the material directly from the Bantam USA paperback, 15th printing (1976), page 389, which I'm looking at at this very moment. I'll be happy to provide you with a scan of the page if you like. Zgystardst (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I too have a hard copy somewhere (I don't know where exactly at present), but I had relied on some online searches I had done which seemed to indicate the abbreviated paraphrase had been published in his work. There might possibly be two published versions, or the online version I had referred to was for some reason incorrect, for now I have encountered a couple incidents online where it seems the more extensive quote is actually used by Pirsig. I actually do somewhat like the more abbreviated version as more directly to the point, but will revert my changes to your extension, as it does seem to be correct. I might also add the variant later, if I actually do ever encounter it in hard-copy form. ~ Kalki·· 05:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Just to be excruciatingly clear, both the quote and his paraphrase appear at that point in the book. Zgystardst (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried moving Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) to Sunset Boulevard (film), but...Edit

Thanks in advance yet again.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This has now been moved. I had been a bit too pressed for time to get around to it earlier. ~ Kalki·· 11:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe I will have slightly more time to work here soon.Edit

I have been so busy with other things elsewhere that I have often had to squeeze in only a few minutes a day to actually work on things here — sometimes much less than an hour, as is the case today, and in most of the recent days — but I do hope and expect to have slightly more time to spend here within a week or so. Though I expect to remain busy with many other things, I should be able to spend at least a few hours here soon, and address a few issues as thoroughly as practical. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been far busier with many other things than I had thought I would be this weekend, and only have a brief time now to do QOTD work before leaving again. I still am expecting more time to be available to me in the next few days, but am likely to not get around to addressing some things as fully as I would like here for at least another day or two. ~ Kalki·· 23:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I definitely have not had as much time to attend to things here as I anticipated this week, and am becoming much busier with other matters. I happen to be in slightly less of a rush at this time of the day than I often have been in recent weeks, but must soon be leaving, and am hoping to find at least a few hours to do some work here within the next few days. ~ Kalki·· 00:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite hoping to have more time here today, I just arrived home a few minutes ago, have briefly checked in here, but must be leaving again in a few minutes. When I return I might have at least an hour or two available before I leave again, and will try to sort through some things then. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

monad image at Main Page QoTDEdit

You may have inadvertently gotten into a rut, or you may have some intentional reason for making this a permanent fixture of the Wikiquote Main Page, but I cannot imagine any sufficient reason for permanently branding Wikiquote in this way. Please stop doing this unless and until consensus is established to do so. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I realize that now that this habit which I had indeed begun over a year ago has become the subject of contention, I should present some of the reasons the small symbol has been employed — as mere "décor" to many, perhaps, but also as a sign of the profound integrity and unity of all humanity and all things. I do not have time to contend on the issue right now, but I will present some of the rational of why I had employed this mark on the main page for well over a year now, with no protest or opposition to it before the last few days, within the next day or so.So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There are over 27 million files hosted at Commons. I think we would be a better showcase of the whole Wikimedia endeavor if rather than repeating images, we could take advantage of the broad opportunities offered by that selection. BD2412 T 18:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Kalki, please note that continuing to add this image every day can be considered edit warring, as discussed at WQ:AN#Technical question re. what constitutes edit warring. Kindly refrain from continuing to add this image without obtaining consensus first. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Kalki, per the discussion at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Technical_question_re._what_constitutes_edit_warring, please refrain from using the monad image (or any facsimile of it, such as the symbol you used in today's QOTD page - which I have removed) until such time as its inclusion has been discussed and consensus reached, per the Image Use Policy (specifically the section regarding disputed images). Thanks for your cooperation in this. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SynchronicityEdit

So i added neohumean not as main Western (also inter alia neokantian outside anglosphere somewhere dominates) but as an example, at your wish (?) - i think, IMHO... waitin your decisions, also maybe my acronyms (PUC) distorted the form, what do you think about this? --Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


I have been very busy in the last few days, and remain so, so I did not have time to reply to your inquiry yesterday, when I first noticed it. I just examined your latest revisions and believe you are making relatively narrow and specialized distinctions and assertions in the intro to the article, where they are neither necessary nor appropriate, and thus reverted your changes.

Before your revisions the intro had read:

The concept does not question, or compete with, the notion of causality, but rather maintains that just as events may be connected by a causal relationship, they may also be connected by meaning without clear causal relationships — a grouping of events by meaning need not have an explanation in terms of cause and effect.

Though not all might discern this, the words "need not have an explanation in terms of cause and effect" basically covers any and all theories or ideas of causality which any mortal manifestation of mind or mindfulness could attain or embrace, without any need for further qualifications or distinctions.

Your latest revisions uses relatively obscure, uncommon and unnecessarily qualifying terms such as Neo-humean, AS IF they were standard, and links to the Wikipedia on causality as "narrow definition of causality" to extend it this to:

The concept does not question, or compete with, the narrow definition of causality (for instance neo-humean, predominating in anglosphere after ancient and mediaval period), but rather maintains that just as events may be connected by a causal relationship, they may also be connected by meaning without clear causal relationships — a grouping of events by meaning need not have an explanation in terms of cause and effect (however this is questioned for instance by PUC supporters i.e. by broader definitions of causality).

Many people can recognize and acknowledge that conceptions of causality can and do include relatively mysterious and mystical ones and not merely those phenomena within ranges of physically measurable or generally observable aspects of Reality, such as those which are common in the physical sciences, but we need not elaborately specify any of these, whether mystical or measurable, in the introduction.

Whole ranges of concepts of non-physical causalities can be questioned or affirmed from various ranges of perspectives born of various forms of knowledge or belief, and synchronicity is but one of many possible ranges of human notions which can be called into question or supported by various specific theories related to these. I do not believe it is necessary to get too specific with the ranges of support or contentions against the ideas from relatively obscure ranges of theory in the introduction to a page of quotes on the subject. I have been very familiar with the notion of Synchronicity since I was a young child, but until your additions had certainly never heard of any specific reference to "Neo-Humean" takes on the matter, and the term "PUC", which you are employing as if it were "standard terminology" is so obscure, that it has a total of 36 hits in an internet search when added too one for the more general and clear terminology "Principle of Universal Causation" (which itself is not all that common an expression, with less than 4000 occurrences on the search I did for that term). However such terms may or may not relate to Synchronicity, which has well over 5 million occurrences, I believe that they do not merit inclusion in the intro here. ~ Kalki·· 11:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC) + tweak

36 is somewhat strange number, repair ;) your search engine or try mainstream Google server:

https://www.google.com/search?q=PUC&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=vJupVcmnGIGgyAPry4Ig#q=PUC+%22principle+of+universal+causation%22

Partialy (anonymously) mine article about PUC on en-wikipedia has 1400 hits per circa 3 month rythm, but Your & Our article on synchronicity (with Your exclusive intro) here on wikiquote has only 400 hits per the same period so One shall not exclude any more people minorities (a penny saved is a penny earned) even if search-engine-democracy does the opposite we have also democratic-elite-lawmaking (don't be worse but equal).
I read about Jung and Synchronicity since about 1990' (while as a child (similary) I had read Polish edition of occult book "Nostradamus ..." by w:Francis X. King) but I was gradually dropping my support for Jung, because synchronicity brings too loose connections, "mental laziness" (w:Charles Tart) so new support for broader w:causal thinking could be motivating and safer: broader precise scientific/investigative digginng can reduce minor conspiracy theories.
You write you have only 5M hits for synchronicity, but please take a look I have over 6Millions hits for cause and in vast majority in neo kantian-scholastic (circa PUC) sense (moreover in relatively small language and not in anglosphere) for instance in Polish:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22casual+thinking%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=06KpVeOMHMmusAHN2JjABQ#q=Przyczyna

So i think one sentence, that there exist mainstream view and about not mainstream view should be added maybe in the end of the intro. It's only my humble opinion but I'm not a type of hard-worker and similary not a native English speaker (can't even use a/an/the) so for now I will not complete this contradiction until your decision because You work harder and longer here and so You have more power-mechanisms available "in case of" ;).--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Nota bene inspite of common root in obscure & obskórny (pronounced obscurny) in my old(?) country means inter alia very very ugly and dirty or destroyed (vor instance old damaged building in dark district)(only for w:camera obscura meaning is euphemistic: little-known ;) dark room).--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"revert — conceivably some very limited and dogmatically constrained notions of causality could specifically aim to exclude notions of synchronicity — but synchronicity in itself involves no dogmatism which excludes any general notions of causality."/Kalki

No my "dear", science and those philosophies I pointed out are not dogmatic when put in proper wording & method such as in example I gave, when words used are not in radical laconic dualism ambivalent black-white stereotype manner, but the notion of synchronicity you promote is dogmatic because you're constantly reverting all other views of it possible misinterpretation and possible misuses as for instance seeing magical radical dogmatic connections where there is none can simply lead to conspiracy theories, David Hand on synchronicity: standard science is enough to explain such events: roughly and strictly limiting of dogmatism is not dogmatism my "friend" but the opposite. --Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You are ARBEIT oriented that is not necessarily bad but more important are ethical basics.--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I like same real anarchists like w:Anarcho-syndicalism of w:Noam Chomsky but you look like pseudo anarchist: w:Anarcho-capitalism aka libertarian-ism supporter. --Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You should already know that the only powerful and real anarchy movement is w:Anarcho-syndicalism, the rest is practically nonexistant, and did not last, only this one saved some libertarians & anarchists[1]--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Poznań 2014, Msc. M. Drabiński, foreword Dr. w:pl:Rafał Chwedoruk (Warsaw University), "ANARCHOSYNDYKALIZM w EUROPIE teoria i praktyka", Oficyna Wydawnicza Bractwa "Trójka", Licence: CC BY-NC 3.0 PL (nota bene: even Wikipedia has more free License, but they need paper ;)

I have been so busy with so many things I did not have time to respond to your comments earlier, when you reposted this section here, and do not have much time now.

I can recognize and accept that English is probably not your primary language, but many of your assertions actually do not provide very clear statements of sense, as they use largely obscure terms or neologisms and jargon of very little familiarity to most people, including those statements you have attempted to add into the introduction of the article. You seem to me to be intent on publicizing your own particular ideas on a few things, and I have no objection to you doing this in proper forums, but the lines you have been adding to the article introduction have not seemed either helpful or appropriate to me, as resembling anything close to prominent currents of thought and expression on the matter.

You also seem to be making some rather unwarranted assumptions about the narrowness or specificity of some of the social concepts which I can or cannot appreciate, but I can and do have a great deal of respect for the applicability or appropriateness of a wide range of opinions, beliefs and strategies in regard to many matters, among those who consistently and fairly adhere to them, even those ideas which I ultimately tend to disagree with, or reject as not widely or permanently viable for many.

I remain a bit preoccupied with many other things, in the relatively little time I have been able to spend here lately, and I probably won't have time to respond much further to some of your assertions, even to the extent I can find some aspects of them understandable or valid. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 22:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Thank youEdit

Thank you so much for the warm and helpful welcome! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed banEdit

Kalki, I have failed to give fair notice but I would like to inform you now that I have attempted to begin a vote on enforcing a Main Page image ban on your account. This is due to inexperience/ignorance and not lack of courtesy/respect. I hope you understand and I reiterate that this is not personal. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

SourcesEdit

Self serving books aren't reliable sources. Second Quantization (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Minimal mandatesEdit

Hello, Kalki; I am here to politely ask you to elaborate on this sentence, which you wrote at the Village Pump here: "I believe too many people have too little awareness and respect for the actual PRINCIPLES of MINIMAL mandates with which the Wikimedia wikis were founded"
Precisely, I want to know more about this concept of minimal mandates and where and to what extent it is a part of the Wikimedia project. Perhaps you could show me some links to learn more? Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I will attempt to address your request within the next couple of days. I had been intending to elaborate on such things soon at any rate. I will probably need to make reference to Wikipedia policies and practices, and perhaps some of the general Wikimedia policies which have always been accepted as indications of appropriate guidelines or mandates here, more than those relative few that have been explicitly developed here, some of which I have stated in the past I believe actually violate and betray some of the most important of the principles and practices established extensively in the founding years of the Wikimedia projects as stated by many of the policy pages, the founders, and the founding workers on the projects.
I currently remain busier with many other things than I had expected to be at this point in time. Though I began this month expecting to have more time to spare than I previously had most of this summer, in recent days and weeks, though some of my more routine tasks and activities have diminished in the time I need to spend upon them, other incidental tasks and activities have expanded in unanticipated ways to take up more of my time. I now expect any days which do permit me to have a few hours of activity here, rather than a few minutes, are likely to be the result of good luck, rather than such expectations as I can rely upon. I am presently hoping the next few days might yield a couple of these, but also know I will be engaged in a few unusual and time consuming things as well. I have already begun considering some points of some more extensive responses to this and previous queries or comments at the Village Pump, but I have no doubt it will take me a few hours concerted effort to compose, trim and review everything to my satisfaction, sometime within the coming days. ~ Kalki·· 23:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I have as yet not had sufficient time to deal with this, amidst many other concerns. I just was able to check in here briefly the last couple of days, and now must leave again. I still intend to do a rather extensive exposition as soon as possible. I have only had time to do a few things here today, and I must be be leaving now. ~ Kalki·· 00:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Very well; I await patiently. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I was once again much busier elsewhere than I expected to be today, have only had the opportunity to check in here a very short while, and must be leaving again. I do expect MUCH more "time off" from other activities this weekend, and much of next week. I thus expect to have several days where I can probably work several hours at a time here, within the next week, and probably the week after that as well, and intend to use much of that time to address some current issues and discussions. ~ Kalki·· 00:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I cannot rename people's accountsEdit

Renaming people's accounts requires bureaucrat status, and that is something I neither possess nor desire.

