Kalki
|
|
|
⨀ 
⨀
Well is ALL.
Well All IS.
ALL IS WELL.
ALWAYS and ALL WAYS.
| Do not be deceived by the way men of bad faith misuse words and names … Things are set up as contraries that are not even in the same category. Listen to me: the opposite of radical is superficial, the opposite of liberal is stingy; the opposite of conservative is destructive. Thus I will describe myself as a radical conservative liberal; but certain of the tainted red fish will swear that there can be no such fish as that. Beware of those who use words to mean their opposites. At the same time have pity on them, for usually this trick is their only stock in trade. |
| ~ R. A. Lafferty ~ |
 
|
 Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~ Albert Einstein ~ 
|
      |
|
|
With this and other accounts I have made over 157,000 contributive edits, created well over 17000 pages and done substantial work on well over 1000 more, some of which are listed here. |  
|
I remain very busy with many urgent and diverse tasks and expect to very often be doing very minimal editing here for most of the days of most of the coming years.
Though I once regularly spent many hours of most days at least monitoring this site, I now quite often spend less than an hour a day doing so, at various random periods within any day. There are sometimes stretches of weeks where I am hardly online at all, most days. There may be a few periods in some years where I will have the opportunity for extensive activities here for days at a time, but I am not actually counting on that occurring very often. I shall continue to usually check in at least daily, most of the time, but Time shall reveal what opportunities times can provide.
· So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ ·
· ALL abides, always, and all abide, ALWAYS amidst ALL. ·
Kierkegaard Quote Source - Proposed by Kalki February 14 2007
editHi Kalki,
Do you know the actual source for this quote? I don't think Kierkegaard is the author, and your proposed QOTD from Feb 2007 is the earliest known publication of this quote (digital, book, or otherwise) that I can find.
"When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love."
Any more specific info on the quote origin would be great.
Thanks --Cusabe (talk) Cusabe (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the inquiry. I seem to have first added this to the Kierkegaard page as being cited to Works of Love (1847) in an edit of 13th February 2007; I do not currently recall what source I had for that attribution. It seems to have remained on the page in the subsection for that work, prior to the page being extensively broken up into pages for separate works by other editors. None of the translations currently accessible to me have the statement, but it could be in a lesser-known translation or arose somewhere as a paraphrase of some statements within it, or perhaps is an improper attribution altogether; I will investigate it further to the extent I can in coming days. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Oregon or Colorado
editHi Kalki: I thought it was Colorado's Supreme Court which removed Trump from the ballot not Oregon? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Notice
editHello, someone started a request for comment against your behaviours on this project, Wikiquote:Village pump#User:Kalki using Wikiquote's QOTD for political propaganda. I'm just noticing you about that.
BTW, if possible, I'd like to recuse from such a political case. -Lemonaka 01:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Request for revdel
editHi. Sorry to bother you. Please revdel several edits made by Special:Contribs/202.128.73.51. Reason: N-word, w:Shina (word), other inappropriate content. 魔琴 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
WQ in general
editHi Kalki, I thought to pose some three of the most venerable users here an important question I just can't seem to figure out: why do you think, WQ has such an horrendous page rank on most search engines? Why wouldn't e.g. a very expansive WQ article on a relatively niche intellectual always top a short and potentially skewed WP article? Indeed, I think, especially for controversial leaders from historical scientific, religious and or political movements, having a representative WQ entry is much more insightful than the overly curated alternative. What might be the exact reason for this very noticeable skew? Do you also believe that, maybe, the aforementioned inclusion of certain figures' exact quotes, from politically incorrect up to and including borderline defamatory, has - rightly or not - lead to the actual WMF, well, somehow hardcoding this inferior status into the platform regardless of quality? Any clarification would be extremely helpful! Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Roe v. Wade
editThis page gets a lot of views, but it's also really long, in fact it is the longest Wikiquote page. I noticed UDScott recently reverted the additions I made to the page for miscarriage and has nominated teratoma for deletion, I'm starting to wonder whether by presence here is particularly welcome; could I request arbitration of this dispute? I'm kind of lonely and confused, it seems almost random to me which of my unnecessarily large edits are allowed and which aren't, would it be ok to revert Roe v. Wade to a shorter version of the page with three longer sections? I was kind of hoping to collaborate with people here but that doesn't seem to happen much. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Quote of the day
editHi, I see you often do the quote of the day, and thought you might consider running the following quote:
Serit arbores, quae saeclo prosint alteri.
