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)

I had meant to do significant work here yesterday, but unexpectedly ended up traveling about more in my local region of New England than I had initially intended, doing only a last minute iPhone edit on a QOTD while still on the road, and finally did a full layout for this just a few minutes ago, from home — but now I must be leaving again, for at least a few hours. I don’t have time to examine much more at this time, will be leaving in a few minutes. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I was finishing up what I was thinking would be my last tasks of the day before heading home, and got a call, and will now be busy at least a few more hours. Managed to make it home in time to post QOTD, but am expecting someone to be picking me up within a few minutes. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I might do some final commenting and archiving of material on this page soon, within the next few days, but don’t have much time to attend to it right now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 13:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Atom deBroglie.png

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

Love rules without rules.

Keel-billed Toucan-27527.jpg

What's So Bad About Feeling Good?
Compass Card transparent.png
Kalki · archives: X · index · iota · imago · αnima · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · controversies · assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · outrages · 2011 · contentions · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · 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
Anonymous Anarchist Flag.svg

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

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

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

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

I AM an Anarchist.
All good men are Anarchists.

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

~ Elbert Hubbard ~

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

Caduceus 1924.svg
Christian Socialism Anarchism.svg

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

~ Augustine of Hippo ~

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


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

~ James Branch Cabell ~
The Cream of the Jest

Editor at large 1206.svg


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

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

~ R. A. Lafferty ~

Terry Pratchett COA.svg

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

~ Terry Pratchett ~
The Light Fantastic

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

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

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

~ Roger Zelazny ~
Lord of Light


Monad.svg Banner of Peace from the Roerich Pact.svg88pxBlue Pacific.svg Monad.svg

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

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


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


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


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

Flaming Chalice.svg

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

Christian Anarchist Blot.svg

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


There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't.
~ John von Neumann ~
Electric steam iron.jpg
God is an Iron.
~ Spider Robinson ~
JUL Iris Soul Palm.png
Uffington White Horse layout.png
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
~ Albert Einstein ~
Clover symbol.svg
Dearinth Goddess.png
Dont panic.svg
Terry Pratchett Arms.svg
Circle-A red.svg
Noia 64 apps karm.png This user has been on Wikiquote for
16 years, 5 months, and 12 days.


Blue Pacific.svg
Caput mortuum.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


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)


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

~ Alan Moore ~

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

~ Alan Moore ~
V for Vendetta

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

~ Kate Bush ~

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


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

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

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

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

Taijitu polarity.PNG

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

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

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

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


Kalki· archives: index · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · November 2009 Controversies · Assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · Outrages of 2010‎‎ · 2011 · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · 2015 · RfA4 · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box ·

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




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 ·


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)


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:


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:


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)


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)


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: 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


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

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:Three cross mountain after November 2015 Paris attacks.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.

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

 Y 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


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


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)
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 ~

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:

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. 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. 08:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC).

~ 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.



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 ~



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 ~

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:

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 ~

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:
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. 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. 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. 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. 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


Nice quote of the day today !

Thank you,

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


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

you should be ashamed of yourselfEdit

We support Trump because he is the savior of the White race, sent by God to free us from the shackles of the Jew occupation and establish a 1000 Reich. ~ Andrew Anglin (initial image in question, placed by someone else, which I restored.)
File:Andrew Anglin.png
We support Trump because he is the savior of the White race, sent by God to free us from the shackles of the Jew occupation and establish a 1000 Reich. ~ Andrew Anglin (acceptable substitution by DanielTom)

So... you don't actually mind images highlighting and promoting "asinine racist delusions", as long as they make your political opponents look bad. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not openly responded to and answered many of your often asinine trolling and accusations — because I have not had the time to get involved in them as extensively as would be necessary to make many points clear, but I will make a brief response to this before being gone for much of the day, and perhaps for most of several.
Trump actually IS promoting and pandering to many racist delusions. I actually do not consider Donald Trump so much of a political opponent — as very dangerous joke on the entire partisan political system of political idolatries which are often referred to as "ideologies" — despite quite often having a paucity of coherent or consistent ideas — as is definitely the case with Trump.
There is much which I can and do admire in most people, and to some extent even in many of their quite usually stupid and asinine political parties and institutions — but I am NOT going to deliberately or cravenly defer to or pander to ANY form of partisan or political idiocies — especially those based upon delusions of what "correct" political, religious or racial affinities "should" be — on the part of ANY bigoted and partisan idiots of ANY sorts who clearly do not realize their own depths of hypocrisy and psychological projections — and sometimes truly psychotic ones.
This is a brief statement indicating some of principles I usually take into consideration — as I prepare once again to leave to attend to rather urgent matters. I will probably be checking in at times — but expect nearly all of my time for the next week or so to be spent elsewhere. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 12:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
"bigoted and partisan idiots of ANY sorts who clearly do not realize their own depths of hypocrisy and psychological projections — and sometimes truly psychotic ones". I have always thought it impossible to surpass Bocage's self-portrait, but you did it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I truly can laugh at the depths of your idiocy and delusion — as I have been quite aware that ALL people "project" their own characteristics onto other people and other things — and have been aware of that since I was a very young child, several years before I was first invited to read from the works of Freud to test both my diction and comprehension — at the age of 5 — and stunned the person testing them with my succinct summary of much of what Freud was saying, and statements that I had realized such things by the time I was 3 or 4, at the latest. I am quite at ease in encountering many forms of foul and fair projections upon fair and foul things — but am not quite so caught up in the shallow and asinine delusions as most people commonly are. I actually must be leaving soon — and do not expect to be back here until this evening — so I perhaps won't have a chance to respond to any more of your particular forms of observations, until tomorrow. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 12:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I just did some minor grammatical corrections or clarifications to my previous posts, which were rather rushed, as I was just about to leave at the time, and will note that this entire discussion began with my reverting of a removal of an image which had been placed on the Trump page by another person, whose use of some images for clearly inappropriate or very strained polemical purposes I have at times objected to, though I have not had time or inclination to seek out and examine all such edits as might exist. DanielTom deleted it with statement "does Anglin speak for this "Aryan Guard" based in Alberta, Canada?" After I restored it with statement that [Anglin] "actually does seem to be in fact speaking in delusive racist terms of of what could be called "White Pride Worldwide'"], this dialog began, and DanielTom eventually replaced the image with one which is also appropriate, and which I did not object to. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 12:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
A child prodigy could read Freud at the age of five (I suppose), but even granting that you are a walking treasure (which I do), double standards are still a serious character flaw. (Another serious character flaw, I would argue, is supporting someone who voted for the war in Iraq and who is a "proven crook".) I trust you are smart enough to easily figure out when I am trolling.
I don't have anything new or insightful to say on Trump. That he recently backed Brexit, and Obama did not, tells me all I need to know. Before the Brussels terrorist attacks, Trump said Brussels (capital of Europe) is a "total mess". A few months earlier, in the November 2015 Paris attacks, 130 people had been killed. To me (and I think to everyone) it is obviously not a coincidence that the Muslim population in these European capital cities is 10–15% in Paris, and 25.5% in Brussels (in 2005). On this issue, Trump sides with civilization; you, Obama and Hillary ("Let's be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.") do not.
Of course the millions of Americans who are voting for Trump do not do it because he is a great political philosopher. They do it for a great variety of reasons. Three years ago, a friend who voted for Jesse Ventura when he ran for Governor of Minnesota (and won) told me that while he wouldn't support Ventura for President (because he is a "loose cannon") he would support Trump. And when we discussed why, he never once mentioned the preservation of Western civilization, freedom of speech, or even immigration. Still, to me this is an existential question, at least in the long run. It's only a matter of time before the problems Europe faces reach America too (if you continue on your current course); indeed, I'd say you are already facing them – for freedom of speech can't truly exist if people who criticize ideas or who draw cartoons have to seriously fear for their lives.
My question to you: aren't all immigration policies, with the exception of free immigration (which even Milton Friedman says is impossible today because of welfare) "bigoted" (by your definition)? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Since we are now being frank about trolling, I suggest you guys knock it off and stick to topics more directly related to building a compendium of notable quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There are always opportunities and obstacles to various forms of frank and honest communication and development of genuinely harmonious or at least civil rapport in regard to many proper endeavors. Trolling in both overt and subtle ways and attempts to justify, excuse and promote them, are hardly constrained to those who are at least sometimes inclined to frankness and openness about such matters. There are significant issues which the comments of DanielTom (in his attempt to justify support for Trump's largely ego-driven campaign for greater power over the affairs and options of others), and of Ningauble (in his apparent attempt to squelch and belittle efforts at resolution of such disagreements as can and do exist on many matters of significant public dispute), which involve far more detailed, analytic and somewhat passionate exposure than I currently have time or inclination to engage in. I am once again just very briefly checking in — and am so busy that I might take several days before I even attempt to adequately respond to some of the issues which I perceive to be involved here. I myself have been busy elsewhere to sometimes EXTREMELY stressed ranges in recent days and weeks, sometimes only sleeping a couple of hours in a couple of days, and yet even amidst physical and mental exhaustion, I believe that I have usually maintained an affable conviviality, or at worst a resolutely patient forbearance from pointing out some errors and false assumptions, as I proceed in applying myself to many necessary and strenuous tasks, as well as briefer periods of sometimes relaxing and revitalizing rests from such. I just recently had a few hours rest — and am preparing to once again to soon leave for most of the day. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 07:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I'd still like to see Kalki "attempt to justify support for" Hillary's "largely ego-driven campaign for greater power over the affairs and options of others". ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Could I get your opinion as to whether my citation fixes are "subtle vandalism" or if is rather Daniel Toms uncivil and disruptive behavior warrants correction?Edit