I have stated a few times in the past that I actually cannot normally be reliably contacted by email, because I have often neglected to check on even my most used email accounts for weeks or sometimes even months at a time. I did happened to check one of my primary ones, which I use here, today, because I have recently been somewhat more involved with activities and options elsewhere, and I noted that there was very recently an email message by someone asking me to rename them here. I have not had that ability since I was a bureaucrat and personally do not wish those abilities back, as simply being an admin able to better fight vandalism and access and restore pages is about the full extent of any official privileges beyond those of any other editor which I actually desire here. ~ Kalki·· 23:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, local bureaucrats can no longer rename accounts either. Since user accounts have been unified globally, they cannot be changed on individual local wikis. It is handled by global functionaries. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

sourced quotes?Edit

Hello where can I find sourced quotes? Since wikiquote does not like unsourced quotes. --Fdena (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Any sourced quotes are quotes that provide sufficient identification of their sources. In the case of the Odd Squad page which you created sourcing would involve citing the episodes in which any expressions that you quote occur. ~ Kalki·· 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Brainyquote? etc

Where can i find good sourced quotes for people etc? Any help would be good. thanks. --Fdena (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Brainyquote is not considered a sufficient source. A source for any quote found without citation to published or recorded works found there or elsewhere should be sought through internet searches, especially in records of magazines or books online. ~ Kalki·· 23:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This is way to hard sorry i have a mental disorder so iam kind of slow. mentorship would be nice. --Fdena (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:ChampionEdit

Hi! FYI: usurp request on meta. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I replied there. I have no objections to this name now being usurped. ~ Kalki·· 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A Question About An ImageEdit

Hello, Kalki. I'm trying to add an image to a page I created yesterday, but I'm having difficulties: The page is for Harold Geneen, and the code I tried to use is :

File:Harold Geneen.jpg
Leadership cannot really be taught. It can only be learned.

Instead of the image that I wanted ( see Wikipedia page for Harold Geneen ) this code is producing a box with "Harold Geneen" in red letters, which I interpret as "File does not exist." I know you have worked with images extensively, which is why I'm bugging you with this question: what am I doing wrong, & what should I be doing instead? Thanking you in advance for any assistance you can give me - CononOfSamos (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the image is only a local upload to Wikipedia, under fair use, and not one available to free use at the commons, where all of the images we use here are located. Local uploads were disabled here by general agreement once the Commons became active, as far too complex and bothersome a responsibility for the limited active admins here to be involved with, in dealing with potential copyright infringements, and other problems. ~ Kalki·· 17:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very muchEdit

Kalki,

Thanks very much for your efforts at Quote of the day !

They're looking a lot better and more professional these days.

Also, I really like this choice :

Great quote about freedom !

Hope you're doing well,

-- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Your observations are noted. Within this world and many realms within it there is much freedom which has been constrained by the mechanizations of the crafty and clever and relatively witless and unwise. In this rather minor instance, what might seem "more professional" to some seems more simplistic, dimwitted, dull, drab, unimaginative and quite simple and easy and hardly worthy of time or note to me. That I am currently constraining myself to no more intelligent activities in making presentations for the quotes than any moron could in selecting only one image from those available and prominent at the commons makes me inclined to be much less involved spend much time here, and more involved in other activities where more intelligent activity is actually appreciated. I remain too busy with such things too spend much of my time here at present — but I expect that I will eventually have time to make further note on my own impressions, and many of the reasons for them, some time in the coming weeks. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Kalki, on reflection, your reply comments can seem like such beautiful and simultaneously hilarious poetry !!! :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Most of my statements are made with a careful balancing of various ranges of poetry and pragmatism. I do not have much more time to tarry here. I have to proceed to other tasks soon. ~ Kalki·· 23:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/October 26, 2015 = Kalki, this is another great quote related to freedom of expression, thank you !!! -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding my own creation (Quote)Edit

Hi Kalki,

I have question: Can I add my own creation of quote (statement) to the subject "Atom".
Is there any parameters that I should follow for this case.
Help me I am a beginner for doing this, you are so experienced Thats why I am asking you.

Thank you!

~ Sandeshkumar Madarwar (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If there are significant statements you wish to make regarding the atom, your user page or user talk page would be appropriate places to present them. It is not proper for editors to add their own statements as quotes into the articles themselves; when this has been attempted a standard template is often used, which reads:
Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field. Within bounds of Wikimedia policy, registered users can put quotes of themselves or people they know on their user pages. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
One's user pages can provide a means for presenting general quotes of others in special ways, as I and others have done on some of our user pages, and these could also include statements of oneself upon various subjects. I might deal more extensively with presenting options in the use of user pages and various discussion pages in coming weeks, as some things which have been keeping me busy are coming to an end (though I anticipate many new things shall begin to occupy much of my time). ~ Kalki·· 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Why I think the quote is problematic.Edit

1. It's his biographer. Why should the fawning statement of a biographer be quoted? 2. He never saw the performance. I know that because he's a FILM CRITIC, not a drama critic. 3. It's blatantly bs, and revisionist bs at that. Brando was never a Broadway star. His Streetcar performance won nothing more than a citation as "most promising young actor of the season". 4. To say he changed the rules of theater is ridiculous and frankly offensive to those who devoted themselves to the perishable but noble medium and thus have little film work to speak of. But that doesn't mean we don't know how they performed. I mean, if Brando rewrote the rules of the theater, Olivier invented the theater. Both are false.

I know I'm coming off as a pompous ass. And for that I am sorry. Monochrome Monitor (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Using quote of the day on WikipediaEdit

Can you help me with getting the Quote of the day on other wiki projects specifically Wikipedia via some template?

I was referred to your talk page by Cirt

You may be able to help?

It has been a long time since I have dealt to any great extent with many template and cross-wiki issues, and I certainly am not familiar with all the available options at this point. I do not know what I could immediately do in such regards other than creating and maintaining a page there that could be linked to, though others with more familiarity with cross-wiki links and their uses might be able to provide some other options.
I probably won’t have time to deal with the matter immediately, as I have many other matters to attend to. I might try experimenting and developing some options within the next few days, though I expect to be very busy with other things as well. ~ Kalki·· 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Great picture for the quote of the day, could I ask your opinion on Snow White and my about pages in general?Edit

I was wondering if I could get some writing feedback from you, there's a discussion about me and my work on the administrators notice board. I think the about sections I've been making are seen as a good idea, yet for some reason the one I made for Snow White has been singled out as terrible even though it's no different than the other 20 about sections I've made for major works of film and television.

Also I wanted to say great quote of the day picture as well, and that I liked the one from V for Vendetta. Are there any quotes from an anime you think would be good quotes of the day, I know translations can be a bit rough sometimes and the writing quality varies, there's a lot of good series to choose from though. I'll be going on an extended break soon, hopefully self imposed, just thought I'd say hi/bye as I've enjoyed a lot of your quotes, like Zig Ziglar. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I continue to be much busier than I had expected to be with other activities, and so I have not spent much time working here in recent days or weeks, and I have not yet examined your editing practices enough to make much comment upon them at this point. I still hope to have more time to spend here in coming weeks, but I have just recently arrived home, and I intend to leave again soon. There is quite a backlog of activities on my task list of things to do here, and I will probably attempt to examine your situation a bit more in the coming weeks. ~ Kalki·· 00:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm going on wiki break today. I've had some categorization problems, like thinking group think counts as an interpersonal relationship (there's no page for team or team work), or with a lock being a form of technology, but for the most part if a category I add gets reverted I accept it and don't make similar mistakes, just different mistakes, for the most part I see Ninguable's points. I only have 4 edits that are being reverted which I continue to adamently contest, though I'm not reverting them anymore, Snow White, robot, propaganda and advertisement; propaganda and advertisement are as much art genres as science fiction or fantasy. The large number of mythological automatons on Wikipedia should warrant including robots as mythology, religion and art for the historica, modern and eventually future automatons showcased as art. The background info for Snow White is more relevant than notes from Gene Roddenberry's secretary, which memory alpha regards as important. Saying animators aren't important but actors are is ignoring the importance of animators, puppeteers and other technical workers in the creative arts. It would be one thing if Snow White had as a character had as many animators as Smaug in the Hobbit film, but she doesn't, there' just two and the animator I mentioned is famous enough to have a Wikipedia page. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please move The Dark Knight to The Dark Knight (film)?Edit

Thanks in advance, allixpeeke (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

UDScott (talk · contributions) has already done this today. ~ Kalki·· 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

John KerryEdit

File:Paris Shootings - The day after (22593523647).jpg
This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. ~ John Kerry
File:Peace For Paris (Teen).jpg
I actually am interested in exposing and fighting against many forms of ignorance, confusion and stupidity without needless malice towards those most inclined to various forms of it, and without pardon or excuses for any forms of malicious intentions on the part of anyone. ~ Kalki

Nice try to dilute and change the focus of that (I admit embarrassing) quote, but what he says is still debased and idiotic. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of what he said was debased and idiotic, and debased idiotically also. It is ever the most debased and idiotic impulses of people which impel them to most persistently seek the emphasize or exaggerate the debased and idiotic in others, and to ignore, deny or denigrate the good, in magnifying and even exalting many forms of evil and stupidity. I certainly did not change the focus of the statement that Kerry was making by quoting it more fully; the abbreviated form which others chose to present highlighted only his worst semantic stumbling — his very awkward and stupid fumbling with words, idiotically emphasizing an idiotic misstatement. That might to some extent be permissible to many amidst many forms of adversity, but not actually advantageous to the actual intelligence and integrity of human beings. I put the quote of the misstatement into its larger context to somewhat counter the efforts of those who attempt to make such misspoken words seem actually maintained policy assertions. I certainly can agree that what he said was at more than one point and in more than one way quite foolish and idiotic, and in more ways than many fools and idiots can easily discern — but the worst statement which those of low rational and moral integrity have chosen to focus upon was immediately retracted and much of its error mitigated somewhat. I have rejected the debased logic and moral idiocy of those who seek to gain opportunities to promote particular forms of extreme hatreds and bigotries against proper human diversity with false associations — rather than to transcend and reject all the foulest forms of false assertions, false association and foul bigotry. In extending the quote somewhat, to more of his statement he actually made, I simply provided more of the context of it. He obviously misspoke and and immediately corrected himself, to some extent, and I retained both the idiotic statement and the retraction of it, within the context of the general intention of the statement against the barbarity of terrorism and the rationales which support them. ~ Kalki·· 03:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC) + tweak
("I have rejected[embraced] the debased logic and moral idiocy of those [you, Kalki] who seek to gain opportunities to promote particular forms of extreme hatreds and bigotries [Islam] against proper human diversity" – FTFY.)
You write: "I certainly did not change the focus of the statement that Kerry was making by quoting it more fully ... In extending the quote somewhat, to more of his statement he actually made, I simply provided more of the context of it." Except that you put in bold whatever resonated with you personally, and not what made said idiotic statement notable in the first place. ~ DanielTom (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Why should the idiotic mis-statement be the one which is made most notable? Why should attempts to make the stupid mis-statements of anyone seem justifications of stupid attitudes or policies some seek to promote not be countered with exposure of the fact that the comments quoted by them were clearly a stupid misstatement? When stupid statements are actually characteristic of personal or social policies advocated, they might properly be made more prominent with extensive exposure, and not be redeemed at all by further extension of such statements. I certainly am not as much interested as many people are in putting people down, emphasizing their mistakes and the most stupid aspects of their actions or statements, and the denigrating of many aspects and forms of Humanity. I actually am interested in exposing and fighting against many forms of ignorance, confusion and stupidity without needless malice towards those most inclined to various forms of it, and without pardon or excuses for any forms of malicious intentions on the part of anyone. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 11:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
John Kerry: "There's something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they're really angry because of this and that."
Kalki: "the general intention of the statement [was] against the barbarity of terrorism and the rationales which support them."
????? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I will point out the FACT that I certainly have NOT claimed that the rationale of Kerry's statements to the extent that you have been willing to quote them are of of great integrity or worth, but was asserting that the statements he was making beyond those you choose to emphasize so as to mock have greater notability and worth to most people who are not actually obsessed with finding ways to mock other people. You can stupidly repeat the most stupid aspects of his remark in order to make me seem to be stupidly assenting to something I actually do not, and people of shallow minds and petty interest in broad and deep issues might be satisfied with that, but people of integrity will merely be irritated. I am quite aware that there are all manner of distortions which can be made of people's statements and their general implications by picking and choosing portions of them in malicious ways so as to seem to make logically valid points through reliance on the fact that many people are not inclined to have much concern beyond what remarks might be presented to them in devious and deceiving ways, and little inclination to recognize or discern omissions and distortions that would be evident to further unprejudiced investigations.
The statements which immediately follow those you quote are those to which my assessments and assertions more properly apply:
This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, “Here we are.” And for what? What’s the platform? What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are? They kill people because of who they are and they kill people because of what they believe. And it’s indiscriminate. They kill Shia. They kill Yezidis. They kill Christians. They kill Druze. They kill Ismaili. They kill anybody who isn’t them and doesn’t pledge to be that. And they carry with them the greatest public display of misogyny that I’ve ever seen, not to mention a false claim regarding Islam. It has nothing to do with Islam; it has everything to do with criminality, with terror, with abuse, with psychopathism…
Those not much interested in maintaining respect for truths of great significance, so much as appearances of truths which can provide them some apparent advantages in their pursuit of shallow and petty interests and aims, might even admire such maneuvers as might seem clever to the malicious, in ignoring most of the context in which my statements were made about most of the context of his, but I cannot claim to have either much admiration for them, nor surprise at them. I now have other things to attend to once again, and soon must be leaving again, for at least an hour or so. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The rest of his statement in no way contradicts what he said about the Charlie Hebdo attack. Kerry clearly sees a "rationale" for the Charlie Hebdo murders, it was not a "mis-statement". But again, nice try. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Images on Ethics (Spinoza)Edit

I dispute your restoration of these images to the Ethics (Spinoza) page, which I consider to be irrelevant to their accompanying quotations:

An emotion, which is a passion, ceases to be a passion, as soon as we form a clear and distinct idea thereof.
The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but there remains of it something which is eternal.
How would it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labour be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected? But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.
The mind has greater power over the emotions and is less subject thereto, in so far as it understands all things as necessary.