He sows the seed of trees that they may be a profit to another age.
Thanks, Ficaia (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd let you know I've created Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 3, 2024 Ficaia (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I had noted that addition on the day it was added, and decided I would probably accept it as a good-faith suggestion, though it exhibited an ignorance or deliberate disregard of the normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD since 2005. You seemed familiar enough with many operations of the wiki that I was inclined to believe it the later, and I had intended to comment on this yesterday, but remained too busy with many other concerns to spend much time here recently. Thus I had neglected to make a response to your initial suggestion here, as I was especially pressed for time on that day. A short time ago, I was doing a brief check in here and saw your subsequent addition, and though I am willing to accept that as well, as there are presently a paucity of suggestions on both days, and the suggestions were generally acceptable, I have extended the ranges of the QOTD pages protected from unauthorized editing,. Thank you for your efforts, but henceforth, please use more normal procedures for suggestions on the days of each month, such as Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May. Though generally it is sought that the quotes or usually their author have some relation to the dates, this is often difficult with the more ancient authors, and it might be a good idea to create some page for suggestions by them without necessarily some rigorously specified dates or ranges of dates, to be used when there occasionally are very few and relatively poor suggestions for dates. I have to be leaving now, and will probably do some minor sizing tweaks on the images you provided later today, after I have returned. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well that was a pompous response. "The normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD" are basically dead, having been frequented by almost no one but yourself for a decade. BTW, I've also created Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 10, 2024 and Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 11, 2024. Ficaia (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I want to replace the second image in Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 4, 2024 with commons:File:The Westminster Portrait of Richard II of England (1390s).jpg. Why can I no longer edit the page? Ficaia (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have figured that out. With the above remarks you have clearly proven yourself engaged in actions both presumptuous and deceitful, and quite duplicitous in your attitudes and apparent ruses of ignorance of some particular matters. Even so, I yet was inclined to consider your future suggestions simply on their merits, relative to those of others, as I have done with other adversarial individuals in the past, despite their apparent disdain or animosities towards me or the procedures which were established nearly two decades ago, though almost certainly with somewhat less inclination to accommodate your apparent whims and aims than I have done in those two initial postings. Then I saw your persistence in deliberate rejection of the standard procedures of suggestions and selections, with further postings without regard for them, and it leaves me far less inclined to be either charitable or deferential to such arrogantly presumptuous actions in the future. The "normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD" for suggestions and selections are not "dead" but they and the Quote of the Day have been maintained and sustained by me since the earliest days of this project, though you seem to have a definite will to do what you can to bring about their end with your acts of blatant rejection of them in favor of solely your own presumptuous postings. I am thus inclined to delete these more recent deliberate intrusions entirely, and will now assert that further unauthorized postings into the official Quote of the Day pages prior to their entry into the protection ranges could properly be treated as malicious vandalism, and could result in temporary or even eventually an indefinite blocking of your account. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- You have a real w:WP:OWNERSHIP issue with this process. There are two of us editing Quote of the day now. Ficaia (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have figured that out. With the above remarks you have clearly proven yourself engaged in actions both presumptuous and deceitful, and quite duplicitous in your attitudes and apparent ruses of ignorance of some particular matters. Even so, I yet was inclined to consider your future suggestions simply on their merits, relative to those of others, as I have done with other adversarial individuals in the past, despite their apparent disdain or animosities towards me or the procedures which were established nearly two decades ago, though almost certainly with somewhat less inclination to accommodate your apparent whims and aims than I have done in those two initial postings. Then I saw your persistence in deliberate rejection of the standard procedures of suggestions and selections, with further