[5] I have a very long and sorted history with Daniel Tom, and although they normally have some basis for their reverts, this is a very clear cut matter of whether my recent citation fixes are correct or not, which I believe they are as every single style guide suggests ending citations with a period and my other grammatical fixes such as italicizing titles and using commas between entries (or periods in the case of the APA) are also near universally implemented. I've been copying their language substituting meat back for incompetent as I assume all editors are made out of meat, while incompetence is in fact a legal term.

Sorry for bothering you with this mess, I thought being a wiki gnome was welcomed, but I guess not. I wouldhave at least liked knowing what I did wrong from DT, but I guess I don't deserve that as "the most incompotent editor ever". CensoredScribe (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have responded to your request here for commentary on this issue, and on others raised elsewhere, at the Village Pump, and now must be leaving. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 10:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Kent Hovind and Ken HamEdit

Those images were clearly posted to try to make fun of them. Wikis aren't the place for that -- 23:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


Which version do you prefer? ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I just recently noticed your note, as I am busy with other things, and am likely to be leaving soon, but I believe the earlier version which does not break the page up into chapter sections is far more cohesive and interesting presentation over all, and any alterations on any page made where the published translations used have been removed and changed, rather than added to generally undesirable. I might attend to the page before leaving, but remain busy with many other things. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 11:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Retaining the general layout which breaks the work into chapters, I restored the previous translations, while retaining the new ones, and restored images, while retaining some of the new additions. That might be all that I can do on that page today — as I have to be leaving soon, and attend to many other matters today, and in coming days. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Your efforts have been in vain. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

To assert or imply that anything is entirely in vain is an extreme vanity of vanities. Patience ABIDES — often as it always must. Patient progress endures and grows strong against many paths of regression and aggression. I have been too involved with too many other diverse concerns to be so involved here as I might otherwise be — and can patiently abide much amidst many problems, contentions and frustrations — especially such common ones as regularly arise because of the limited awareness and appreciation of many diverse people, which yet do not entirely prevent emendation, correction and progress of various processes and works.

Though not entirely aloof or disinterested in much which seems to concern others, I have long foregone becoming very extensively involved in much of the rather humorous or humorless and strained tedium and trivialities which others can generate or exaggerate — being quite capable of generating and exaggerating enough of my own and and usually quite able to laugh at many diverse peculiarities of all of these — and at most biases and balancing acts and even brutal bigotry with a grace grounded in vital equipoise and serenity. I expect and hope that others can and will laugh with as many and greater forms of discernment in times to come.

I proceed as I actually MUST with my ranges of awareness and appreciation as others MUST proceed with theirs — and avoiding vain and detrimental contentions with many forms of ignorance, confusion and stupidity. Such discernments and resolve awakened very clearly and precisely within my mind within the very first couple years of my personal life, along with many forms of determination of the need for both fighting and forgiving with fairness, and even the forgetting of much of the foulness which must be fought and forgiven. A remembrance and reverence of what is truly great eternally abides, even amidst many frustrations and trivialities and genuine tragedies and losses of the most lamentable kind.

MUCH often depends on whether people are inclined to stir up and maintain rather trivial contentions and hostilities between people or take active roles of exertion in progress towards common or greater understandings of what is good and right, and perhaps best.

I have been far too busy with many things to respond immediately to much which occurs here, and continue to be so, but I abide in various forms of determination and eventually intend to address many things as extensively as circumstances permit and require. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

mentioned youEdit

here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Urgent messageEdit

Numerous IP addresses continuously make unnecessary edits (and vandalism edits to boot) on the following pages:

Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Toy Story 3
Monsters, Inc.
Monsters University
The Incredibles
...to name but a few, and they refuse to cease and desist, nor even explain their edits. I request that all those IP addresses be blocked for the maximum time allowed, and that all pages on which they have edited be protected for at least six months. WikiLubber (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

special QOTD (II)Edit

It could be a good idea to have a Bob Dylan quote too in today's QOTD – the day it was announced that he's the winner of the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature. I suggest:

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I took the suggestion — but only had time to do that — and MUST be leaving NOW. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 12:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Image policyEdit

Dear Kalki, Reflecting on our earlier interaction, I see that I should have let you know of the Village Pump discussion here on your user page rather than by reverting your edit. Sorry about that. Even on further reflection, though, I don't understand why you seemed to be angry. The consensus on that discussion was reached three weeks ago, and I was just putting it into effect. Are you opposed to having criteria of notability and neutral point of view for images as we do for other content? I would like to better understand your position. The comment field for our edits, I'm sure you'll agree, is not the best venue for that discussion. ~ Peter1c (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I wish to make clear that I respect many of your contributions, and am grateful to you for providing them, and whatever contentions I might have against some of your removals, and your rational for making them, based upon what I consider MISLEADING statements about MANY things which have accumulated here in recent years, I bear no malice toward you, personally. I tend to make it no secret that I am sometimes extremely angry at many SITUATIONS I regard to be steeped in various forms of ignorance and confusion, and sometimes do not refrain from INDICATING that anger rather vigorously. Even at my most angry I believe that I remain tolerant and acceptive of the actual necessity of MANY of the forms ignorance and confusion which do arise in us all, as human beings, and I trust that the best of people can remain tolerant, acceptive and properly respectful of others and their proper rights, even to the extent that they encounter extremes of ignorance and confusion — but I honestly believe that this does not always mean remaining extremely polite and deferential to those one considers ignorant and confused about very important matters. The wisest KNOW that we are ALL ignorant about MUCH — and thus often very liable to be very confused about much as well.

I arrived home a very short while ago, scanned over the edits since my earlier exit, and proceeded to focus on doing only what essential tasks I can immediately address, in what limited time is available to me, at present — and perhaps to some extent in coming days. I do NOT expect to have much free time to deal with a great many things here for at least another week, but might attempt to BEGIN indicating some aspects of my perspectives on some of them within a few days.

Although I had a couple moments today where I might have checked in here via my iPhone, I refrained from doing so, recognizing I certainly did NOT have time to engage in any interactions, and that my irritations and frustrations at further examples of the extremes of ignorance and confusion which I have long observed becoming quite comfortably established among a few people would have distracted me from proper progress in many of the tasks I was engaged in, and some of those to which I must again soon apply my attention.

I believe that I have witnessed many principles which founded this and other wikis become ignored and denied, or extremely confuted with false and foul assessments, and what I consider to be quite deficient and flawed formulations and assumptions, and in recent months I have been far too busy to be very inclined to address them further than I have often done so in the past, until some of the more urgent and important matters in my ranges of concerns, elsewhere, were addressed sufficiently to provide me time to once again make some of the significant points I have previously made, and a few which I had refrained from making, as well.

I know that MUCH of the context of what I can immediately say will not be easy to make sufficiently clear — and thus I remain quite reticent to speak upon much of it at this point. MUCH of the EXTENT of the confusions and delusions, and perhaps at times even deliberate and extremely detrimental deceptions which I have witnessed and observed, I will attempt to make plain sometime within the next month. I know that I do NOT have the time to make an adequate foray into such matters at this time, but might attempt at least a cursory presentation of some of my own perspectives on at least a few significant matters within a few days.

I recognize that I have addressed these issues far more thoroughly in the past, and been far more involved in countering what I perceive to be a gradual EROSION of a proper respect and even awareness and appreciation of some of the most important principles which are inherent in any wiki worthy of the name — or any generally fair and just human society for that matter.