I especially reject the use of this Raelian symbol:

Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this issue and make discussion, that we may resolve this disagreement. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A few immediate comments …Edit

Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage.
One and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and indifferent.
There is no individual thing in nature, than which there is not another more powerful and strong. Whatsoever thing be given, there is something stronger whereby it can be destroyed.
Imaginations do not vanish at the presence of the truth, in virtue of its being true, but because other imaginations, stronger than the first, supervene and exclude the present existence of that which we imagined…

I thank you for inviting further discourse upon the matter, and for not again Immediately removing the images. I recognize that the use of at least the one you most object to is certainly questionable in this matter, and that of ANY image or association which human minds can make between separate indications of ranges of ideas or statements or signs is ALWAYS subject to inquiry, doubts, denials or affirmations, and I am usually inclined to welcome the activities of those who can and do appreciate such facts, even though their own inclinations or levels and types of explorations, determinations and perplexities might be far different from my own. I believe that quite a variety of interests and involvements on the part of individuals is very healthy for most individuals themselves and for most societies and endeavors in which they participate.

Though certainly not intending to embrace or endorse any claims of the Raelians with the use of one of their symbols, I actually think that original version of the symbols they have used is quite a notable one, and yet recognize that it can be disturbing or distressing for many reasons, as can some of the ideas of those most inclined to use it, but in this regard I thought it quite appropriate to start a sequence of several images using or evoking both "Solomon's Seal" or "Star of David" and the Swastika in various divergent contexts, as indications of the diverse uses and applications they can have, in regard to human rationality, irrationality, and emotions which usually involve BOTH, and not merely entirely one or the other. I presented these symbols or similar images in relation to a variety of their uses, in ways generally considered indicative of either "good" or "bad" by many people.

The processes of awareness, acceptance and appreciation of all the indications and expressions of aspects of Reality which we encounter are such as impel a constant tallying of the constant interplay of impressions, imaginings and many forms of potentials and actualities within the realms of our perceptual and conceptual experiences. A "moderating and checking the emotions " and I used that symbol as a pertinent and extreme example of the necessity of doing that.

I believe that the use of ANY image, sign, or symbol, including words, to help rather than hinder the development of rational and ethical integrity involves RECOGNIZING the capacities for VARIETIES of rational and emotional associations, and not being fixated upon only some of these. To be "absolutist" or absolutely exclusive in the associations one permits or impels can be unhealthy in many ways, and in the senses of the word which have been used since the time of Francis Bacon, can be quite "idolatrous." I of course use the word in a very broad and secular sense, involving forms of absolutism, and noting that the scorn of images and the counting of them or their use as innately idolatrous and associating of them only with forms of idolatry is itself a from of extreme idolatry, and intolerance of other associations which they can have.

In the section of Ethics Geometrically Demonstrated "Part IV : Of Human Bondage, or the Strength of the Emotions" I simply used several images to illustrate and highlight some of Baruch Spinoza's statements, some of which I have placed in sequence, on the side here. An extensive elaboration upon the associations such images can or do have in relation to the assertions Spinoza makes is not something I have time to present right now. I might proceed with such matters, later, but hope that some indications of their relevance can be discerned without immediate specifications of many aspects of these.

Throughout my life I have noted many deficiencies, flaws and forms of pettiness and pettifogging in many forms argument to either present or suppress many expressions or even indications of many forms of vitally important and broadly significant ideas and simply have not yet had the time to address many of them, in regard to this project, as concern with such things in more general society is occupying much of my time and study of various situations. Much of recent weeks have seen me too busy to address many matters so much as I would like to, here, and I must soon be leaving, again, at least briefly. I might do more in terms of responses here later today or tomorrow. There are a few other matters I probably should attend to here soon, which have thus far been neglected, but I remain very busy with a variety of tasks involving other concerns at this time, and expect the next few days shall involve extensive activities and a few more extensive travels than are normal for me. The year as a whole has thus far been one in which I have been far more active in several regards than I had expected, and am preparing for an even more intensely engaged period next year, and addressing some very extreme concerns I have not yet sufficiently explored, with some periods of respite and rest from many activities hoped for, and even anticipated.

I might elaborate more on the other images, later, and respond to a few other things here that I have neglected, but don’t have time righty now, as I am preparing to again leave, for at least an hour or so, and probably will only check in here briefly later, and it is likely I will have time to be online only briefly, a few times a day, for at least the next few days. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I must respectfully say that I do not understand your response. I still object to the use of the Raelian symbol and others; shall we present our dispute to the community at the Village Pump and seek resolution that way? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is Kalki hates clarity. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Two moves requestedEdit

I moved The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film) to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in order to bring the title in line with the way it is titled on Wikipedia.

But, when I attempted to do the same thing with The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film) and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (film), I was unable.

If you could do that, it'd be much appreciated.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!  allixpeeke (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Another move requestEdit

I cannot move Basic Instinct (film) to Basic Instinct.  Thanks in advance.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!  allixpeeke (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
That was actually done by Miszatomic (talk · contributions), before I had gotten to it. I have usually checked in here only briefly in recent days. ~ Kalki·· 00:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Then my thanks to Miszatomic!  allixpeeke (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And another move requestEdit

X2 to X2 (film), please.  Thanks in advance.  allixpeeke (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!  allixpeeke (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet another move requestEdit

Memento a Memento (film), por favor.  Gracias.  allixpeeke (hablar) 02:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This has now been done. ~ Kalki·· 11:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Quote of the dayEdit

Howdy, Kalk-Kalk! I was wondering, how exactly is the Quote of the Day chosen? Is there a voting process of some sort? – Illegitimate Barrister, 07:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In the first years of the project, I initially did all the selections with a bit of input from others, and eventually developed the process of having pages for each day where people could make suggestions and provide rankings. I have usually done the final choosing from among the top ranked quotes for each day, but occasionally make late additions of new ideas related to the days, or to significant events, such as recent deaths of prominent people. Adding a few more ideas was once far more common, before the pages became as full as most of them now are, and most of the pages have quite a number of good suggestions, and only a few have very few. ~ Kalki·· 23:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop forcing your flawed interpretation of quotes upon Wikiquote readers. Your ignorant and misleading choice of images in a Bertrand Russell QOTD a few of months ago greatly disturbed me, and now you're doing it again with Thomas Gray. Hadn't you agreed on 8 September 2015 to use only one image (preferably of the author) in your QOTD layouts? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please continue to follow the community consensus of a single image for the Quote of the Day, which we established only recently and after much discussion and a voting process. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I can definitely perceive that there is a clear lack of intellectual and ethical competence evident in the asinine, deficient and flawed assessments of many things by some people who I perceive to be very prone to demand compliance with their constrained notions of what others can or should do.
I can recognize and do concede that at this point, I have neither the time nor inclination to even attempt to deal immediately and directly with all the complaints of those I perceive to be very ignorant and confused, who often seek to insist that their own narrow, shallow, dull and sometimes profoundly oblivious views and forms of hypocrisy are the ONLY views which should be respected or even permitted to be indicated in any prominent ways.
Even with some of my previous tasks of the year diminishing, or being entirely finished, there is a strong possibility that I might not be able to spend quite so much time here in the next few months as I would like to do, so I will presently go back to further tempering some of my activity to such standards and demands as I quite honestly believe have been devised with some of the most stupid of assumptions, by the stupid, for the stupid, and in the service and devotion of many of the worst forms of mechanistic stupidity — and I realize I might seem very stupid for saying that — but I have never claimed to not be quite stupid in many ways — though I am quite joyful my own forms do not include seeking to constrain others beyond a just and proper respect for Liberty. No matter how stupid I might seem or be, relative to the standards of others, I had begun rejecting the quite common forms of the profound stupidity of seeking to absolutely control, command or constrain others when I was but a young child — and have always thought such traits deplorable, even in relatively innocent and naïve children — but especially contemptible when they persist strongly in people into their adulthood, with both subtle and overt attempts at censorship, oppression and suppression of many diverse ideas.
Over the next few weeks, with what time I expect to be available, I will probably attempt to review some of the statements of myself and of others in this past year before attempting to present some significant new ones of my own, here and elsewhere.
As I can and do acknowledge that it is not likely I will have sufficient time to indicate some of my own assessments to effectively counter those of some others to what I believe might be a sufficient extent until some time next month, or perhaps even later, I repeat that I will defer some of the inclinations and demands of some to conform to their very apparent will to force me to conform to such overly constraining directives such as best suit their own narrow, shallow and mentally constipated perceptions of many things, until such a time as I do have a bit more time to make clear some of the reasons I can and do and must make such more limited assertions as these, of simply giving some brief indications of how petty, paltry, obnoxious and arrogantly dictatorial they seem to me. There is so much to indicate — and so little time to indicate it. I again must be leaving, very soon, but might do a bit more here later, if other things don’t keep me too busy elsewhere. Have a Happy Kwanzaa — and a good Boxing Day. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Kalki, let us be respectful with each other. At the Village Pump we recently had a large and inclusive discussion regarding appropriate image use on the QOTD. The community showed a clear consensus in favour of adopting a single-image policy which you acquiesced to. Do you now dispute the single-image policy? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I am being far MORE respectful of some people and some attitudes that have been evident than they REMOTELY DESERVE. I am being HONEST with the MENDACIOUS, and as CLEAR as I can be with some who are clearly limited in their mental and moral capacities. That is FAR more respectful treatment than they have provided me. I will make MORE of the nature of my disputes and objections to many false and foul assumptions apparent in coming months. I don’t have time to get into many details of these now, nor will I likely do so for at least a few days, as I now expect to be VERY busy leading into the New Year. I have just set down a few days QOTD in advance, and am now in the process of updating the suggestion pages before leaving. Thus I don’t expect to necessarily even be checking in here much for a few days — so one might say I intend to take a short wiki-break of sorts, but I know I will probably glance in at least once a day. I have a few other things to take care of before I leave — and need to be out of here within the next hour or so — so I probably will not do much here after I do a few updates. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
But what is your position regarding the QOTD single-image policy? Do you intend to abide by it? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I will make at least this one more thing a bit more clear, before leaving — what you are referring to as "QOTD single-image policy" is NOT an OFFICIAL policy and I strongly believe it should NEVER be — I had expressed my willingness to defer to some attempts to promote various demands of those who sought to constrain my work on the QOTD pages, because I could plainly see that to deal effectively with MANY of the arrogant and asinine assumptions which were evident on the part of some people would take far more time than I had available, and this is still the case. I have not even replied, as yet, to some of the most foul and asinine bits of mendacious and false assertions on this page — as there was clearly an effort on the part of at least a couple of people in recent months to play the troll. I don’t have time to give a thorough assessment of my impressions of many things right now. BUT I currently AM complying with demands I honestly believe to be asinine — and will probably continue to do so, until I have had time to effectively argue against them, hopefully within the next month or so. ~ Kalki·· 00:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas and GOD JUL!Edit

Merry Christmas! and may all have a Good Yule, as God Jul and the wheelings of the Wyrd of worlds beyond all words abides for ALL. Aum Shanti Om. SO it goes.

Had meant to do more here today and yesterday — but as usual was far more busy with other things to spend much time here.

There was a record breaking warmth this Christmas Day across the entire eastern regions of the US, but snow is said to be on its way next week, as winter finally begins to make itself felt in the region in which I live.