postings without regard for them, and it leaves me far less inclined to be either charitable or deferential to such arrogantly presumptuous actions in the future. The "normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD" for suggestions and selections are not "dead" but they and the Quote of the Day have been maintained and sustained by me since the earliest days of this project, though you seem to have a definite will to do what you can to bring about their end with your acts of blatant rejection of them in favor of solely your own presumptuous postings. I am thus inclined to delete these more recent deliberate intrusions entirely, and will now assert that further unauthorized postings into the official Quote of the Day pages prior to their entry into the protection ranges could properly be treated as malicious vandalism, and could result in temporary or even eventually an indefinite blocking of your account. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I had noted that addition on the day it was added, and decided I would probably accept it as a good-faith suggestion, though it exhibited an ignorance or deliberate disregard of the normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD since 2005. You seemed familiar enough with many operations of the wiki that I was inclined to believe it the later, and I had intended to comment on this yesterday, but remained too busy with many other concerns to spend much time here recently. Thus I had neglected to make a response to your initial suggestion here, as I was especially pressed for time on that day. A short time ago, I was doing a brief check in here and saw your subsequent addition, and though I am willing to accept that as well, as there are presently a paucity of suggestions on both days, and the suggestions were generally acceptable, I have extended the ranges of the QOTD pages protected from unauthorized editing,. Thank you for your efforts, but henceforth, please use more normal procedures for suggestions on the days of each month, such as Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May. Though generally it is sought that the quotes or usually their author have some relation to the dates, this is often difficult with the more ancient authors, and it might be a good idea to create some page for suggestions by them without necessarily some rigorously specified dates or ranges of dates, to be used when there occasionally are very few and relatively poor suggestions for dates. I have to be leaving now, and will probably do some minor sizing tweaks on the images you provided later today, after I have returned. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sexual harassment
editCould I get blocked if I asked another editor out on a date, and would it matter how I worded that request or whether I continued making it after being told that the answer is no and is always going to be no? We have a page for pick-up lines, would any of those constitute sexual harassment? I find the idea of editing Wikiquote together with someone who enjoys doing this to be romantic, though I don't know if any of the other editors would share that opinion seeing as it's usually a lot of work. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Kalki. I'm not sure if you have seen the discussion on my talk page related to this page. I know that in years passed, we had discussed reducing the buffer for the protected days, but it had gotten increased again a couple of times (most recently by you this month). I am sure the adjustments were in response to disagreements on the process for selecting the quotes for the QOTD. After reading the discussion, might I ask for your input on again relaxing the protections to the current day? I want to get your feedback in this discussion based on your long history with the QOTD pages. I haven't always agreed with you over the years, but I do find that you usually operate with the project's best interests in mind. I look forward to the discussion. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please pardon my lack of response yesterday, and the fact that I very likely will not have time to make a substantial response for another day or so. The last couple of months have kept me in a very hectic pace of activities most days, even by my standards, and the last couple of days have even been more hectic than most of them. I had expected to make fuller response today but it has thus far been far busier upon me than yesterday, but I expect some opportunity to concern myself more extemsively with matters here within the next few days. Thanks for your notice upon these matters, and I must now do a very few things here, and then leave again, for at least a few hours, and expect to be very busy most of the coming day thereafter. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) + tweak
- Hi Kalki. Just wanted to nudge you on this (and related) topic(s). As I have said before, I don't always agree with your choices, but in I do respect your desire to protect the best interests of the project. Within the specific area of QOTD, as you are likely aware, there has arisen some discussion regarding the selection process. It would be great if there was more participation in the process, as I am sure you would agree. The latest issue is the ultimate selection of what will appear on the front page. Are you open to discussion of that process and adding some steps or guidance or whatever to open this part of it to additional participants? I am by no means trying to take over anything - just trying to facilitate some discussion about the process and ways it might be improved. Thanks for your consideration and look forward to the discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Ficaia