I realize some of the statements I have just made are somewhat redundant, but I don’t have time to trim out all the redundancies right now, as I soon have to again attend to other matters. I will further state that in briefly reviewing many of the comments on some matters of personal concern to me in recent months, I have tended to disregard many as not substantially well-informed or even well-intentioned enough for me to attempt to immediately address — though there has often been quite a flood of diverse thought which occur to me in regard to these, I recognized that I have FAR too many other issues to address at present than would permit me to contend adequately about MOST of them. THUS, I continue to do here what I have done much of this year, persisting in nearly minimal activity, quite often only a few minutes a day, and sometimes not even that, and focussing primarily on matters of the most essential sort, as I bide my time amidst the working and expressions of many ASSUMPTIONS which I consider profoundly false and foul, until such time as I believe I can BEGIN to adequately address them — something which I believe will very likely be neither entirely quick nor easy. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Dear Kalki, Thank you for your reply. Now I am very curious what the false and foul assumptions are, and what principles are being eroded. Since you are one of the founders of Wikiquote, I'm very eager to hear what your views are. You refer to lack of time, but in the time you spent telling me that you don't have time to formulate your concerns, I suspect you might have come up with a preliminary formulation of your concerns! I hope you'll understand that I am eager to know your thoughts, in particular about the issues User:DanielTom, I and other editors have raised: (1) don't we need notability and NPOV standards for images?, and (2) don't we need a relevance or usefulness standard for links? Of course I'm willing to wait another month. This is no problem. But I really want to hear your thoughts, and work together with you to resolve the issues that are troubling you. Best regards ~ Peter1c (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I had intended to attempt at least a beginning on a little expository work here today, but MANY things kept me far more busy than anticipated. I just arrived home a few minutes ago, did some QOTD tasks, and must leave again in a few minutes, and many circumstances have arisen which will CERTAINLY keep me far more busy with many other things than I had been anticipating for MOST of the next week. I do not expect to have much time for the internet for at least the next week, and what little time I do have, I might well work at a few other places rather than spend much of my limited time here. I have to be going now — and do not expect to have sufficient free time to indicate much here about many things for several days at the minimum. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 19:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Personal circumstances and many significant events have continued to keep me extremely busy — and far more extensively and intensively than I had anticipated even in recent weeks. I do not presently expect to have a great deal of time to spend here on MOST days, and do not presently have an extremely clear idea when such circumstances might change. Some of the issues I wish to address will involve FAR more time than I can presently devote to them, and that is why I am reluctant to even begin to engage with some of them here at present. Further comments from me on many matters can be expected once some of the circumstances I am presently addressing elsewhere change — but time will tell when that happens. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Kalki, I know you are busy, but could you let me know your latest thoughts on the issue of images that I and other editors have raised? I want to proceed in a way that takes your views into account. But without knowing them, how can I? ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"Michael Scott Gallegos" reviewEdit

I hate to ask for favors, and I realize that you are very busy, especially at this time, but if you have a few minutes to look at Michael Scott Gallegos and feel that it falls within the requirements of the Wikiquote community to be retained, I would appreciate a vote to keep the article. I understand that if you do not believe that the article is worthy of retaining, you will not be able to vote in its favor. Sorry for the late notice, but the vote closes: 18:00, 15 December 2016. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and for all of the good works that you continually contribute to the Wkiquote project. ELApro (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)\

Thanks so much for making the time to review the above article. Wishing blessings in return, and an abundance of that which is truly eternal. ELApro (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoningEdit

Hi Kalki. It seems odd to thank someone for assigning a "1" ranking to a "quote of the day" I had proposed for January 4th (the birthday of Isaac Newton), but I just wanted you to know I appreciate understanding your reasoning. You do a lot for Wikiquote, and I'm grateful that you took a moment to explain what you expect - it helps me propose future quotes of the day.


Pithy Francoln (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I've deleted three Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey quotes of the day I proposed for the next three months where the link between the day and the quote was weak. I will likely delete more in the future depending on how the remaining quotes fare. I would suggest that two of the remaining quotes from the series deserve special consideration: President Obama's quote introducing the series premier (which falls on March 9th) and the first of the three quotes I proposed for Earth Day (April 22nd) which basically states that renewable energy is THE solution to global warming.

Thanks for your efforts to make Wikiquote a thought-provoking and useful part of the Wikimedia educational portfolio.

Pithy Francoln (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I do appreciate and thank you for your efforts and suggestions, and certainly welcome you to make more, especially with stronger and clearer relevance to the date. Such actually is not an absolute requirement, but from the beginning of the current ranking system, many years ago, it has been strongly advised and recommended, so as to provide some reasonable limitations on the quotes suggested on any date, and has usually been one of the most prominent considerations. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please respondEdit

See Wikiquote:Village_pump#Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day.2FJanuary_20.2C_2017_.E2.80.93_yet_another_disgraceful_abuse_of_admin_privileges_by_Kalki You have to explain yourself here. This is really inappropriate. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I should present some explanations, in that regard. I might not have time for that immediately though. I might get around to it after a few hours, and probably shall do so at least within the next day. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been extraordinarily busy in recent days, and expect to be so for a few more. Today was the first day this week where I had some time to actually simply relax and think upon many things for over an hour, earlier in the day, after having completed some tasks elsewhere. I believe I have read all the comments, and am considering what comments to provide and refrain from providing, in the days ahead, and as I deal with many diverse issues, here and elsewhere. When I have sufficient time, I will probably take one last examination of the comments, before providing my own. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 01:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What would you call the theme of proverbs 8:35-36?Edit

I'm stumped on where to add this. I don't think adding this proverb quote about what goes around comes around would quite be appropriate for the karma article but is there a synonymous term you think it might work for?

  • For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
    • Proverbs 8:35-36, King James Version

CensoredScribe (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Though the quote as cited is a bit too short for adequate context, in my opinion, extended a bit for context it could be added to Wisdom, for the entire passage of Proverbs 8 involves Wisdom speaking. I believe these 2 passages which contain most of 8 are appropriate for both Wisdom, and the Book of Proverbs:
  • Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
    • Proverbs 8:1-14
  • I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
    • Proverbs 8:20 - 36
I do not have time to attend to much more here right now, as I must be leaving soon. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 01:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC) + tweaks
Was about to leave, but just noticed that I forgot to note here that I did eventually attend to this matter in the manner I suggested, adding such passages to Wisdom and Book of Proverbs. I have to again be leaving now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight and additions of the rest of the quotes. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nazi quotes on Art and Mormon church leaders on Black peopleEdit

Mdd recently undid my edits to Art saying, "I think it is unappropriate to quote Nazi party members outside their main field without a secondary source with places it in a context." I see nothing in the rules of wikiquote regarding contextualization and the quotes do directly mention the subject at hand. Also I believe they meant to say inappropriate, given unappropriate means to take from private possession; to restore to the possession or right of all.

Also as I brought up at the village pump, Mdd also undid my edits on black people citing the limit on quotations, despite all the quotations coming from wikipedia's page for Black people in Mormon doctrine. I'm curious why wikiquote's guidelines differ from wikipedia's on this.

I'm starting to notice a trend here regarding MDD and removing historically important racist quotes under nebulous pretenses. On a related note my edits to Sikhism are still regulated to the history tab, having been reverted by Ninguable. I'm wondering whether a vote for revision to the limits of quotations is necessary, because some of wikipedia's quotes seem to exceed 250 words. I've been trying to trim down the Scopes trial transcript to less than 250 for creationism as well, but it's beyond me. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Though I generally disdain the removal of significant quotes, especially when it appears to merely or primarily involve attempts to suppress the presentations of various significant ranges of ideas, I can often agree with others that there have sometimes been many which have been added which seem to lack either sufficient significance or relevance, and I have not had enough time to spend here lately to make any extensive or thorough assessments of the recent activities, attitudes or agenda of others; any attempts to indicate my own impressions of these are at this point, of necessity, quite incomplete and reserved in many ways, as I continue to attend to many other diverse matters elsewhere. Even in terms of defending my own contributions against the arrogantly aggressive insults, accusations and denigrations of others, which I have encountered here, I have typically been reticent for much of the past year. I perhaps might have time to attend to such matters a bit more in coming weeks, but many matters retain a greater urgency and immediate or ultimate importance, in my own ranges of agenda and assessments. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 13:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