I had been rushing about in what is probably a bit more than usual way this holiday season, as the end of a rather busy year approaches, but expect I shall have a bit more time for computer work and other at-home tasks in the next month or so. For at least the next couple of days I expect to remain mostly very busy with other things. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The one on Budhism is actually memorable; though it would work better for Wikipedia if you can find a source. I can understand science.Edit

She is just as obscure as most of these game programmers and graffiti artists; or the doctor arguing against the effectiveness of anti depressants. I'm done for now as it was reallyjust Disney movies left for me and cleaning up what is determined to be my mistakes. Overall though I did more good than bad and doing something else will be good before going through those Disney movies. Sorry if this ends up being more than 10 edits in the end; I thought being more inclusive was better than less as all these people have fans. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually have a rather high tolerance for inclusion of statements of notable specialists on relatively specific subjects, but just did a google search for "Kathy Castro" dominatrix — to get a sense of the notability of this professional dominatrix you have apparently been quoting on numerous pages and had 26 hits — which hardly seems to qualify her as a highly notable commentator even on her specialty of sadomasochism, let alone on the broader subjects of science, Buddhism, ‎Slavery, Smallness, Feet, Fantasy, Euthanasia, and Genomics where you have also added statements by her. I have removed 2 of these already — and will likely remove the rest, but I have other things to attend to for at least an hour or so. ~ Kalki·· 23:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Other things kept me busy after I made the above comments, but I see that others have attended to removing some of these additions which clearly do not merit a great deal of attention, and do not meet the standards of notability usually applied here. I will probably add some more comments on such issues eventually — but remain rather busy at this point. ~ Kalki·· 00:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Why NOT the image?"Edit

I know you (unlike Trump) love Obama, so I'm not going to keep reverting your POV pushing, but since you ask – obviously that quote was said before Obama had done anything (just like he won the Nobel Peace Prize very early, before going on to start more wars and kill more alleged "terrorists" via executive orders than the number of terrorists the Bush administration arrested and tortured – while still complaining about Guantanamo with a straight face; but I guess it's better to be hit by a missile and explode into pieces than to be tortured). And in long pages, I feel images should be used sparingly to highlight (or bring attention to) the very best quotes (like the ones from The Art of the Deal). But okay. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You make many assumptions, as many people do, some rightful in many ways, some wrongful in many ways — and emphasize some fantasies about facts or fictions, some of which can be very helpful to Humanity and others far more dangerous, detrimental and harmful to it. I love Humanity. I love ALL Awareness, Life and Love — but do NOT claim to be so aloof from mortal aspects and ultimate necessities of Humanity to love all ASPECTS of ALL Awareness, Life and Love. I love people to the extent I believe they manifest and serve Humanity, and many great aspects of ALL — and to the extent they denigrate or deride them, I can despise their ignorance and confusion and stupidity. I do NOT embrace or promote hatred or intense malice towards even to those I consider most vile in their inclinations and assertions — but to the extent they make assertions or produce actions or circumstances I consider vile, and conducive to various forms of ignorance, confusion, error or evil, I can and will have contempt for many of the attitudes and inclinations they manifest. I have VERY mixed feelings about MOST people — and to say that I love anyone or hate anyone is to have very simplistic notions of what I or others ARE or can BE or can DO, such as I have rejected since infancy. I don’t have time to elaborate on rational, ethical or mystical matters now, and will probably refrain from doing so here, to the extent I easily could — because I have more urgent and important matters to attend to at present, and am likely to remain busy with other things, elsewhere, for far more time than I would like to spend on them. But so life goes — and I love LIFE, always and everywhere — to the extent I encounter it — and even with much respect to the extent I cannot. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 21:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

My apologies for the 3 quotes you reverted.Edit

I know I already thanked you, but I wanted to say I'm sorry for wasting you and everyone else's time with an internet figure it should have been obvious wasn't notable. Looking at the pages with inadequate citations, I see even people with Wikipedia pages may not be suitable to quote; nor are there ultra niche quotes always useful for theme pages; like Martín Palermo. I hope I'm getting better and not worse at east. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I recognize that some of your edits seem to have more merit than some previous ones. I have not had time to make note of all your edits, but still find some a little problematic, though some of those I have glanced at recently have been better than some of the previous contributions. I recognize you have been having dialogue and contentions with others, but have not followed all of it, and am not likely to attend to it a great deal any time soon. I have had some problems with some edits which I have observed, but not enough to become heavily involved at this point. There are some relatively minor formatting problems I might address soon, with some of the contributions of you and a few others — but I really am too busy to spend much time here today. I have many things to take care of before I leave within a couple hours or so. ~ Kalki·· 21:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

ThanksEdit

Thanks for your help on this article. – Illegitimate Barrister, 23:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Getting article on search engines.Edit

I was wondering how to get Google and other search engines to recognize Anonymous Organization?

When I type it in this comes up Google search results

Any help at all in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and I bid you Good Day.

Anonymous President (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Anonymous President

I just happened to check in here a few minutes ago, and am preparing to leave soon, but I moved the page you improperly created in article space to your user pages — where ANY such pages should be created as a subset of your "user-space" — such as a page for "User:Anonymous President‎/EXPERIMENTAL PAGES". I am NOT interested in getting your efforts at self-promotion a greater Google hit status — and that is NOT what Wikiquote exists for, and I really have never been too focused on quantities of hits made here, so much as maintaining important ways of providing searchers access to accurate quotes when searching for them. I have not thoroughly examined it, but the page you created has quotes you find interesting and minor essays on your views of things, which others may or may not find significant. ANY such essays or endeavors are probably tolerable and permissible as long as they are not merely commercial spam, but IF such self-promotion is what you are primarily interested in here, you might find yourself increasingly unwelcome or even blocked or banned from the WIkimedia projects.
I had not checked in here much today, and will probably be around just a little while before making a couple excursions, so I might not reply to any responses before a final return here, some time later today. I sometimes check in on things here on my iPhone, to see if anything drastic needs to be done, but I seldom edit pages from my iPhone, because I find it very tedious and difficult to do. Please take into consideration Wikimedia and Wikiquote policies on the creation of ARTICLES here — I am sure you have interesting perspectives to contribute — but ANY contributions in article space should AVOID the expressions of merely personal opinions, and primarily stick to such information and facts as are generally verifiable. ~ Kalki·· 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

MailEdit

I have sent you mail, thanks. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandal, but I am declining that request for now, unless the owner of the user page requests such an edit as you suggest. I usually do not concern myself with removing the records of asinine vandals from my own pages, and others might not wish this done either. ~ Kalki·· 00:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I wanted the revision hidden is because it is grossly offensive. I did not want Eagle storm to see that, because we don't know... maybe he might have depression? We don't know. + We hid grossly offensive attacks at en.wikibooks and meta. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

special QOTDEdit

Harper Lee and Umberto Eco both died yesterday; what do you think of adding two more quotes to today's QOTD (e.g., "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it", and "We live for books", respectively) as a tribute? ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to use "In youth we are prone to fall in love with love." for Eco; I will post these below the current QOTD shortly. ~ Kalki·· 13:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I have posted a layout with both of the above authors, using a higher resolution image of Harper Lee than was previously available — but the Commons server currently seems to have some problems displaying some images; I expect this to be over with shortly. ~ Kalki·· 14:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotes thanksEdit

Thanks for picking my suggested quotes for QOTD! – Illegitimate Barrister, 00:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I just arrived home again, and scanned a few things. Thanks for correcting my error in attributing it — I have thus far used a "3-key key" to trigger credits to myself and a few others on the suggestions — but have pasted your name and others into mine, when I have not made such a key. Within a half hour of leaving, I suddenly realized I had been in such a rush, that I wasn't sure I had properly credited it, and meant to look up and correct it from my iPhone, if I had erred — but then got distracted and didn't think of it again until I noticed your correction. I will have to make one up for you now, so that is less likely to happen in the future. I have MUCH on my agenda, but I will probably work on a few pages and create a few, sometime in the next week or so. There are several that I have had in mind for years, and I believe I should finally get around to soon. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 03:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
No apology needed, 'twas an honest mistake. Thanks again! – Illegitimate Barrister, 03:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


original research?Edit

[3] [4] – their Wikipedia articles don't even mention absurdism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As an absurdist philosopher, with a great affinity for mystical ethical rationalism, and a great deal of good humor, like that evident in the writings of the great absurdists Kurt Vonnegut, and Robert Anton Wilson, as well as the more somber reflections of those who helped developed the seeds of modern absurdism, Simone Weil and Albert Camus, and broad ranges of exploring minds within and beyond such ranges as many can perceive, I have a very broad and inclusive view of both absurdism, and philosophy generally. There is also barely any mention of Jesus as a philosopher on his Wikipedia page, and some have objected to him being declared that, or "merely" that, or being accepted as that at all — while many philosophers among both Christians and non-Christian traditions are willing to accept him as clearly one of the greatest and most significant philosophers of all time — certainly among the most famous — but that designation remains "controversial" among those who lack a great deal of sense. There are are many discernments that those more prone to accepting many foul and unhealthy absurdities and rather ill humor of highly exclusive categorizations might find difficult to accept, for a time — but I have confidence that appreciation of many forms of vital truths will gradually grow, and this year might well eventually reveal many long standing absurdities, weaknesses and evils of various forms of shallow minded exclusions, and policies of exclusions and blind hostilities, amidst rather rigorous idolatries which abound in many diverse ideologies of many types. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 20:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I will assert that the most advanced forms of absurdism and many forms of philosophy have a very profound base in a competent process of Semiosis, though few would actually call it that — and a competent semiotician PERCEIVES the processes of semiotics EVERYWHERE. This I have done since INFANCY, though it was probably around the age of 5 when I first began to have confirmation of some of my own discernments in beginning to learn in earnest of some of the principles exposited by Socrates, Plato, Charles Sanders Peirce, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, Samuel Beckett and the imaginative expositions of Lewis Carroll, Edwin Abbott Abbott, Albert Einstein, George Gamow and many others on broad notions of dimensionality within Reality — and have often been amazed at how dull and stupid people who don’t have a profound appreciation of many ambiguities and potentials indicated by semiotic competence and and mathematical and conceptual dimensions of reality quite often remain, in regard to many things. ~ Kalki·· 20:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
  • You are wrong. Laozi I don't know much about, but Socrates' absolutist theories of knowledge and ethics make him the exact opposite of an absurdist. Maybe you should stop projecting your own philosophical inclinations onto others? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
OF COURSE I AM WRONG — in your very dim perceptions of many things. To quote The Illuminatus! Trilogy : ONLY THE MADMAN IS ABSOLUTELY SURE.
I will state quite politely that you are plainly very ignorant of much, and the processes of projection that MOST people regularly engage in — ESPECIALLY, dimwitted absolutists, who fail tor realize that absurdists CAN and DO assert the reality of ABSOLUTES — the most competent of them simply reject the abysmal ignorance and confusion of those who believe THEIR NOTIONS and IDEAS about SUCH are CERTAINLY the BEST or ONLY ones which MUST be accepted and approved by ANY and ALL others as UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTES for ALL, and take generally fascist means of apparently "proving" this — often by banding together with those MOST prone to resort to fascist relations between human beings, seizing upon reasons to hate and exclude MANY forms of truth and beauty, rather than permitting them to flourish, or even survive. I pity those who remain in such darkness — but also know many would prefer to remain comfortably blind than to see the vital light of the vital truth of Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love of ALL— or even to permit others to see it. ~ Kalki·· 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
  • 1) Whom do you consider not an "absurdist" under your (absurdly loose) definition? 2) Could you please name any encyclopedia that classifies Socrates as "absurdist"? Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That would indeed be difficult to do — but I am very tolerant and charitable to the lack of discernment of many people — and the greatest ways of absurdism have a VERY light yoke — and are willing to consider a joke such insistences of absolutists and many types of idiots laying down heavy or impossible burdens upon others, in order to be considered "respectable" or valid at all. I consider most people who lack a profound semiotic competence as extremely ignorant of much of truly vital importance — but realize that MOST people can and do recognize at least SOME of the absurdities of their own perceptions and stances — and I would consider that core of humility to be among the primal seeds of competent absurdism and many forms of vitality — in that there are signs of capacity to grow in capacities of intelligence and life. I usually reserve the designation "absurdist" to those who have demonstrably reached some of the heights of wisdom, humility and courage, and recognized the absurd lies and falsehoods which could potentially be served by their most earnest and honest assertions — and the most profound virtues that are often served by the most stupid and vile of imbecilic lies, such as many of their adversaries and the foulest fascists of the ages have depended upon and relied upon — for a time. Those who reject the authoritarian and nihilistic ranges of many profoundly stupid absolutisms are well on their way to greater mental health, and becoming competent absurdists. The wise KNOW that ambiguities and absolutes ABOUND — ALL as part of an Ultimate Necessity they would much rather celebrate and cherish and help others to more greatly appreciate — rather than place too many constraints and bonds upon capacities for human enjoyment and growth than most could safely bear. ~ Kalki·· 23:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
  • If you can't find a single encyclopedia that agrees with your (inaccurate and misleading) classification of Socrates as an "absurdist", even conceding it to be a "heavy or impossible burden", why should we classify him as such on Wikiquote? Because Kalki says so? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You are free to quite often troll here, so much as you have, because people like me accept the need for many forms of intelligent and stupid beliefs to present themselves in many diverse ways, until they are recognized for what they are. I accept that you are clever in some ways, and even wise in very limited and highly constrained and immature ways — but I accept also that you can yet grow in wisdom. If you are so shrunken and shriveled in your present capacities for wisdom, that you insist this great philosopher, who recognized MANY of the limits of words and definitions and the varieties of their applications and misapplications, and asserted "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." is NOT an absurdist, you are free to remove that tag — I probably would not be inclined to immediately contest such ignorance, because I am quite aware that there are many more ignorant fascists likely to join with you than there are intelligent absurdists who would join with me in defying many pervasive forms of fascism. I would assert he was a very great semiotician as well — though I doubt I could presently find one encyclopedia which describes him as that either. But I cannot tarry here much longer, and must be leaving soon... after I return I will probably try starting at least a few pages, within the next day or two, and prefer not to get too involved in much discussion on the absurd distinctions both idiotic absurdists and idiotic absolutists can make. ~ Kalki·· 00:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Vatsoc.jpg  
I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.
~ Socrates ~
  Lightning hits tree.jpg