editAn user has started mass deleting quotes he appears not to like on dozens of pages without giving valid, specific reasons for each deleted quote but hand-wavingly claiming that they all have the same problem (wrong formatting, or typos, or bias, or academic prose) which is not true, as the quotes are all different and usually are adequately sourced etc, and in any case, a discussion and the cleanup template should be used instead before deleting. Mass deleting without giving a specific rationale for each deleted quote is not helpful at all. Just as an example, here he removed dozens of quotes from Voltaire and others. Since you have interacted with the user before I am notifying you. --ᘙ (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have also noticed this behavior on the pages for abortion and human, where they have moved many quotes to the talk page, I would not consider an analysis of fictionalized television depictions of a subject from NPR to be academic prose. The page they created for history of abortion was also problematic being idiosyncratically organized and Eurocentric, they also seemed unwilling to have quotes featured on multiple pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Theme pages that apply specifically to humans
editIn keeping with Wikipedia, we have a page now for race that applies specifically to humans, Race (human categorisation), as well as one for the "informal" biological classification Race (biology). Why are humans singled out for their own page, couldn't all of the theme pages have new versions created that are exclusive to humans? By having these two pages is Wikiquote suggesting that the "informal" biological classification of race is in fact formal and that animals other than humans have races, or that the racial classification for humans are also informal? The American Anthropological Association says race isn't a formal construct, so are we allowed to add that to the Wikiquote page for Race (human categorisation)? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Luigi Mangione
editHi, I don't know what the policies are in Wikiquotes in terms of length and of notability. Luigi Mangione is the suspect in the killing of Brian Thompson. Police allegedly found on him a few pages of writings that the media is calling a manifesto. We are being very careful in en.wikipedia to call it a piece of writing and not a manifesto. A user has put the alleged text of the writing in the Luigi Mangione entry of en.wikiquotes. I was curious to know what the policy is of such a post. And is there a process for me to nominate it for deletion if it breaks policies? Thank you, Kingturtle (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I recognize a few problems with the page, some that are not addressed by any policies I am aware of, but within a couple of hours, after I do tomorrow's QOTD, I will trim the page down to a few generally quoted portions to better conform to existing policies. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Covid-19 articles
editCould I get your opinion on the current state of the Covid articles? I was reminded of them as there's a VFD for Embryonic stem cells going on right now that cites technical jargon as a reason for deletion, but I think that at least the Christopher Reeve quotes are notable if edited and I'm confused why HouseOfChange considers it point of view pushing when he's the only advocate being quoted, everything else is just facts. If it's too much to ask for your help on both, I'm more concerned about the Covid articles. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- The concern at Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Embryonic_stem_cells is not POV-pushing but Wikiquote:Quotability. Long quotes from medical journals or public testimonies are rarely if ever "witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant." WQ is not a public billboard where people immortalize paragraphs they unilaterally decided were "important." If we abandon quotability requirement, we are a tempting target to POV pushers like the LibraryClerk sockfarm and to promotional accounts like the Alex Smithson sock farm. I did not accuse CensoredScribe of POV-pushing but his IDIDNTHEARTHAT concerning quotability is troubling. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- When I first started adding material from science journals, I added the intros and the conclusions, because they were the most concisely written parts. Then I started including paragraphs with more than four references. HouseOfChange, if this is about making the page more concise, rather than deleting it, I don't have a problem with that, part of the reason I got worse about concision over time is because I was really hoping to meet someone who shared an interest in this material who could help me with the actual editing process. But that never ended up happening with the exception of some help I got from GreenMeansGo, instead I've done over a dozen and a half abortion pages entirely on my own, which is sad.