I love you. I want to know you. Please

                                 🌠Ash🌌 Ashleenaut (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Sincere admiration can often be welcome and welcomed by most people, but in recent months I have hardly had time to respond to rather overt, arrogantly indiscreet and often incredibly stupid and obnoxious criticisms of my apparent attitudes or actual activity here, and presently I also have little time to respond to those who might seek to overtly express or ostensibly indicate any admiration of them. I remain rather reticent in my inclinations to respond much to the comments of others (especially with such extreme candor as I am often committed to manifesting), whatever types, forms or levels of understandings or misunderstandings they might have, or seek to instill in me or others.
Though not as extensively active upon this project this year as I have been in the past, on the relatively brief sessions when I have been active upon it, I certainly must value relatively reliable manifestations of honesty or even discernible ranges of very common delusions more than I do any sudden avowals of extraordinary affection from any editors of the wiki whose actual intentions and agenda I actually do not and cannot know. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 13:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC) + tweaks

Uploading 20 2007 Marvel US Postage Stamps, and whatever happened to the page for the Hulk?Edit

Where once there was a page I added quotes to the about section for, there is now a redirect, and I don't seem to see the page listed as part of any VFD discussions and the Italian and Spanish wikiquote both have pages for this character. I thought I should contact you as I've seen you've added images to Adam Warlock, I was going to add one these stamps from the postal service's 2007 Marvel stamp 1970's Value Stamps series to Hulk, than I remembered that since 1978 US postal stamps are not public domain, although the website for this series seems to imply sole copy right of USPS. I hear the postal service themselves are generally not too stringent in enforcement in the spirit of many images produced for government agencies. Wikimedia wouldn't let me upload images to any of the other intellectual properties, the autoblock filters seem pretty tight for fictional characters, there's just a lot of different hulks in pop culture. I don't think that we could use all twenty because not all of these characters have pages but I've only seen a handful of pages that use images from the actual work; The Original Star Trek, Dr. Who and Godzilla mostly come to mind. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just checking in very briefly right now, but have restored the Hulk (comics) page which apparently was improperly made into a redirect by an anon IP within the last few months. However, I rather doubt that any of the stamp images you have noted will long be retained at the Commons, as their copyright status probably makes them ineligible for retention there. One of the external links you added above does not work, but I probably won't have time to check on any updates to it. I might do a few things here before leaving, but am very busy with some other concerns, and probably won't be around here long. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 20:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the page, I noted my mistake with the value stamp after uploading the image, I tried googling VFD for the Wikimediacommons but couldn't find it. Here is a collection of comic inspired stamps that includes several characters wikiquote has pages for, as well as something from the treasury department about reproductions of stamps from Ohio.edu. I think we might still be able to use the black and white versions, as according to the treasury department (as cited in a broken link unfortunately), "Printed illustrations of United States and foreign stamps are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose. Black and white illustrations of uncanceled United States and foreign postage stamps are permissible in any size. Color illustrations of uncanceled United States and foreign postage stamps must be less than three-fourths or more than one-and- one-half times the size of the genuine stamp. Canceled United States and foreign postage stamps may be of any size whether the illustrations are in color or black and white." CensoredScribe (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: So in this Mongolian postage stamp set featuring the X-Men there's a copyright symbol present for marvel comics, however I don't see a copyright symbol present for the US stamps, with only an attribution to the postal service on the postal service website. I have heard the post office generally acquires the copyright in commissioned works. I'm really not sure what this all means so I'll refrain from adding any more of these and leave it at Captain America for now. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Goodbye, would you please do one last thing for me and look into Info-Buddhism.com; I think Wikipedia is citing them on the page for the 15th Dalai Lama and I think they are fake news.Edit

Wikipedia cites Info-Buddhism as on the page for the 15th Dalai Lama, which has a misleading title, and doesn't provide definitive dates, and I can't seem to find any information on.This Interview with the Dalai Lama about the Full Ordination of Women strikes me as propaganda, that ran into the problem of having to provide fake citations for the date of the interview and the french women's journal that allegedly spoke with the Dalai Lama which no information is provided on to fact check. I could format half the quotes Daniel Tom has noted his only objection to being formatting but that won't convince him of the notability of quotes about bacteria and viruses from scientists. My apologies for any problems I caused you during my time here, I hope I did more good than bad here. CensoredScribe (talk · contributions) 04:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

π Day noteEdit


Sweet and gentle and sensitive man
With an obsessive nature and deep fascination
For numbers
And a complete infatuation with the calculation
Of π.

~ Kate Bush ~



It is still the 14th, at my location, and Spring Equinox approaches, and on this Pi-day, serendipitously the birthday of Albert Einstein, in the final week of winter, amidst a blizzard which might yet knock out local power lines, I will note that I still have not had much time to clear up and update this page, and attend to as many other things here as I had earlier hoped to do, by this time of the year. I have been somewhat busier than normal in recent days, and I expect to be far busier than normal over the next few as well, but hope to attend to many things here, extensively, within the next month or so. Time will tell how much I can actually accomplish, and assist others in accomplishing, here and elsewhere, in the coming year, but amidst much sorrow, tragedy and tribulation, I retain and maintain much reason for hope and worthy efforts to indicate the beauty of the world, and of minds wise enough to celebrate and exalt diversity, and not to promote and insist upon such ignorance and confusion as permit and impel authoritarian and nihilistic absolutisms and exclusions. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotes about KalkiEdit

Here are two quotes by (2 PhDs) Robert M. Price (from this interview) that very much reminded me of you:

  • I cannot believe the bleeding-heart naiveté of those who charge Trump with religious bigotry, as if this were not an emergency situation.
  • They advocate sentiment-fueled policies with no sober thought for the real-world consequences. ... I say, snap out of it! Are you living in the real world or not? Freud defined religion as the projection of the wish-world onto the real world. That's Liberalism.

BTW, I don't know what led you to write: "if I am fortunate enough to be around...". Perhaps it was just a general reflection on the human condition ("it is certain that we must die, and, for aught we know, this very day"). People sometimes tell me they feel sorry for old people, and I respond (following Cicero) that if they must entertain such a condescending emotion, they should pity the young, who, unlike the old, have not gone through the various stages of life (I was going to say "yet"—but, indeed, the point is they are not at all guaranteed to make it to old age). That said, I do of course wish you well. Take care. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

April 3Edit


However, you can't do a loose <p> with HTML5, and it will eventually break due to the parser update. Perhaps you'd like to re write the page so it follows proper structuring or file a phabricator ticket to get the parser fixed PROPERLY so the <p> bodge isn't needed anymore? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, thank you for your efforts to patch unsupportable markup.

Use of an un-closed <p> tag to signify a paragraph break (semantically, and to display slightly more white space than a <br /> line break) is widespread in billions (at least) of pages around the web. Although it is problematic within CSS and is not allowed in XHTML, virtually all browsers support it where possible (implicitly closing it at the next block-level starting tag or at the end of an enclosing block, except the obsolete Netscape Navigator 4.x which failed to work consistently).

Are there definite plans to break this in Wikimedia software? If so, please provide a link to the bulletin or notice announcing this breaking change. It would break a huge number of wiki pages.

If it really is necessary to eliminate un-closed <p> tags, please do not just replace them with one of more <br /> tags like this – it is semantically incorrect (and does not display the desired amount of white space to signify the semantic information). The correct way to "fix" it is to add a closing </p> tag at the end of the block (i.e., the indicated paragraph or stanza).

~ Ningauble (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

see meta:Tech/News/2017/15
It's to do with replacing the current "tidy" routines with something that's a lot tighter to the XHTML/CSS document structuring conventions.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay ShakespeareFan00, I understand that it is for the convenience of the new Parsoid (though un-closed <p> tags do not appear to be specifically mentioned here) because its developers (and the W3C consortium) have limited patience with maintaining backward compatibility. Still, please bear in mind that the solution to making <p> tags HTML5 compliant is to close them, not to eliminate them, because somebody added them for a reason. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Generaly thought, it's also not as simple in some instances as merely closing the tag, as some templates expect a 'span' type parameter and not a 'block' type parameter. Using <p> inside a span clearly isn't good structuring, and some of the "implied" handling used to date will of course no longer work with the new parser. I've put in a Phab ticket about getting some explict tags. In respect of your example you might want to see if <poem></poem> is supported on Wikiquote.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ShakespeareFan00. I understand that it can get complicated in templates because they are often poorly designed. (Using <span> when you mean <div>, or vice-versa, is a common rookie mistake.)
Sadly, although <poem> works in some situations, it is not useful in Wikiquote article pages because it does not work inside a list item for some reason. (That might be a problem with the current system that could go away when it is retired.)
What is the Phab ticket number you started? I may contribute 2¢ there.~ Ningauble (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T163073 is the phabricator ticket.