Things are busier here lately…Edit

I am very pleased to see that many diverse forms of contributions are picking up here — after a long lull of many years where it seemed much activity was discouraged and stifled. I remain busy enough with other things to normally be able to check in here, at most, only a few times a day, usually only briefly, but have just increased my default view-range of the Recent changes pages from 222, where it has rested for many years, to 444 pages, where I expect it might remain, in order to have adequate scope of checking in on most changes since my last visit. I am just making note of this with gratitude to those who have been increasing the contributions regularly made here, before I go about doing some of my daily tasks, and leaving once again. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC) + tweak

Donald TrumpEdit

I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car. ~ Penn Jillette

It was you who missed the point of the Penn Jillette quote. The part of the quote you chose to highlight (for political reasons – you are shamelessly trying to push for Hillary Clinton) is absolutely trivial: there are many people who would vote for Clinton over Trump. What Penn was trying to express is something much more interesting, viz. that while he likes Trump (not the first time he calls him a genius), he wants the President to be at a different level; he expresses this idea more eloquently in other interviews. Re the other images, at least the quote from his wife tells us something about Trump – but it was you who added the images, I would not have done so. The quote by Ivana Trump is even more obscure, no reason to highlight it. (I think you added them to try to cover your Clinton-pushing.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I have contempt for the hypocrisies of MOST politicians, and for most deceitfully craven attempts at censorship and suppressions of opinions. You have disgracefully, shamelessly and irrationally made all manner of assertions which lack either awareness or respect for many aspects of both truth and justice. I too, much like Jillette, will confess that I actually do like much about the boldness of Trump, and have no malice toward him at all as a human being, and have actually been strongly amused by the fact that he is prone to some unusual forms of arrogance and candor in presenting it, though I, also quite like Jillette, STRONGLY disagree with many of his opinions, assertions and quite evident attitudes and aims in regard to MANY things, and abhor his infantile narcissistic inclinations, his propensities for childish tantrums, and the many profound and obvious, or subtle forms of extreme deceitfulness and hypocrisy, and or obliviousness to MANY realms of knowledge, and his clearly immature forms of emotional outbursts, intolerance and hostility to those who dare oppose his inflated opinions of himself and various mercantile, mercenary and fascist means of intimidation and "persuasion". I like Penn, and MANY others, among Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, would consider a success of his egotistic drive toward the presidency not only a disaster for the United States, but a severe endangerment of Humanity. I object to your attempts to remove prominent indications of the clear expression of the primary points of a prominent person such as Jillete, who is VERY familiar with him, and whom you have claimed to admire, has to make about his opinions of his candidacy. I believe that you are simply quite aware of the potency of someone with such intense antipathy for the Clintons express that despite those, he would consider it his duty as a rational and ethical individual to support the relatively mild governmental hawkishness of Hillary Clinton, over the extremely Hawkish demagoguery of Trump, and his appeals and pandering to the most bigoted, racist, xenophobic and fascist inclinations of very ignorant and confused human beings. ~ Kalki·· 15:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
To be fair, Penn also disagrees with Trump on "just about everything". For the "Quotes about Trump" section, the quote in full is fine, but your biased choice of caption (above) – making it more about Clinton than Trump – is not. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You've opened Pandora's box. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I previously deferred commenting, slightly astounded at your lack of discernment of many things — and I am not inclined to comment to the fullest extent I can any time soon — but am adding some of my inclination to responses to notable promotions of the foulest forms of fascism here:
 
Düsseldorf, Rosenmontag 2016, politische Karnevalswagen (05).jpg

The stuff [he] is saying on immigration, the stuff he's saying on torture, the stuff he is saying on war, is absolutely unforgivable ... He is coming out directly against the Statue of Liberty. … I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.

~ Penn Jillette ~
 

So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 19:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. AmbedkarEdit

Hello Kalki ji, it's great that you are watching Dr.Ambedkar's page from a positive point of view. I am proud to know that. However there are some quotes which are anti-muslims and anti-Islamic which I think are quite problematic and controversial. I think that Dr.Ambedkar would never say such things against Muslims and Islam. There is no online source available to verify the same. I am just requesting you again to remove them. Terabar (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually just came to my computer a few minutes ago, after being away a while — I was familiar with the fact that these quotes have been deleted before, and they seem to be sufficiently sourced and legitimate, despite whatever one wishes to make of their character. I just began to format the positive quotes you added, relative to him, as we use interlinear formatting here — but I have not double-checked them as yet, nor applied final formatting to the page. I will probably deal with that and a few other things I just noticed elsewhere, within the next hour. ~ Kalki·· 19:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The man who added such controversial quotes on Dr.Ambedkar's page is also spamming other pages with anti-islamic quotes. For example over here He is anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic. Those quotes are still cannot be online verified. We must provide some online sources to verify such controversial quotes. Dr.Ambedkar is not Anti-Islamic in general. RSS misquotes him always to present him as Anti-Islamic and Anti-Muslim. See for example this. Top RSS leader misquotes Ambedkar on untouchability. So I again request you with joined hands to remove such quotes. Terabar (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have extended one of the statements you directed me to, to make as clear as possible that, though they do contain criticisms of fanaticism in any traditions, it is not, on the whole, anti-Islamic in nature, though the portions selected were presented as if they were. He is clearly being critical of fanaticism, and does have some criticism of the dangers of inspired prophets who retain emotional attachments that could be of dangers to themselves or others. I generally disapprove of a tendency to focus upon the worst aspects of people, and to emphasize those, as generally resulting in a strengthening of the worst aspects and potentials of people in oneself, as well as in others, and not a genuine emphasis on such potentials of humanity as can best dispel the tendencies toward negations and denigration of those truths which are most beautiful and vitally important, and have been generally emphasized by all the greatest minds of the ages, and their enduring testimonies, including those of Muhammed, and many others. I don’t have time to deal with all the problems I am aware of, here and elsewhere, but am addressing as many as I can, to the extent I believe I properly can. I will probably attend a bit more to some of these pages within the next week or so. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
You don't seem to know anything about Islam, Islamic culture, or Islamic values. Criticism of Islam, for example, is not allowed in Islamic countries and societies and is generally punishable by death. Leaving Islam or changing your religion is also punishable by death. There is a reason that the majority of Islamic countries score the lowest on quality of life measures, including the mistreatment of women, abuse of animals, minimal to no democratic institutions, and the lowest measure for charity and respect for non-Muslims. In virtually every measure, Islamic countries come dead last, from freedom to independent thought. In Pew poll after poll we find that mainstream Muslims, not radicals, oppose democracy, oppose free press, oppose the equality of women, and support sharia law. In poll after poll we find mainstream Muslims sympathetic with terrorists, sympathetic with those who oppress and kill non-believers, including atheists, Jews, and Christians, and generally hostile to Enlightenment values. When one looks at the hard data, examines the evidence, and summarizes the facts, one is forced to conclude that Islam is incompatible with Western values and cannot be treated as equal or the same with other religions which have either reformed over time or have become secular and westernized. For you to claim that Muhammed was a "great mind" is quite possibly the most ignorant statement you could make. There is no redeeming value in the Koran or any other Islamic document. 166.170.49.252 01:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
IF I were to ever encounter a human being who was omniscient, devoid of bias and considerate of the innate biases which exist in all mortal perspectives who yet agreed with your assessments of me, my ranges of knowledge, and of your opinions as to the innate fiendishness of any forms of Islam, and of the pervasiveness of fiendish fanaticism among those who count themselves muslims, above and beyond all other forms of fanaticism, I might give a bit more credence to your assertions, but as such an innate impossibility is rather more than unlikely to be encountered, and given the fact that it is often difficult to find humans uncorrupted by some forms of foul bigotry, among MOST religious, non-religious and anti-religious factions of humanity, I will simply forgive you for your displays of yours, and get doing things that have more immediate utility than trying to contend about such matters with bigoted fools and fanatics of any factions here. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 02:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
Pew polls are pretty hard to "contend" with... But the IP is wasting their time: Kalki lives in the USA, and will let no fact disturb his feelings/bubble. He may pay lip-service to freedom, but after the Charlie Hebdo shooting – in which cartoonists were shot in the head because of drawings – he implied they had it coming (quoting "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
You are either engaging in a FECKED UP bit of SLANDER or simply OUTRIGHT STUPIDITY (There were other ruder and much cruder comments I was inclined to make, but restrained myself from declaring — but I will simply state that I consider it a delusion of paranoid bigotry IF you are inclined to believe such nonsense as you just stated). As to polls — I make no contentions against the facts that there are widespread forms of bigoted stupidity among many muslims — as there are among MOST factions of humanity — of which many examples can be provided. Those who seek to enumerate the bigotries of others to justify or excuse their own are among the most common sort of pathetic bigots among all factions. Fortunately most are NOT usually inclined to become active extremists in their actual practices — but extremist attitudes and inclinations are nurtured and sustained by such bigotries in many factions of humanity, and give rise to the worst forms of terrorism and tyrannies. ~ Kalki·· 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Your argument, that so-called "Islamophobia", or discrimination of some kind, is responsible for the rise of Islamism or radicals of any kind is easy to disprove and demonstrably false. This canard has been and continues to be trotted out by governments and media on a daily basis without the slightest bit of evidence. Meanwhile, ethnic group after ethnic group has faced real discrimination over the decades, including Italians, Irish, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and more. When faced with real prejudice, these people and communities didn't murder innocent people in the name of superstition and religion. They didn't kill and maim children in the name of an invisible deity. Instead, they worked hard and became good citizens, started businesses, educated their children and contributed to society as human beings. When it is so easy to prove that "Islamophobia" does not exist, nor is it responsible for any kind of terrorism, we must then set our eyes on the real problem: Islam. 166.171.121.154 08:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC).

Human Peace Sign crop.jpg
~ Peace on Earth ~

I actually imply and am willing to state in no uncertain terms that in ALL cases of bigotry we should focus on the ACTUAL and PRIMARY and ESSENTIAL problems — which are those of BIGOTRY — and the WILL to do HARM to others and their proper RIGHTS and LIBERTIES as CAN be recognized or ignored or denied within all Human societies — ranging from the most sincerely Humane to the most unapologetically brutal. I will assert that your ASININE assumption that it is MY argument that ""Islamophobia", or discrimination of some kind, is responsible for the rise of Islamism or radicals of any kind" is ITSELF a product of a BIGOTED DELUSION which fails to discern many aspects of both radicalism and extremism. I will acknowledge that SUCH forms of IDIOCY are certainly as easy to refute as my refutation of your PRESUMPTION that such arguments MUST be MINE — but I will not deny that the growth of fears and hatreds among many have contributed to the growth of fears and hatreds among others. I will assert that forms of extremism which are widely called Islamism and MANY other forms of ASININE BIGOTRY among ANY or all factions of Humanity are forms of FALSE and FOUL IDOLATRIES — which make FOOLISH, GULLIBLE ABSOLUTIST BIGOTS seize upon WORDS and LABELS by which they can assert to others similarly ignorant and confused and gullible and full of many prejudices and presumptions that these words reliably or even ABSOLUTELY represent "ABSOLUTE GOOD", or "ABSOLUTE BAD". Throughout human history UNTO THESE TIMES — such words of ABSOLUTIST SCORNFULNESS have included terms such as "Islam", "Christianity" "Religion", "Atheism", Paganism, Faith, Science, Evolution, Democrats, Republicans, "Conservatives", "Liberals", "Progressives", "Socialists", "Capitalists" and "Communists". The PRACTICE and sometimes the POLICIES of MANY bigots throughout the ages have been to seize upon some WORDS or other signs towards which people can be or have been taught and trained to have VISCERAL and AUTOMATIC reactions with very little capacity or inclination for considerate thought or reflection. Even many of the best and wisest of people can be very skilled at using strategies involving such tactics when they perceive them necessary or unavoidable — but many of the worst and pettiest are eager to use them whenever they CAN, however haphazardly and erratically.

I do NOT ignore or deny that throughout human history MANY forms of bigotry FEED on the asinine assumptions of OTHER forms of bigotry, but I would be NEARLY as DELUDED as you or many other bigots are, IF I were to say that was the SOLE or even primary cause of such forms of ignorance and confusion, ERROR and EVIL. There are USUALLY many forms of ignorance and confusion and STUPIDITY involved.