Also, I should add that the page also has presidential addresses from George W. Bush and Barack Obama so even if none of the science journals count as notable that's three notable people. So yeah, I hear you, I can remove the parts of the journals that aren't the beginning or the end, and I can understand your frustration at feeling ignored, because that's how I feel. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)- This seems increasingly off-topic for the talk page of Kalki, who is busy elsewhere. I am sorry for your hurt feelings, but the fact is that despite repeated discouragement from other editors you persist in creating articles and adding quotes that do not meet WQ policy. I wish you would review those policies and direct your substantial energies into a direction more likely to add value to WQ and get appreciation from others for your effort. But I will caution that even a prodigiously productive and good editor like UDScott rarely gets thanks from others for his good work. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think asking why Covid-19 pandemic is a good page and why Embryonic stem cells is not is a valid question to ask Kalki; both are very technical medical topics, no? Yet one was deleted and the other was not and I'd like to know why so I can improve more pages like Covid-19 pandemic and make less like Embryonic stem cells. Personally, I did not find UDScott to be very helpful on the page for Roe v. Wade, nothing they added to the intro was ever included on the Wikipedia page and was ultimately removed for going off topic. I can understand not being very interested in the subject however as I myself I did not find much of anything on the page for Roe v. Wade to be particularly noteworthy outside of the briefs. I've thanked UDScott for their work before on film categories before, having made a couple myself and knowing how easy it is to make bad ones, and I would be willing to collaborate with them in the future despite the deletion of Embryonic stem cells and Teratoma at their request.
So let me ask you HouseOfChange, where do you think I should be directing my substantial energies instead of towards the page for the topic that would hypothetically allow me to regenerate from injuries and ultimately be a more efficient editor at any topic because my body is less broken and I can type faster? I still think the gender gap mailing list isn't going to appreciate me telling them there's nothing they can do that would be effective at recruiting and retaining female editors excep for them to somehow get section Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act repealed so they feel more secure. You have said you are too busy now for those mailing lists, I also believe I have better things to do than pretend I'm working hard to solve an unsolveable problem. I'd rather solve it. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think asking why Covid-19 pandemic is a good page and why Embryonic stem cells is not is a valid question to ask Kalki; both are very technical medical topics, no? Yet one was deleted and the other was not and I'd like to know why so I can improve more pages like Covid-19 pandemic and make less like Embryonic stem cells. Personally, I did not find UDScott to be very helpful on the page for Roe v. Wade, nothing they added to the intro was ever included on the Wikipedia page and was ultimately removed for going off topic. I can understand not being very interested in the subject however as I myself I did not find much of anything on the page for Roe v. Wade to be particularly noteworthy outside of the briefs. I've thanked UDScott for their work before on film categories before, having made a couple myself and knowing how easy it is to make bad ones, and I would be willing to collaborate with them in the future despite the deletion of Embryonic stem cells and Teratoma at their request.
- This seems increasingly off-topic for the talk page of Kalki, who is busy elsewhere. I am sorry for your hurt feelings, but the fact is that despite repeated discouragement from other editors you persist in creating articles and adding quotes that do not meet WQ policy. I wish you would review those policies and direct your substantial energies into a direction more likely to add value to WQ and get appreciation from others for your effort. But I will caution that even a prodigiously productive and good editor like UDScott rarely gets thanks from others for his good work. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- When I first started adding material from science journals, I added the intros and the conclusions, because they were the most concisely written parts. Then I started including paragraphs with more than four references. HouseOfChange, if this is about making the page more concise, rather than deleting it, I don't have a problem with that, part of the reason I got worse about concision over time is because I was really hoping to meet someone who shared an interest in this material who could help me with the actual editing process. But that never ended up happening with the exception of some help I got from GreenMeansGo, instead I've done over a dozen and a half abortion pages entirely on my own, which is sad.