In respect of poem tags not working inside a list item, this is possibly a related issue, in that <poem> may be forcing a "block" level item in an unexpected place ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for trying to resolve what issues are involved. I am aware there are conflicting coding conventions and norms involved, but not very familiar with many of the technical details being currently debated. I simply could see that the alterations were breaking the formatting on the page I reverted, and did not see any need for them. If using </p> is advisable at this point, I will begin using it from now on, and alter the formatting on pages I work on to any extent. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I patched the April 3 page with this edit, so you can see an example of how to use <p>...</p> in an HTML5 compliant manner. The idea is not to use <p> as a paragraph/stanza break, but to use the <p></p> pair as paragraph/stanza wrappers.

(A lot of other things are going to break, or not behave as expected, when MediaWiki eventually converts to the new Parsoid for all page generation. This creates a lot of gnomish work for people like ShakespeareFan00 to do, either proactively or after the fact. It may be expected that sometimes the fixes will produce unexpected or different results than what was originally intended.)

It could be worse:  Imagine some World Wide Writing Consortium dictating that a letter of the alphabet is no longer supported! ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are still some non-latin alphabet and archaic characters not in Unicode... so ...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please check your user and talk page.Edit

Did the attempt to match the tags , so the generated HTML is structurally correct match the italic formatting in the wrong place?

I would suggest carefully checking the number of opening and closing for italic formatting you have, they have to be matched or the rendering isn't correct on some browsers. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Important information about the famous Bronte Profile PortraitEdit

Hello Kalki, I see you have added the "Profile Portrait" to Emily Bronte page, which I had to change with another image. Let me explain why: the identification of this portrait as Emily has been long disputed, and all evidence points out that it is actually Anne who was portrayed in this picture. See here the information about the "Profile Portrait" and its identification.

The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I can accept that most evidence presented on the page you cite seems to indicate it plausible or even probable that the long used portrait is not that of Emily. I tend to reject "absolutist" assertions such that "all" evidence indicates it, though the arguments on the matter seem relatively sound. As it is one of the more famous images identified as Emily by many, I would prefer that some version of it be retained on the page, with perhaps some quote relatable to its dubious nature, and perhaps some commentary upon this somewhere upon the page. I don’t intend to look for such a quote immediately — but might do so in coming months, if I find time to attend to that and a few other matters here. I remain intensely busy with many other things at present, and often only check in here for at most a few times a day, usually for only minutes at a time. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry I used "absolutist" assertions in my message. However, I tend to oppose usage of dubious pictures on Wikiquote pages. This "Profile Portrait" was chosen to be identified as Emily not because of some family likeness, but because the girl depicted there is beautiful, has "fire in her eyes", etc. Usage of "iconic pictures" is not a good way to appreciate Emily's poetry. No poet should be seen through the prism of assumptions. I am a great fan of Emily's poetry and ready to help with improvements on her page. Just ask me what you need, and I will try to save your time. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I simply tend to oppose acceptance, as if as if they were absolute or unquestionable facts, ANY assertions or arguments I can find to still be reasonably dubious, disputable, disputed or which I perceive to clearly be in error, whether it would be easy for me to make clear such deficiencies or errors as I perceive to others or not. There is more I actually considered asserting in regard to such things, but refrain, because I am not presently ready to engage in any extensive dialogue on many matters here.
I actually can and do accept that the portrait which for well over a century had been very widely and commonly identified as Emily has now successfully become disputed on theWikipedia — and evidently sincerely rejected by some, with faith and confidence in their own or others assessments of what I perceive to be the rather low levels of skill in depiction evident in any of the extent portraits. What assessments have been made by some about the reliability of the precision, accuracy, and apparent or evident distinctions represented in them, are such as I myself find somewhat dubious. I myself can perceive enough incongruence and exaggerations in regard to some of the assertions as to doubt and reject the presumption of the absolute identification of the subject of the portrait as EITHER woman. Presently, with what little is actually certain, I can and do presently favor the assessments you seem to embrace with far great confidence or certitude, but I simply do NOT and cannot accept that the existing evidence absolutely DISPROVES the previous identification as a depiction of Emily — I only accept that the arguments presented make it more dubious or actually unlikely, by some of the provided criteria. Though I find the arguments presented have merit, and are perhaps in some ways stronger than any counter arguments that could be made, they are NOT strong enough, from my observations to PROVE the alternative identifications which you and others (INCLUDING myself, at present), have come to accept as likely or reasonably prefer.
As the portrait DOES remain widely identified as Emily, whether correctly or not, I would prefer some use of it, perhaps with some quotation regarding uncertainties, ambiguities or errors, and perhaps some brief note as the the currently disputed nature of the identification of the woman portrayed. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC) + tweaks
Well, it's not the identification of this portrait that I am discussing here with you. (And I don't need any caps and bold font to understand what you mean.) I just oppose the usage of dubious images on Wikiquote pages. That's all. Being identified as Emily for over 100 years doesn't make this portrait any less dubious. Once again, I say that usage of such "iconic" widely identified as some certain person images is a bad way to appreciate this person's art. Do you oppose my point of view? The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

IP vandalsEdit

We've got a serious case of IP addresses (presumably from the same vandal) continuously making vandalism edits by any or all of the following:

1. Adding unneeded emphasis to quotes.
2. Copying/pasting directly from DVD/Blu-Ray subtitles (which are highly unreliable).
3. Adding extra quotes when the article already has enough.
All without explaining their edits in the edit summary.

And on the following articles:

The Shrek series
The Toy Story series
Chicken Run
The Incredibles
A Bug's Life
Monsters, Inc.
Mike's New Car
Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) (adding a line from an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants that is NOT part of the film!)
Aladdin (1992 Disney film)

And I am positive that there will be more victims unless these IP addresses are blocked indefinitely and the articles (not just the ones listed) are protected indefinitely. These vandals will not stop. They keep getting new IP addresses every hour or so. I already reported this fiasco, but I am still awaiting a response. WikiLubber (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ban for vandalizing Regular Show (season 8) quotesEdit

Excuse me, But IP number: has continued to vandalize Regular Show season 8 'A Regular Epic Final Battle' quotes with his 'to be continued' words every time.Therefore we want you to add Regular show season 8 in the following articles from the IP vandals section you listed. And you must find a way to ban before he or she will continue to vandalize A Regular Epic Final Battle quotes with his to be continued quotes.

--Belrien12 (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have restored protection to the targeted page for 3 months. That is about all I have time to do on the matter at this point. Extensive blocking of the IPs used might be done eventually, if some behavior persists — but there are not generally "bans" on IP's. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 12:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

On the road …Edit

I just viewed the solar eclipse from South Carolina, and will be traveling a few more days editing from my iPhone. I'll correct any mistakes I made when I'm back home on my desktop - I've very limited time until then. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 20:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Though I am now back home, and have regular editing options beyond the iPhone, I remain extremely busy, and often have only a few minutes to check in here a day. I do not anticipate much activity here beyond minimal upkeep for at least a week. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 11:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Special QOTD (III)Edit

Kazuo Ishiguro has won the Nobel prize in literature, it was announced today. May I suggest adding the following quotation to Wikiquote's main page to mark the occasion:

What is the point in worrying oneself too much about what one could or could not have done to control the course one's life took? Surely it is enough that the likes of you and I at least try to make our small contribution count for something true and worthy. And if some of us are prepared to sacrifice much in life in order to pursue such aspirations, surely that is in itself, whatever the outcome, cause for pride and contentment.
~ Kazuo Ishiguro ~

~ DanielTom (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I will use this as the base of the QOTD for 6 October 2017 — but extend it to include more of the perspective of the character the author has making the assertions:

Perhaps … I should adopt a more positive outlook and try to make the best of what remains of my day. After all, what can we ever gain in forever looking back and blaming ourselves if our lives have not turned out quite as we might have wished? The hard reality is, surely, that for the likes of you and I, there is little choice other than to leave our fate, ultimately, in the hands of those great gentlemen at the hub of this world who employ our services. What is the point in worrying oneself too much about what one could or could not have done to control the course one’s life took? Surely it is enough that the likes of you and I at least try to make our small contribution count for something true and worthy. And if some of us are prepared to sacrifice much in life in order to pursue such aspirations, surely that is in itself, whatever the outcome, cause for pride and contentment.