MANY FALSE ASSUMPTIONS and assertions such as those you present are easily used to argue for fanatic intolerance of such intelligently broad minded and strong tolerances as mine — IMPLYING or INSISTING that IF I am NOT hateful of such bigots I must be FOR them — or that IF I do not HATE those which others hate than I certainly MUST hate THEM — ands wish them harm. Such attitudes are indeed pervasive — but it remains evidence of the potential good and healthy will among all people that the vilest forms of insanity which they CAN produce and which drive people to overt terrorism and tyranny of the most extreme forms are relatively rare.

Though very capable of INTENSE ANGER and FIERCE FURY — such has made others QUAIL to even witness on the VERY RARE occasions I have unleashed it with great force against the unjust efforts and aims of others — I will assert that I am NOT hateful or malicious towards human beings but I confess to sufficient "bigotry" to be hateful of MANY forms of bigotry which encourage SUCH forms of hatred, absolutist exclusions, unjust oppressions and various forms of slavery, murder and genocide — such as are clearly evident in the psychopathically deluded idiots who serve DAESH. Many who consider themselves good Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and religionists or atheists of MANY kinds embrace such views as promote hatred, intolerance and ARE USED by the very IGNORANT, CONFUSED, SICK, PSYCHOPATHIC and SOCIOPATHIC minds MOST prone to engage in acts of terrorism and tyranny.

I did not immediately notice your posting here, because I actually had other things to do and then caught some sleep. After awakening I took care of a few other things, and then checked in here, and began attending to QOTD work and some relatively brief explications of some VERY complex matters which I know will NOT be sufficient to dissuade many forms of bigotry from persisting, but at least provide a point of departure to some, from some of them.

In regard to DanielTom's rather SICK, PRESUMPTIVE and EXTREME misconceptions as to what I had previously indicated or even IMPLIED, before moving on and attending to other things than those occurring here, KNOWING that I NEVER would have made such ASININE assertions —  I double checked on how the DELUSION that I ever had might have arisen in his mind: it seems to have stemmed from the fact that the day AFTER the ATROCITIES of the Hebdo assaults — the quote of the day display was this one with a quote of a very admirable Quaker pacifist social-activist whose views I had been familiar with since my early childhood.

Plumbbob Fizeau 001.jpg
Strikes over Nitmiluk.jpg
Nuclear artillery test Grable Event - Part of Operation Upshot-Knothole.jpg
 
Monad.svg

Quaker Peace Star.png
Christian Socialism Anarchism.svg

The psychological basis for the use of nonviolent methods is the simple rule that like produces like, kindness provokes kindness, as surely as injustice produces resentment and evil. It is sometimes forgotten by those whose pacifism is a spurious, namby-pamby thing that if one Biblical statement of this rule is "Do good to them that hate you" (an exhortation presumably intended for the capitalist as well as for the laborer), another statement of the same rule is, "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind." You get from the universe what you give, with interest!

~ A. J. Muste ~

Quaker Star JUL.png
Libertarian Socialist Flag.svg

  Dove window St Peters Basilica (8504106313).jpg
Ying yang.jpg
First peace badge.jpg

Though I do not pretend to agree with all the opinions of such admirable people as A. J. Muste and other Quakers, the FACT is that I had developed and selected that layout AGAINST ALL FORMS of VICIOUS WILL and VIOLENCE — the day BEFORE the attacks — and first POSTED it to be used at 03:42, 7 January 2015‎ UTC — well before those ASININE ASSAULTS of extremist terrorists on extreme satirists occurred. To IMPLY that this signifies an APPROVAL of such ATROCITIES is itself AN ATROCITY — One that I can certainly bear because it is so clearly absurdly a MISINFORMED MISINTERPRETATION of my INTENTIONS — but that people can insist in such absurd opinions is veritable PROOF of dispositions to many forms of bigotry among MANY people.

I recognize and accept that BIASES are INNATE in human beings — and MANY of these are quite natural and unavoidable — UNLIKE many casually scornful bigots, I do not resent or fight many natural or understandable biases — like the biases of myself and those of MOST forms of Life and Love for continuances and growth of many forms of Life, Love, and of Light and Liberty of MANY kinds. Bigotry is a term I reserve for such extreme and ACQUIRED biases as are PROFOUNDLY STUPID — such as a bias towards nihilism, tyranny, terrorism, death and destruction — which are often NOT directly susceptible to MANY forms of reason, rationality and logic — because the KNOTS and TANGLES of CONFUSED CONCEPTIONS are so complex and intricately entrenched in the thought processes of individuals who embrace them. It usually REQUIRES a sever CRISIS to break through many of the layers and forms of delusions which make self-supporting structures of HOSTILITY and HATRED to those which do not embrace their forms of assessment, judgement, and will to PUNISH and control, even when those with more extensively observant and generally coherent and rational forms of assessment would deem these not actually necessary or proper.

At a VERY young age I recognized that IDOLATROUS BIGOTS embrace AND magnify the FOUL IDOLATRIES of other foul bigots in DEFENSE and PROMOTION of their own FOUL BIGOTRIES. I am willing to be such an ICONOCLASTIC rejector of IDOLATRIES of any kind, whether of words or symbols or NOTIONS of human minds — that I am quite willing to be labelled a "bigot" — because I am willing to CONFESS that I am in many ways clearly beyond the reach of persuasion to such realms of bigotries as ensnare and enslave the most foully bigoted into paths of Nihilistic IDIOCIES.

The QOTD today is one of another great mind who I was familiar with to some extent by the time I was 5 or 6 years of age:

 
We may fight against what is wrong, but if we allow ourselves to hate, that is to insure our spiritual defeat and our likeness to what we hate.
~ Æ ~
  George William Russell.003.jpg

And having cited this a few other associated expressions came to mind, including this one I had also become familiar with by the age of 5 or 6:

Washington Before Yorktown.jpg  
Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored — contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man — such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care — such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance — such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
~ Abraham Lincoln ~
  Abraham Lincoln by George Peter Alexander Healy.jpg

This somewhat fortuitously, for just yesterday I was reflecting upon options available to me in regard to MANY complex matters and concerns, far beyond those I regularly deal with here — and recognizing that once I said certain things — the DEED of SAYING would be DONE — and what I had said could NOT be unsaid, and what I had done could NOT be undone — and MANY RESULTS would follow — but there is much yet to be said and done before I make full disclosure of what ranges of assertions I am referring to.

The Path of Righteousness — of intense and coherent SELF EXAMINATION as well as examinations of others — can be called Dharma, Dao, or simply DISCERNMENT of MANY aspects of ANY indications or determinations that exist in MANY traditions — INCLUDING many forms of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

Throughout all the traditions and inventions and improvisations of Humankind, WE are ALL on UNIQUE paths of Awareness, Life and Love — and MANY of US can HONOR and CHERISH this FACT far more than others. I have been very demonstrably on an UNUSUAL paths of Dharma since my infancy — as I was remarkably contending against false and frustrating presumptions about right and wrong, necessity and choice, and many appearances of freedom and fixity of events and eventualities even then. By the time I was 5 or 6 I had clearly mentally PROCESSED many aspects of the distinctions of prejudices and presumptions which infected and infested MANY religious and political traditions — and recognized that even contending against just the WORST of these would be a VERY complex problem.

To such ASININE IDIOTS who might wish to presume or imply that I myself am some sort of "namby-pamby" pacifist — or even an INSANE APOLOGIST for EITHER terrorism OR tyrannies, because I do advocate and engage in many forms both calm and passionate promotions of higher perspectives to overcome the intense passions of many forms of lower ones, and such pettiness as NEARLY EVERYONE encounters in their daily lives, I will state that I have long recognized I have a VERY powerful capacity for FURY when outraged by the assaults of others upon my own or other people's proper dignity and rights — and since EXPERIENCES of earliest childhood, in the very first 18 MONTHS of my life, I have always acknowledged that this should be tempered by my own will and discernment of the proper NEED to FORGIVE others for their forms of ignorance and confusion — even as I FIGHT against their frustrating intentions and delusions — and this I have generally been able to do to an extent that has sometimes amazed those FAR more prone to either panic or cowardice — or hatreds and resentment of those who can produce either of these qualities in themselves.

I will state that since the age of 5 or 6, when I was able to begin to very actively and deliberately study the ideas and expressions and history of the lives of many GREAT Individuals and very GOOD idealists and poetic pragmatists of profound principles, among the heroically artistic, scientific, technological and philosophical endeavors of Humanity there has probably been very few days when I did not reflect extensively on many of the good and great things MANY have done, AND some of the errors or mistakes MANY have made, OR upon MANY mistakes which others have made in their shallow and ignorant assessments of them. Though I am not inclined to entirely ignore or deny the worst aspects of humanity, individuals, and various groups, I have long been far more inclined to focus upon the BEST aspects of individuals and humanity, rather than fixate upon the worst in them — and believe that this is a very beneficial attitude to usually embrace.

There were some things I am planning to declare elsewhere, under various persona, at various sites, which I was very briefly inclined to say here and now — but I reflected upon a few other things, and decided to remain patient and let MANY things begin to be discerned more gradually. Just in the last couple of days I have consulted with others on things I expect to keep me VERY busy in the coming week. I remain FAR too busy with URGENT imperatives to deal with other things I assess as far more immediately and ultimately important to get too extensively involved in disputing many complexities apparent here.

I will take the time to state WE all have MANY persona and many diverse forms of subtle and overt influence — and when people are very constrained to the conceptions of these and seek to constrain the persona and influences of other human beings to very narrow and shallow forms they are most inclined to appreciate and exalt or deride and denigrate there can be disastrous consequences to such disastrous forms of will.

Since the earliest years of my life I have recognized that many forms of absolutist idiocy and stupidity is at work in MOST minds — even at times in my own — and yet absurdist intelligence and wisdom which can perceive beyond absolutist delusions is ALSO at work in most minds, especially so in the minds who develop many diverse forms of Kenotic Awareness, by which they transcend many particular appearances of many things — and this permits humans to attain greater glimpses of true absolutes and actual relational and relative aspects of them and of ALL things than the bigoted views touted by many forms of shallow and narrow absolutism grounded in very selfish and partisan and ideologically idolatrous perspectives and attitudes.

I have much now to attend to — and expect to be gone MOST of the day — and most of most days and nights for at least another week, and probably more. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 16:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

I had scanned through various options for tomorrow's QOTD before leaving yesterday — and had selected several as good — among them was this, which I posted earlier today, before responding here, and it is probably relevant here, as well:
CEHughes.png  
We still proclaim the old ideals of liberty but we cannot voice them without anxiety in our hearts. The question is no longer one of establishing democratic institutions but of preserving them. … The arch enemies of society are those who know better but by indirection, misstatement, understatement, and slander, seek to accomplish their concealed purposes or to gain profit of some sort by misleading the public. The antidote for these poisons must be found in the sincere and courageous efforts of those who would preserve their cherished freedom by a wise and responsible use of it. Freedom of expression gives the essential democratic opportunity, but self-restraint is the essential civic discipline.
~ Charles Evans Hughes ~
 

I am considering doing a few more things here before leaving for most of the day— but probably won't have time to attend to all of them. ~ Kalki·· 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Kalki, you quoted approvingly "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind" on your talk page the day after the Charlie Hebdo shootings. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I quoted the STATEMENT approvingly — and STILL do — but you are FALSELY implying that I am thus IMPLYING approval of the ASININE assaults of intolerant imbeciles upon satirists. Your pointing out the fact that I also used that layout I presented above on my talk page after the event, clarifies a few more aspects of your rather absurd rationale — but hardly excuses it, or your past misdirections or SLANDERS of EITHER myself OR Obama which was the topic of that section then, where I similarly asserted as I do now "The future must not belong to slanderers" — of ANY SORT — whether in the BLASPHEMOUS MISUSE of the NAMES of some religions or religious OR of secular ideals.
I do note that you direct to an edit I indeed made after the attacks, when I posted a statement of Obama in the FULL CONTEXT of what he was stating, after your posted it only partially:
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support. ~ Barack Hussein Obama
And AFTER having made that CLARIFICATION against selectively DISTORTIVE quotation of one portion of the statement OUT of context, I reposted what the just had been posted as QOTD, with the statement:
I have stated many times, that though I am NOT an advocate of initiating any form of violence, I am also NOT what some might regard as a "pacifist", inclined to placidly submit to it — but close my comments with a posting of what had actually been the QOTD layout on the date of this disgraceful incitation to bigotry, which is a reminder that there are grave dangers in this word ALL of them involving BIGOTRY and CALLOUS DISREGARD of Human life and human rights — and not all of them motivated by mystical excuses so much as selfish and social IGNORANCE and CONFUSION.
This all fully accords with my consistent points of view then and now. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 17:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
Which is precisely the problem. Your point of view is at odds with what Muslims actually think. And I quote: "Ater the abominable Brussels bombings, it's time for us to feel shame and to stop acting as if the terrorists are a rarity. We must admit that they are present everywhere, that their nationality is Arab, and that they adhere to the religion of Islam. We must acknowledge that we are the ones who gave birth to them, and who have made them memorize the teachings of all the Salafi books. We must admit that it is the schools and universities that we established that told them the others are infidels." There you have it. Now it's time for you to change your point of view. Stop blaming problems with Islam on non-existent "bigotry" and discrimination. 166.171.123.38 03:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nadine Al-Budair asserts A GENUINE devotion to pure Islam MUST REPUDIATE such ERRORS and BLASPHEMY as are widely used in support of terrorism.
In defying and opposing many forms of bigotry, I am quite willing to be labelled as a heretic or an imbecile by various imbeciles who consider themselves orthodox or wise adherents of many forms of faith or scornfulness of faiths.