I will format this now, and post it, and then must be leaving again... ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 22:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The sentence starting with "The hard reality is..." summarizes the whole book, and the author's own perspective (from what I understood), so that's fine. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oldest pagesEdit

I noticed that the oldest pages only go back to 2009's Pokey the Penguin and was wondering what the oldest pages actually are. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Oldest pages" on that list indicates the oldest pages with no changes. There have been no changes to that page since 2009; it was actually created in 2004. There might be other listings for such pages as were the oldest creations, such as the "Main page" — but I haven't dealt with such in quite a while, and don’t have time to seek out any current listings right now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 11:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, I interpreted the meaning of oldest incorrectly and didn't bother to check the page histories. I was never able to get a list of the chronology of page creations from RationalWiki because of a server change and I've been checking out Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. I think people get better at editing over time but the first changes made to a wiki reveal a lot about the editor's and the wiki's interests and lack there of. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A question regarding the rules on incivility and the words of Daniel Tom.Edit

I was wondering if this kind of language is considered acceptable behavior and if you're dedication to the 1st amendment would permit me to attempt to diagnose Daniel Tom psychologically as they've attempted poorly to do for me, autism or a sociopathic lack of concern for how their actions effects others might explain it, but what would I know as someone brain damaged to below the reading comprehension of a five year old? I'm concerned for the emotional well being of Daniel and the people they interact with so abrasively, "You have added so much garbage and so many off-topic "quotes" to Wikiquote theme pages that it's probably going to take us years to undo all the damage. Your reading comprehension is evidently worse than a 5 year old's, and I even thought you could be mentally challenged, but after seeing this I now believe you are just trolling." CensoredScribe (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe:, it is unwise to involve Kalki in this dispute. He and DanielTom have had an interaction ban in the past. Don't stir that pot. BD2412 T 04:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the advise BD2412. I won't continue make a fuss, besides I doubt Daniel Tom is going to care if I add more sourced quotes from Today in Science History or copy them from a biography to a theme page, as long as I don't make any typos. Sorry to bother you Kalki. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of images on Blade Runner pageEdit

Please see my comments on the Blade Runner talk page regarding your reversion of my edits. Thanks. Doctormatt (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my talk pageEdit

I have replied to your comment at my talk page User_talk:Butwhatdoiknow - Butwhatdoiknow (talk)

I'm looking forward to you addressing the question I asked on my talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


Why did you delete the talk page for the help article? That page probably had a lot of great info for a new user like me.Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It didn't. The page had only been created by a vandal, and I was only the last one to delete a page vandals had created very many times. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As I'm on thin ice and regret not working collaboratively more with others, here is a quote from Tolkien on science and technology that you might like and consider adding to his page.Edit

  • I should regard them [the Elves interested in technical devices] as no more wicked or foolish (but in much the same peril) as Catholics engaged in certain kinds of physical research (e.g. those producing, if only as by-products, poisonous gases and explosives): things not necessarily evil, but which, things being as they are, and the nature and motives of the economic masters who provide all the means for their work being as they are, are pretty certain to serve evil ends. For which they will not necessarily be to blame, even if aware of them.
    • John Ronald Reuel (J.R.R.) Tolkien, Letter draft to Peter Hastings (manager of a Catholic bookshop in Oxford, who wrote about his enthusiasm for Lord of the Rings) (Sep 1954). In Humphrey Carpenter (ed.) assisted by Christopher Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (1995, 2014), 190, Letter No. 153
I also wanted to say thanks for your daily diligence attending to the quote of the day, several of them have been insightful to me, and you have a wide and inclusive range that's always relavent to that day in history be it ancient or recent events. Thanks for teaching me to select better quotations using words that wouldn't get you fired from a teaching position for ageism or implying/lying that someone has a disability. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

New England blackout Autumn 2017Edit

I've been without power since around 0300 and there are statements by the power company that it could take a week to fully restore power in this region. I live in a rather rural area, so am expecting it might be a few days for restoration around here. // skip that - I looked up and my lights are back on. I am on my iPhone, but hope to be editing from my Mac shortly.

I am much relieved of several difficulties. I had been resigned to editing from the iPhone for perhaps several days, limiting my capacity to do much beyond VERY minimal activity here, and had wished to make note of that, but now am comfortably back on my mac. I will thus be able to far more quickly and easily do a few edits, before leaving again, and be able to avoid errors easily made in phone-editing. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 20:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes bad people do good things.Edit

You recently reverted a series of my edits removing quotes. You gave several reasons, one of which was your perception of "extremely biased efforts at censorship" on my behalf. I write in the hope that, upon consideration, you will conclude that my motivation for the removals should no more be a reason to revert than the motivation of the editor who added the quotes (it was the same editor for all the quotes I removed).

My understanding is that the sole standard for adding (or removing) quotes at Wikiquote is found at WQ:Q. Either a quote meets the Quotability standard or it doesn't, and that page does not include the motivation of the editor as a factor. This leads me to conclude that if a biased editor adds an appropriate quote that quote should stay on the site, and if a biased editor removes an inappropriate quote that quote should stay off the site. In short, the motivation of the editor should would not be a valid reason to support a reversion. Am I missing something in this analysis? Butwhatdoiknow (talk)

I have just arrived home, and must leave again in a few minutes, after taking care of a few things here. I will take into consideration your comments and respond to them within the next day or so. I do not have time to adequately do so right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 22:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I will stand by. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
FYI: Talk:Steve_King#Removal_of_quotes_as_(1)_not_independently_well_known_and_(2)_not_likely_to_stand_the_test_of_time.. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I can appreciate your impatience with my inattention to this matter. I have been frustrated and delayed in many major and minor, yet often quite sufficient ways, while attending to many of the compounded complexities of various major and minor problems of the present and currently enduring states of affairs which have arisen in the recent and distant past, in many various levels of various situations — I will perhaps begin to deal with some of these situations which are sufficiently evident here in the coming month or two — there are currently many other matters which press upon my concerns with greater urgency. I might begin to actively address a few Wikiquote issues more thoroughly within a week or two — but I am not committing to even this, though I might place some of the issues involved in your apparent concerns higher on my immediate agenda here, and begin addressing them within a few days, if possible. I currently am doing a QOTD layout, and will be leaving again very soon after that, but might even get back and do a bit more here within a few hours. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

UDScott just blanked half my user page and gave no explanation.Edit

If I'm doing something wrong in the last three months compared to what I was doing before, I'd like to know. I didn't know certain combinations of quotes and images were forbidden, and that I couldn't list my active or reverted edits to wikipedia. It also seems odd this only became an issue today. If I'm going to get reverted by admins on my own user page, with no explanation given at all, than I'm not doing to edit anymore, out of fear. I wanted to show what I did on wikipedia better, but I guess I'm not allowed to have people get to know me I'm willing to give up the inappropriate image quote combinations, and my deleted wikipedia contributions if that's necessary but I'd like to tell people what I did on wikipedia if that's acceptable to do. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not examined the situation thoroughly, but with brief glances over your user page, I find much of the remaining page in rather poor taste, with very strained and bizarre associations — and though that is hardly unique or forbidden, checking the edit history, prior to UDScotts reversion, there was certainly at least one very misleading occurrence of an X-rated cartoon image paired with a quote which could easily lead to mis-association of an individual who had no relationship at all to such images — and though not quite amounting to overt slander certainly could be considered implicit defamation. I agree that such deceptive juxtapositions of images and quotes are not appropriate here, and there are others on the page that are arguably quite questionable promotions of rather bizarre inclinations, which reveal a rather strong lack of some forms of lucid discernment and prudent judgement. Wikiquote was not created to host galleries of arcane erotica, and I suspect that those who are inclined to turn their pages into such will regularly encounter problems of various sorts, and perhaps loss of such options. That is about all I have time to say right now — I have to attend to a few other matters before leaving again. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I just glanced over the page again, and realized the deceptive image caption combination which I had noticed is actually still there. I am inclined to remove it, but will refrain for now. I do not specifically know what prompted UDScott’s edit, and don’t have time now to examine the situation further, but I believe most people would be likely to consider much of your page in very poor taste, and would at least encourage the removal of X-rated illustrations. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 01:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
First, the reversion I made was done in error - I am not inclined to alter such pages or to censor people in any way. Kalki's thoughts on what is on the page are ones that I tend to agree with, but I am not usually inclined to act regarding User pages unless what is posted is so egregiously bad. I apologize for the error and have reverted the change. While I may not agree with nor like what is on the page, I am inclined to leave it as is. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
During my brief review of the situation, I surmised it might have been the case of an accidental edit. I too have accidentally hit the "rollback" button without noticing the fact until sometime later on at least one or two occasions. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I will remove the sole X rated image captioned with the unnamed individual's statements per your advice Kalki, however I would appreciate it if you were to speak with said unnamed individual about Wikipedia's policy on X rated images, as I find the images of a deer preforming oral sex on a minor displayed on bestiality to serve no purpose other than to promote the views of a certain very high ranking Wikipedia administrator (also to be unnamed) that has abused their check user privileges yet continues to operate as an administrator. An administrator, who if Encyclopedia Dramatica is to actually be believed, (a big if), has associations with individuals that have lobbied for bestiality using wikipedia as a platform which does not bode well in today's atmosphere of powerful men involved in sex scandals. The two pages should follow the same rules, and be devoid of X rated images of children, seeing as it makes those pages illegal to look at in several countries, diminishing the ability of Wikipedia to educate people from them on those topics. What about you Kalki, is that something you are willing to take a stance on and have dealt with thru the proper channels? I heard Jimmy Wales tried to remove similar images but was out voted by the community so who is it than to blame? Also, I hope you don't mind Kalki, but you made an unnecessary space in your statement that I've corrected, my apologies if this typo correction is overreaching my bounds.
On another note, if you have time, I would appreciate your opinion on what other images should be removed or re captioned, as I value your opinion. I find the quote from Moses very disturbing, if you know of what the context of soldiers taking virgins "for yourselves" is, than I would appreciate the clarification, seeing as women aren't property to be owned as slaves, which is what that biblical quote seems to imply for the war captives.
Thank you UDScott for the explanation, I have also accidentally reverted edits using undo before as a wiki administrator, as the Uncyclopedia page for Robosexuality will show, although I noticed my mistake immediately, I can see how you might not have noticed. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Amazing user pageEdit

By chance I had come across your userpage and it looks amazing, compliments to you mate. --DDotsroeg (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not had much time to work on it or other things on this project lately, and am only dropping in now for a few minutes to take care of daily tasks before leaving again. I hope to have time to take care of a few more things and perhaps update some of the sub-pages in the next month or so. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
How long did it take you to figure out how to do all the cool graphics on your pages? Is there any specific way to learn how, or do you learn as you go? Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
You do have a very nice looking user page Kalki, it's what inspired me to decorate mine; though I prefer yours, I'm not about to just copy you. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Abraham in the Idol ShopEdit

You were very helpful when I added quotes from the book of proverbs, extending the passages on wisdom, however I was wondering if at some point you would be willing to edit the reverted selection I added from the Genesis Rabbah for Abraham that I was told was too long to include. Thanks again. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Busier than I had expected to be lately — I've had very little time to check on things here…Edit

Though not quite as rushed as I was yesterday, when I had only a very few minutes to do things before leaving again, I am only checking in briefly and will be leaving again soon. A few weeks ago, I had actually expected to have more time here in recent weeks, but other things came up, and I've been very busy, and have not even had time to monitor things here so much as I normally would do, at least a couple times a day. I'm going to do QOTD work now, but don’t expect to have much time beyond that before leaving again. I do expect to begin having a bit more time here in coming weeks. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Do descriptions of the circles of Hell in Dante's Inferno require too much context to be added to the pages for the vices that they punish? Should the descriptions of the circles be added to the page for Hell?Edit

I know DanielTom hates particular instances of a theme, but I was wondering if you'd find these acceptable to include for lust, greed and Hell...

  • Love, which in gentlest hearts will soonest bloom
    seized my lover with passion for that sweet body
    from which I was torn unshriven to my doom.
    Love, which permits no loved one not to love,
    took me so strongly with delight in him
    that we are one in Hell, as we were above.
    Love led us to one death. In the depths of Hell
    Caïna waits for him who took our lives."
    This was the piteous tale they stopped to tell.
  • Here, too, I saw a nation of lost souls,
    far more than were above: they strained their chests
    against enormous weights, and with mad howls
    rolled them at one another. Then in haste
    they rolled them back, one party shouting out:
    "Why do you hoard?" and the other: "Why do you waste?"

CensoredScribe (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I am in almost as hurried a rush as I was a couple nights ago — and don’t have time to do extensive analyses or responses right now. I will be doing QOTD selection and then leaving — and probably won't check in here again until sometime tomorrow. I will simply state that sourced quotes are usually welcome, though I personally am not much focused upon contexts and punishments in various circles of hell. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any task, that's non administrative, which you'd be willing to delegate to me? A book you haven't the time to add quotations from?Edit

DanielTom requested my assistance with going through this dictionary of quotations, however I declined. I was wondering if there is anything I might be able to do for you, as my choice in quote collections Today In Science History is no longer welcome, past the use of an inexplicably arbitrary number of quotations around the area of 12, so it seems. I'll go through whatever reading list you give me, even if you think I'm only fit to go through children's books, which based off some of your compliments in the past I don't believe is your assessment of my reading comprehension, citation formatting, and whatever the correct terminology for quotation selecting is. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t have any interest in assigning anyone any tasks; but will note that any currently copyrighted publications of quotes, or any other presentations presents a need to be limited in what can be directly presented from them here. I have just briefly checked in again, today, and must be leaving soon. There are quite a few matters on my mind to attend to personally attend to here eventually, but I don’t have time to do so today. I might attend to a few within the next week or so, but I must be leaving now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Regular Show Season 9?Edit

Excuse me, these vandals keep vandalizing the Regular Show Season 8 page at Wikiquote. That is because, one of these vandals at Wikiquote, wants to get Regular Show back, by giving the show a ninth season. Can you help block that vandal, so he didn't vandal ever again? 18:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The latest IP used by the vandal was blocked by another admin for a month. Such measures are about all that can be done at this time. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time sourcing a Plutarch quote and was wondering if you happen to know where it comes from?Edit

On page 192 of Howard Zinn Speaks: Collected Speeches, 1963-2009, Howard Zinn quotes Plutarch saying "The poor go to war to fight and die for the delights, riches, and superfluities of others." I don't particularly care to read through the works of Plutarch hoping to find the origin of this quote at this point in my life and was hoping you might know where it is from or be interested in reading through his works to find it.

Also is it just me or do most authors who use quotes not actually care about providing full citations for them? CensoredScribe (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

slow downs?Edit

I am just mentioning this, because it probably doesn't yet merit mention on Village Pump, but when editing here I have recently been experiencing very long lags, of over a minute or more, when doing very basic and small edits to pages; which often seems very much longer than usual. I had initially attributed this to patches to various forms of system software that have gone out recently to address Spectre & Meltdown vulnerabilities in most computer chips, which have been blamed for many forms of slowdowns, but I hadn't noticed many significant problems myself other than on wikis. Even as I typed this, I realized it might involve patches on the server systems, as well as my own, so considering that this might be the case, I am simply posting my speculations as a note to others who might be experiencing similar hangups. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have not been experiencing any slowdowns lately. (Other than, of course, your own talk page with its unusual length and quantity of imagery...) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the problems, as I have noticed them, probably are related to the recent system updates on my own computer, and probably in interactions with servers with similar slowdowns. I also will probably be attempting to do a bit more editing here, and cut this page down a bit, within the next few weeks. The last couple of years have continuously persisted in providing me more issues and projects to address than I had anticipated, and I rather expect that to continue — but am hoping for at least a few weeks of relatively more time to spend here soon. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 01:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Boi13414413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user’s only contributions have been acts of vandalism. Please block him before he does it again. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem; I had meant to note I had taken care of it here, but I've been dividing my attention between computer work and a few other tasks. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 03:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you for choosing my suggested quote as the quote of the day for February 19, 2018. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you too for choosing my proposed quote today. --Jedi3 (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism noticeEdit

AstaDev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Do something, FAST!!!! Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Even More VandalismEdit

DisuseKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Plese stop this user from vandalizing. He is a nuisance who clearly is trying to do no good. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please block Jedi3Edit

I have only removed the editor's non-notable quotes. I don't touch notable quotes even if they are negative about the subject.

The user Jedi3 has been constantly edit-warring and adding non-notable quotes only about negative and hateful comments by Hindutva writers against non-Hindus especially Muslims and negative things done by non-Hindus especially Muslim rulers.

Regardless, I haven't removed any notable ones. However, he adds just about anything he comes across say somebody making comments against the topic in question like Aurangzeb and that too with improper copying.

I've been trying to improve the article but his constant edit-warring is disrupting my editing process. Your lock isn't helpful at all since he would get away with his many disruptive actions and he will likely repeat it in future. This is not the first time he has done it If you want to block me you can, but please block him as well. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Japanese poetsEdit

Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This anonymous user added a spam page advertising his company. When I marked it for speedy deletion, he removed the speedy deletion notice, and proceeded to add more to the article. Please block him. J.A.R.N.Y🗣 11:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove boldface from most "Last words"Edit

Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This anonymous user has added multiple articles that contain only advertising spam with no actual quotes. Please block him. J.A.R.N.Y🗣 22:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


A user (Harsh Rathod) has made what seems to me to be a reasonable request to copy this from Wikipedia. I noticed that you deleted a local version of this template last June as part of a mass deletion of pages by a user. Here's the entry:

04:24, 27 June 2017 Kalki (talk | contribs | block) deleted page (Mass deletion of pages added by

Do you object to me restoring Template:Abbr from this? I don't know anything about the history of this mass deletion or this user. OTOH, I also don't know anything about the requesting user, who seems to have only done one page.