You declare in a somewhat ambiguous way that my "point of view is at odds with what Muslims actually think", and then quote Nadine Al-Budair in your assertions, who IS a Muslim VERY courageously speaking out AGAINST terrorism and forms of bigotry AMONG those who identify themselves as Muslims on a Saudi television network. I am quite acceptive of the likelihood that my points of view are what MOST BIGOTS within as well as outside of the ranks of those who consider themselves Muslims would declare to be "precisely" a problem — to be ridiculed and scorned — and falsely identified as supporting such OTHER forms of bigotries as they are most prone to scorn. She certainly is NOT declaring that Islam the problem, as you seem to be attempting to IMPLY — she is speaking out AGAINST the long standing identification of such BIGOTRIES as terrorists embrace and promote as properly "Islamic" as the problem. She courageously DOES assert on Saudi Rotana Khalijiyah TV that "The Terrorists Emerged from Our Schools and Universities" — and that there are forms of Salafi jihadist BIGOTRY among those who self-identify as devout Muslims which produced such disposition to terrorism — and that a GENUINE devotion to pure Islam MUST REPUDIATE such ERRORS and BLASPHEMY as are widely used in support of terrorism.

I certainly do NOT doubt or deny that there are many people who identify themselves as righteously Muslims, Christians, Jews, or atheists who are VERY BIGOTED against other human beings of various traditions, and MANY who are NOT. I ALSO do not doubt that ANY and ALL people who identify themselves as righteously anti-muslim, anti-christian, anti-jew, anti-atheist or anti-agnostic are innately VERY BIGOTED — whatever ELSE they might wish to call themselves.

I will concede that my points of view are at odds with what MOST BIGOTS think — whether they believe themselves righteously muslim, or "righteously" anti-muslim — or "righteously" christian or "righteously" of ANY sort of religious, unreligious or anti-religious philosophies or traditions. I will confess that I have very little timidity or dislike of offending the shallow and narrow sensibilities of ANY bigots — whether those who think themselves virtuously muslim or virtuously anti-muslim or virtuously atheistic or virtuously theistic — I do NOT define or constrain by notions of virtue to such forms of IDOLATRY as they.

Bigotry ALWAYS has VERY PETTY and constrained views of righteousness involving EXCLUSIONS and INDIFFERENCE or OPPRESSIONS towards the excluded. What I, and MANY of the assertors of many diverse traditions of broadly appreciative ideas and philosophies, including those in many schools and traditions of atheism, agnosticism, paganism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Humanism consider genuine righteousness, are NOT idolatries or ideals defined by exclusions of people who embrace or reject certain ranges of traditions of reverence or worship — or words or labels. There are ideals which transcend labels and notions which are used to exclude many or most people of even slightly differing views from consideration, as well as those with very vast differences.

I acknowledge that there are very blindly asinine bigots who consider themselves "good" muslims, "good" christians, "good" jews or "good" atheists — that there are you are presently BEING such a blind asinine bigot that you cannot see that your views are simply an asinine bigotry when you persist in declaring MY VIEWS are one which is "blaming problems with Islam on non-existent "bigotry" and discrimination" — I consider MANY forms of bigotry among MANY sorts of people a major problem — and I do not doubt that they have a pernicious persistence which will not easily fade away with my own or anyone else's criticisms or censures — and certainly will not and cannot fade away with my own or anyone else's approval or concessions to their bigotries.

To refine my assertions a bit more I will repeat and clearly specify some of my assertions even further: I am NOT some imbecile claiming that ALL forms of BIGOTRY are EQUAL as MANY types of bigots OFTEN either DO or imply OTHERS do, in various regards. I do NOT ignore or deny the FACT that there are MANY diverse varieties of forms and levels of fanatical bigotry in different groups of bigots — EACH and every BIGOT and each and every range of bigotry which exists present unique cases of bigotry — something MANY bigots of all sorts are quite OFTEN LOATHE to acknowledge — and are often INCAPABLE of acknowledging so long as they are steeped in various forms of Bigotry which seek to place ALL blame or MOST blame on OTHER forms of BIGOTRY than their own.

I am NOT someone who believes even the foulest of bigots can be considered totally beyond redemption, so long as they retain some forms of rationality, but asserts that ultimate redemption into forms of genuine Righteousness consists in REJECTING all the foulest forms of idolatry and bigotry — and in NOT embracing or worshipping or promoting ANY forms of IDOLATRY or bigotry or insisting that others do so — be they labelled with names considered either spiritually or socially sensitive and sensible or religiously or politically correct. In defying and opposing many forms of bigotry, I am quite willing to be labelled as a heretic or an imbecile by various imbeciles who consider themselves orthodox or wise adherents of many forms of faith or scornfulness of faiths. I once again have taken more time than I would like making clear some aspects of my stances against BIGOTRY — be they considered pro-religious or anti-religious — I must NOW start attending to other things, and be leaving soon. ~ Kalki·· 08:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I have two concerns mostly unrelated to the main topics raised in this thread that I hope you can clear up for me as it makes communication difficult: 1) It isn't clear why you are attached and clinging to the concepts of bigotry and discrimination when neither is under discussion. We are discussing the criticism of religion in general and Islam in particular. Bigotry and discrimination have no part to play here. 2) You are an internet veteran so I'm confused why you use excessive bold and uppercase when the first thing newbies learn is to avoid this because the reader interprets it as shouting and raving. Surely you know this but you do it anyway. Another editor up above said you don't do clarity, which is extremely odd as that is the very essence of composition in this medium. I've also noticed that you prioritize that which is "mysterious" (more of an emotion than a real thing) over evidence and that which emerges into awareness in a shared reality. I get the sense that you are playing, inhabiting a virtual reality of sorts. This makes conflict resolution difficult. 166.171.122.181 09:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The BIGOTRY of ASSUMING that ALL MUSLIMS — or adherents of ANY other major religious or non-religious traditions — ARE PRONE to EXTREMISM and TERRORISM — is something I am NOT inclined to label as anything other than BIGOTRY — and I am NOT afraid to appear to "SHOUT" that fact, against persistent efforts to IGNORE or DENY that such IS bigotry. I am certainly AGAINST the bigotry of TERRORISTS and TYRANTS who THRIVE on promoting bigotries in the name of Islam, as well as those who promote such AGAINST the name of it — or of ANY other religion — EITHER sort of attitude can and DOES produce unacceptably STUPID and UNJUST attacks on a diverse range of quite proper FAITHS. I can and DO forgive people for MANY forms of ignorance and confusion which produce many forms of bigotry — but I am NOT prone to excuse or pardon people who persist in forms of bigotry from my making quite clear I am quite willing to SHOUT about it — or FIGHT about it even more vigorously, if that is necessary. I use such emphasis to make clear to those who promote a tepid vacuous stupidity of very PASSIVE indifference that there are people who DO reject assumptions that such stances are ALWAYS wise — sometimes there SHOULD or MUST be shows of PASSION against UNJUST assertions. I generally use SOME but tend to use MUCH less emphasis when I am engaged in normal levels of conversation and am NOT prone to "shout" much when outrageous assertions are not being made by others. I actually have very little time to do many things, before I must be leaving — and must attend to them, before I leave for most of the day. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 10:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks — The very ROOT of all forms of terrorism and tyranny IS bigotry.

The very ROOT of all forms of terrorism and tyranny IS bigotryEdit

I would like to make an observation: you are intentionally injecting irrelevant concepts of bigotry and discrimination into a discussion about the criticism of religion in general, in particular the terrorism and tyranny of Islam based on its relevant source documents which claim Islam is the only true religion, and even make the claim that this is final and cannot be discussed on penalty of death. I will also observe that your insistence on shouting and raving is a form of violence intended to silence critics of religion, in the same way that Islam preaches death to the infidels and those that doubt or question it. Are you aware that you are doing this? There is wisdom in recognizing and acknowleging delusion, which we all suffer from time to time. 107.72.97.93 11:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You are stating my use of a form of EMPHASIS on my assertions is "a form of violence intended to silence critics of religion, in the same way that Islam preaches death to the infidels and those that doubt or question it" — are you aware how FANATICALLY STUPID and ABSURD an EXAGGERATION and DENIAL of various ACTUALITIES that actually IS? Am I attempting to "silence" you or declare you worthy of being killed for displaying YOUR forms of fanaticism and stupidity in INSISTING on the appropriateness of YOUR bigotry — and equating my indications of passionate opposition of it to preaching "death to infidels"? What a far less than "quaint" way of obliviously rationalizing your attempts to diminish my efforts to simply respond to what began with the asinine declaration — of someone with a stance of intense opposition of ANYTHING Islamic: "You don't seem to know anything about Islam, Islamic culture, or Islamic values." THAT was hardly something which supports the assertion that my assessments are "intentionally injecting irrelevant concepts of bigotry and discrimination into a discussion about the criticism of religion in general" — they are responses to criticisms of ME and of ISLAM in PARTICULAR — in a very marked display of VERY IGNORANT and very presumptuous prejudice and bigotry. INDEED: "There is wisdom in recognizing and acknowleging delusion, which we all suffer from time to time." SOME MORE PERSISTENTLY than others. I actually know a great deal about MANY varieties of Islam and MANY other traditions — I actually am QUITE aware of MANY deficiencies and flaws in MANY of them — including similar assertions towards intolerance that exist in other religious scriptures of other traditions. Because I do not adhere to some form of BIGOTRY appealing to you, it seems that I am NOW assessed as not merely knowing NOTHING — but of actually advocating or desiring the death of those who disagree with me!
I am quite aware of MANY forms of promoting atrocities and oppressions and DECEPTIVE double-talk in regard to "justification" of them, within and beyond various religious and political traditions. I certainly do NOT embrace unjust oppressions nor promote them — nor seek to focus upon any of these which do exist in many texts as TYPIFYING the attitudes or actions of ANYONE who identifies themselves as members of traditions which contain some scriptures with such flaws. I certainly am NOT an absolutist "literalist" or "legalist" in regard to presumed perfection of ANY of the scriptures of Humanity — but I accept all the major texts as including much which is good and beautiful — and MOST also including many diverse examples of such deficiencies, flaws, errors and ugliness as are inherent in many forms of human discourse. All attempts to treat them as totally perfect or totally worthless or totally evil in ways that they are NOT are efforts I consider very misguided efforts toward evil — but not all of them as extremely ridiculous, noxious, dangerous or persistent as some which primarily are works seeking to promote or justify hatred of human beings and human societies. I have met many representatives and adherents of MANY of the major religious traditions, and many diverse forms of atheism and agnosticism, and usually have gotten on well with most of them — and I would say that most have certainly been inclined to get along well with others without demanding abject obedience to their particular traditions, no matter what examples of such opinions might be found in the scriptures or ranges of evidence which they are most prone to accept. I really don’t have much time left to spend here as I must leave within the hour — and have not been able to attend so much as I had desired to, to many significant matters, because of the time I have spent attempting to clarify many things here. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 12:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Ah, the "ALL MUSLIMS" straw man, and countless other fallacies and false equivalences. (Kalki never disappoints!) My advice to the IP: don't expect Kalki to entertain or rationally consider the points you are actually making. He loves to pontificate, insult and feel superior to others, but lives in a very fragile bubble. I think you got it right, that Kalki himself tends to be bigoted towards anyone who upholds enlightenment ideas and values, mainly because he perceives them as a threat to his own childish beliefs ("mysticism"). (I mean "childish" literally – Kalki often tells us he came to them at a "VERY" young age.) But don't take it personally – he calls all sorts of people "bigots" (not just you or me) quite gratuitously in many different discussions. Ctrl+F "bigot" just to get an idea of his obsession. (He's probably fighting some inner demons.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We are all imperfect and in possession of flawed characters. There are two points I am interested in discussing in this thread: 1) the communication style used by Kalki which makes it difficult to correspond effectively, and 2) the arguments made by Kalki which have serious logical issues. Let's not focus on personal attacks. Now, to your point, DanielTom: I quickly reviewed the talk archives to see if what you claimed has merit, and it appears you are correct. Kali misuses the terms "bigot" and "bigotry" so much so in past discussions that the term has become all but meaningless. This is an unusual set of circumstances. If I had to guess, I would say that Kalki abuses these terms as a form of defense and as a rejoinder to anyone who questions and criticizes religion. This is, as far as I can tell, manifestly dishonest and unhelpful behavior. I would like to therefore ask Kalki to stop using the terms (and any and all related words) for the remainder of this discussion. 166.176.57.70 21:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

undo blockEdit

Kalki, I don't have the energy right now to explain to you why your block of an admin was a mistake (even from a tactical point of view), but I must say that I do not believe punctuating citations is a blockable offense. And I don't think you can say that your blocking of BD is the implementation of community "consensus" because such a penalty was never even considered by the community. Pls undo the block while you still have time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I was about to unblock him when I saw your notice with the edit summary "I believe he is capable of reasonable deference, as am I — and will not proceed in IMPOSING an UNPOPULAR styling upon the pages of the wiki." But I tried twice, and it said there was no such block — so I am not sure what is occurring in this regard. ~ Kalki·· 01:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't realized the block must have expired even as I was trying to end it — I had also been busy with other things while it was on, and time passes quickly, especially when you are doing much, and I must be leaving soon, for at least a brief time. I had clearly intended the brief 1 hour block to simply be an act of clear objection to what I believe to be improper disregard for what had repeatedly been rejected by a clear consensus of most who had commented upon the matter. So it goes. ~ Kalki·· 02:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of the Radical centrism pageEdit

Hi Kalki, thank you for your comments about my additions to the Radical center (politics) page, which you placed on my User talk:Babel41 page. I was not sure where to placed my response to you, so I've added it here AND there. Please feel free to respond in either place.

Hello Kalki. You reached me even before I had a chance to reach you and thank you for initiating the Radical centrist page, which I hoped to do soon.
I could not disagree with you more about your elimination of the "One quote per author" and "Multiple quotes per author" sections. I feel it made the content of the page much more immediately graspable. It's an unusual move on Wikiquote, I know. But I am rather unconventional too, like you, and I think it works here.
I do not understand your specific objection to any of the people quoted here. To say you make your "own determinations" is great, but it is not an objection to others' informed additions. If a person is publicly recognized in credible publications as a source on radical centrism, then that should be decisive, whatever you (or I) might think. King and Ventura were recognized as radical centrist governors by John Avlon, a highly creduble source now quoted on this page. Tanenhaus is a prestigious editor who wrote a major article on the subject. Halstead-and-Lind, Miller, and Satin have written well-received books for major publishers on the subject (and Miller has written several articles on r.c. as well). They all merit extensive quoting about r.c. on a page devoted to r.c.
I was surprised to find certain people quoted here, such as Knight and Lafferty and Roosevelt, whom I do not believe have ever been described in the mainstream radical-centrist literature as radical centrist. But I appreciate the imagination and sensibilities of everyone (you and presumably others) who has chosen such quotes for this page over the years. I would not eliminate them (unless the people quoted were wildly inappropriate), and neither should you. The page is somewhat different from how Id have assembled it, and now it is somewhat different from how you assembled it. But that is the beauty of Wikiquote, is it not? It pushes our boundaries onward and upward, no small gift in these times.
From the sublime to the mundane: Your Michael Knight, R.A. Lafferty, and Jesse Ventura book quotes are not supported by page numbers. Do you still have access to those books? If so, would you please supply the page numbers? Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I wish to make clear that I certainly did NOT have ANY objection to the inclusion of quotes ANY of the people you had added — I had ONLY been objecting to creating individual sections for them — something which I believe has been done on only a few theme pages, and something I am not inclined to encourage abundantly — but I can and do accept them, and again assert that I don’t really have any strong objections to them.
As to the your inclination to retain the "One quote per author" and "Multiple quotes per author" sections, I simply assert that such distinctions are not necessary to note with explicit section headings, nor in accord with general practices here. USUALLY there are several quotes in sections about individuals before we create a section for some of their works, and even on the very few theme pages where similar sections have been created for individuals, there is no absolutely prescribed "breaking point" of any specific number of quotes — but MORE than two or even three or four would be closer to the norms in creating separate sections even on most pages for individual authors.
As to the more mundane requests for page numbers, I might do a little work on that eventually, but have very limited time to spend here, for at least a few days, and more likely more. I do welcome your contributions and thank you for them, and am glad to find someone interested in more broad ranges of social philosophy than those constrained and corrupted by many forms of formal partisan politics. I will probably be around for at least about an hour more today, but am not sure how much time I will be able to spend here beyond that. ~ Kalki·· 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
PS: I generally tend to continue dialogue where it begins, but am usually willing to accommodate other people's inclinations or habits also. ~ Kalki·· 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, Kalki, and thanks especially for taking the time to provide these clarifications and explanations. I understand (and appreciate) your perspective much better now. Finally, thanks for catching the typos in the Halstead & Lind excerpts. I was sure I'd spell-checked them; sorry. I have just re-examined the other excerpts I provided (Avlon, Miller, Satin, Warren) and believe they are now typo-free. Carry on! - Babel41 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice quote of the dayEdit

Kalki,

Nice quote of the day today !

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

BrusselsEdit

I added quotes about Brussels.—This unsigned comment is by 169.244.99.10 (talkcontribs) .

  • Thanks, but these will need some sourcing; Wikiquote requires quotes have citations to verifiable sources. ~ Kalki·· 19:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Easter QOTDEdit

That was almost perfect (except for the missing source – why is it so hard for you to add "John 20:17, KJV"?)... Happy Easter. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now added a line indicating that this passage was in the Gospel of John. I had considered doing that on this page, and on some recent quotations of Jesus, but thought in needless so long as citations were available on the page for him. I will note that I usually DO include short references to works, when they are on separate pages — but I have sometimes neglected to do so in works where quotations are included on the author's page, rather than on a separate page. I do not believe extensive and elaborate citations are necessary on all special presentation pages, so long as they are linked to source page with sufficient citations.
In reference to your implying that this is an approach toward "perfection", I would assert that there are MANY necessary limited and provisional and often quite demonstrably false or fallacious notions of "perfection" at work in many contending ways and I am not inclined to address many of them at this time. Indeed many of my present aims include NOT wasting very much of my valuable time attempting to address many aspects of what I perceive about many things in extremely intellectually and morally constrained environments. In a few months time, I might be ready to elaborate more extensively on some of the particulars of such statements.
Though I had been considering some options of quotes and images which might be used on Easter, off an on for a few days, I did not actually make a final decision until minutes before I posted, and had to leave again soon after that — and decided that quote would be the simplest and most appropriate option of a few I had considered... and instead of choosing between 3 acceptable images to use with the quote, I decided initially at least to go with presentation of all 3 historically notable representations of the declaration of the statement, and added the symbol of a Christian cross as a minor detail. This obviously was found to be intolerably offensive breach of expected submissiveness to the "obviously superior judgement" of others in regard to such options, and all but one notable image was removed, and I have not contested this action, beyond making a few very slight remarks as indicate how ridiculous and contemptible I find it.
I had typed slightly more than this, but will temper myself from indicating many of my own perspectives a bit, and simply wish a Happy Easter for you as well — and may the Holy Sprit of Awareness, Life and Love of ALL grow stronger in all Humanity, in the months and years to come, among people of all traditions, named or unnamed, which embrace and promote such ethical imperatives as have been exemplified by the saints and heroes of many diverse faiths. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 20:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Could you please give me some constructive rather than destructive writing advice?Edit

I would like for you to please explain in very simplistic public educator like terms, what your definite problems are with me; using a list of bullet points one or two sentences so that it is easier for me to understand and quantify what your constructive criticisms and advice are. I've gathered from my time with you and Peter1c that the use of analogy and colorful pop culture metaphors is also a problem anywhere other than TV tropes or those odd academic journals about how Buffy The Vampire Slayer or Star Trek are about feminism. Wittgenstein similarly hated anything but literal descriptions so there be no comparing something to a television show.
I wasn't using the reddit post as the ultimate source, I hypothetically iff trying to add that (which I cearly wasn't) would read and used that woman's actual book that she wrote about the subject. I must assume than that what incoherent meant was the single line where I said that's someones daughter; which I would better define as incredibly obvious factual statement akin to the sky is blue. I don't know what the proper name for the logical fallacy of an emotional appeal such as that would be, I considered memorizing all the logical fallacies at one point, they were called out constantly at Rationalwiki. I've been reading the ignorant words of too many politicians, forgive me for this pop culture analogy but looking for quotes from George W. Bush and Donald Trump is like when Huey watches too much BET to see if it will rot his brain.
If I'm citing a medical journal do you want the same level of referencing that Doc James wanted for AIDS? Do I have to include DOI? When do you need a retrieved date? I'm pretty sure everything else you normally want. I've also been omitting a lot of information like interviewers names, often because I'm not finding the original source just a book using it as a reference. Peter kept asking for evidence of notability or quotability so I figured presenting it as a quote established that. If you would prefer I can try harder to track down the original source of the quote, and provide a nice easy to check version available on the internet; which basically means referencing it twice and I don't see being done on the abortion page.
I will gladly clean up all the bare URLs at one point, it's become my Augean stables in terms of untidy problems. The bare urls aren't really on the theme pages as much as for entries of pop culture inside the about sections. To be fair though a lot of those anime and video game and comics articles are categorized as in need of clean up and less people seem to care about those articles because they are just pop culture. There's a few thee pages with a a lot of bare urls but it's stuff like movies, animation and comics but not countries or an emotion. I didn't add too many interviews to biographies because I mostly did historical figures and know how to reference books better than websites that often omit titles authors and dates.
In conclusion I'll clean up my bare urls. As far as coherence, than please specify in a way a stupid person like me can understand. I look up long descriptive sentences to try and understand the correct usage of commas. I would appreciate any help that can relayed easily, I want to get along with everyone, I'm not going around calling people names from an art critics dictionary of put downs and or using stand up comedy heckler slams. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I have been sporadically checking your recent edits, most of which remain very problematic, and considering ways to respond to them. At present I am VERY busy with MANY other concerns, and intend to respond to some other comments on my talk page and be gone MUCH of the day. I will probably respond more extensively to this request within the next day or so. ~ Kalki·· 16:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
That's cool, I'm in no rush. I just wanted to finish comic book, politics and science quotes. I have a lot of psychology video games and animation quotes lined up to be properly cited in full, but it's approaching finals so I'm going to let that wait. I'm hoping whenever you get round to it, that your critique isn't too long and closer to a couple or paragraphs than a couple of pages. I'm better with bullet points, and it was an acceptable format for answers in one of my exams so it doesn't seem to barbaric a request. A gigantic lit of bullet points would ultimately be more scathing than another format as well, like the Evil Overlord List.
1: Your use of colons for listing items could benefit from this site Grammar.
2: Try either this example, "There are basically two ways to write: with a pen or pencil, which is inexpensive and easily accessible; or by computer and printer, which is more expensive but quick and neat."; or that example "Some people write with a word processor, typewriter, or a computer; but others, for different reasons, choose to write with a pen or pencil.". Semicolons
3: Your use of arcane Victorian adjectives for obfuscated feeling/excessive reliance on baseball and boating metaphors in conversation, makes it difficult to understand what you are talking about.
4: You wander off topic when each contested post would be better as a separate paragraph of your defense couples with a link to said revision. Also my talk page isn't the place to beg for help in your edit war, use the articles talk page for those deeply interested in the subject or the village pump.
5: This obscure women's pro wrestling figure/serial killer doesn't have as much as a magazine interview/news report; and hardly anyone reads magazines/news papers nowadays; at least a circulation of 100,000 units in absense of a wikipedia page for the author would suffice. Further more, as this is now the 4th time that you've posted youtube comments or web forum posts as being quotes, [1] [2], [3; the next time you will be blocked.
6: You never use any opening paragraphs that summarize all that statements you are about to make as a list.

CensoredScribe (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not had time to fully analyze your recent assertions or additions, let alone respond to them extensively. I anticipate being extraordinarily busy in the coming week, and know I am very unlikely to do much more than glance in here on most days for at least a week. I am presently intent on doing at least a day or two of QOTD work, before moving on to other tasks, and beyond that might not be editing here much at all for at least a week or so, with probably occasional checkins just to check against obvious vandalism. ~ Kalki·· 19:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

DJ Many Transfer To CommonsEdit

Can You Help Transfer This Picture Of DJ Many Over To The Commons It Has Been Approved For A Transfer But I Don't Know How... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DJ_ManyPicture1.jpg

DJ Many WhoSayEdit

The DJ Many Quotes Are On His WhoSay Account, WhoSay Is A Celebrity Only Social Media Platform That's Invite Only. He Also Verified Those Quotes By Posting Them On His Verified Twitter https://twitter.com/DJMany/status/607997393422950400

I am not sure the image is actually eligible, as there would be more info involved in posting things there properly than I currently have, and I definitely don’t have time to check on things regarding it or the quotes right now. I am extremely busy with many other concerns which I have to get done within a few hours, — and then will be leaving for much of the day. I expect to be extraordinarily busy for several days yet —if it has not been posted to the Commons within a couple days, and it appears to be definitely eligible, I might handle the matter then. ~ Kalki·· 09:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And I ask you, where do we go from hereEdit

Am I the only tower lock for me to lean on? I've been seeking for tunes evasive and shy. Drink to the men who protect you and I? The Pen Backers have been hurting me and my family. They are changing history. My digital actions speak louder than my words. I have important documents and information. I have been digitally suppressed. I was given the copyright to a book of collected (stolen) writings of John Cornford. I love David R Jones. Both were geniuses. Both were looking for answers. Both were first. I have the archer and the ~ and I have the chalice brothers. I have Schmidt and I know you have seen ELGAR. I hope you know. They won another grant. I see where the manuscript is. 1,400 or so documents. My data is constantly being blocked or suppressed or censored. Jonathan Galassi Michael Schmidt Carcanet Press Farrar Strauss & Giroux. They are up to no good again and they have the Esperza Brothers and Sterling Campbell and a host of hallowed holes to hide their dirty laundry in. Kethertomalkuth (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Kalki".