Thanks in advance for your help. - Ubiquity (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to a useful template being imported or restored. The mass deletion which that was a part of was simply a response to the creation of many pages which were clearly inappropriate by a cross-wiki vandal. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What censorship at Talk:IndiaEdit

Kalki, you know well that neither me or Jedi3 has had any issues on India. He abruptly stopped discussion at Talk:Aurangzeb midway. Why are you claiming that I'm only allowing one side to discuss? I only removed his comment from Talk:India because it didn't have anything to do with our issues and was not the proper forum. This is pure vandalism that he keeps on blaming me of censorship and whatnot but doesn't even discuss it at th article where the issues are. Why can't he talk at the relevant page or invite the community to comment there instead? All he's been doing is making false claims and bad faith assumptions. I haven't stopped any discussion with him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The disputes which have existed between you two have spanned several pages — I do not object to an attempt to consolidate some aspects of them upon one talk page of an article upon one of the more general subjects upon which the two of you regularly dispute. BOTH of you have very serious issues, in terms of attitudes, and dispositions, from my perspectives, but I have refrained from indicating what many of these are. I don't presently have time to deal extensively with them, but I might attempt to provide some of my own perspectives in the next week or so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:India is the talk page of article India, not anything else. He abruptly stopped the duscussion at Talk:Aurangzeb like he earlier did at Talk:Somnath temple. The disputes should be on specific pages where they actually existed. Not where they didn't. He can also contact other editors and thwre are other forums if he doesn't feel satisified like ANI or Vandalism complaint etc. Please remove his unrelated complaint from Talk:India. If not, at least take back your claim of me "censoring" his comment at Talk:India. I only removed it because the issues had nothing to do with the article. It is sheer vandalism by him. I had no other intention. Please don't blame me of censorship even though there was no such reason. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I can concede that he, perhaps, did not choose the best place to make his points, but it is not your prerogative to unilaterally remove his attempts to make them. There are numerous problems which I perceive in the current disputes, and I believe that many impediments exist to quickly or easily resolving them, in anything approaching an entirely fair matter, but there is perhaps some hope that some of them might be resolvable, in the courses of time and expositions, but how swiftly or slowly satisfying or unsatisfying resolutions might be attained is not yet clear for anyone. I confess that I myself have not attempted to very closely follow many of the courses of your recent disputes — and I remain far too busy with far too many other things to spend much time on them now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism and disruptive edits can be removed. India is not the talk page to discuss any other issues. Jedi3 is making false defamatory allegations after he failed to prove his baseless claims on the relevant articles where he did have issues. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I consider both of you somewhat prone to make "disruptive" edits — but I probably would not consider any of them deliberate vandalism — though such might be a charge both of you might be prone to level at each other, in your continuing edit disputes. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Falsely saying I'm not discussing when I am is vandalism and disruption. It is also plain lying. The reason why I haven't talked about all different quotes at once is because it will be humanley impossible. Simple. Especially when he has edit-warred over one quote for months. That's why I'm talking one at a time while checking all his other quotes to keep a tab for future that I edited that article. This way we both can come back after discussing a quote, check which quotes on that article we had issues with and start discussing them. That is it.
Making false claims should be considered a complete no. I don't know why you aren't dissuading him from making false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
If you properly enforced the rules and intervened in disruptive edits, this Wiki would have no problem of edit-warring and false claims. Instead even after knowing of an edit-war by other users you did nothing. Many times, you don't bother stop users even if they actually become disruptive and cross boundaries. Even if you are busy, you can still act against edit-warring. Jedi3 edit-warred 3 times right after his block expired on 23 March. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Perceiving you BOTH to be in the wrong, to varying degrees, in various ways, at various times, IF I were to now take your ASININE advice and get involved in something I do NOT have time to further investigate at this time I would simply block BOTH of your troublesome accounts for a day or two — but as I am not inclined to be quite so asinine a twerp as that — I am letting both of you remain troublesome irritations a bit more, and let you both begin to examine the extent many people don’t want to get involved in your complex messes of disputations. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
When you warned to block me, I didn't start edit-warring. Despite me feeling your actions are clearly wrong. However, Jedi3 immediately started edit-warring again afyer being warned of a block and again after his block from UDScott expired. I don't know what's asinine in what I said? If the approach to moderating hadn't been so casual, then there will be no disruptive editing. Not just that, you're allowing users to get away with deliberately false claims. For there to be cooperation, there has to be effective moderation as well which you haven't bothered with. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I don’t believe either of you have very profound perception of how wrong many of your attitudes and behaviors can seem to others — and I am confident that some might be inclined to say the same towards me, or others with which they might be inclined to disagree. Most of the time most people do not make "deliberately false claims" — though some of the most wretched regularly do, but much of the time most people are susceptible to making, accepting and asserting various forms of "false assumptions" and maintaining various forms of false perceptions and false conceptions of various matters, with various forms and levels of sincere beliefs, which others can perceive as manifesting some levels of either error or delusion. I do NOT have time to elaborate upon matters further right now, because I simply must be leaving very soon. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between "assumptions" and deliberate. Especially when despite one knowing not so, one persists in claiming it is something. Taking action against a disruptive editor is a matter of minutes of not seconds. I've already made the user's omissions and comissions clear. No one does anything and just keeps giving instructions. If you actually moderated in the same total amount of time you made your comments, this place would have been much better. But you never did anything. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
To your own mind, you perhaps have "already made the user's omissions and comissions clear" — but quite obviously you are quite oblivious to many aspects of your own "omissions and comissions" which can be quite obvious to others, as well as many of those you both engage in, to varying extents. It is not my task to please or pander to either one of two determinedly hostile individuals — and I doubt either of you would be entirely pleased with whatever actions are eventually agreed to, among others who might become involved, as to how to take actions regarding either of your attitudes and activities. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 09:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Someone falsely making up claims, misrepresenting what a quote is about i disruptive. But above all edit-warring especially right after they were warned and blocked. The latter part clearly exposes that the user doesn't care even if he is warned and blocked. If someone edit-warring even after being warned and abruptly stopping discussion like Jedi3 while blaming me of not cooperating or discussing, doesn't deserve to blocked, I don't know what blocks are for. I could have complained his actions much earlier, but I didn't want it to appear as intimidation and tried to discuss. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


Other editors and me have previously told MonsterHunter32 many times that the following rule based on Template:Remove should be strictly observed by him:

  • All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.

This really is the bare minimum that must be enforced. If MonsterHunter32 as a rule continues to refuse to do this, I don't see how any meaningful discussion of the deleted quotes is possible at all.

Please note that this was asked to him dozens of times, and dozens of times he continues to ignore it.

Can you please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes this? He has been told this dozens of times by multiple users, but I will notify him again about this on his talkpage (my last notification was promptly deleted by him). If he starts edit warring again without observing this rule, he should be blocked, or at least the page be protected.

Please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Observing the rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:
  • MonsterHunter32 has done blanked and censored dozens of quotes, most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary)
  • He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
  • MonsterHunter32 has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
  • MonsterHunter32 has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged religious beliefs or opinions or alleged bias, using religious or political smears against me and others.
MonsterHunter32 as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that he was wrong, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. Discussion with someone who as a rule and always refuses to make the slightest concession that he might be wrong, or that others may have different opinions than him, is becoming a waste of time. Maybe even worse are the misrepresentations, dishonesty and personal attacks.
This is what other editors have said about MonsterHunter32:
  • "I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer."
  • "I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. "
  • "Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ "
  • "I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote." (in response to MonsterHunter32)
  • "No more of this time-wasting dispute here. I don't want my talk page to be used to call people vandals, liars, etc..... "
  • "if you keep this up you will be blocked"
  • "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes ... and wikihounding him. These are very reasonable concerns. .... If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him."
  • "Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). "
I have attempted to solve it with discussion with him, but by his refusal of even the most elementary things, like giving full reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage, he is making it extremely difficult. What really is needed, and I asked many times for this, are comments from other users on the quotes. Please see Talk:India#Summary_table for my latest attempt to ask others for comments.
Ultimately, I agree with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard:
  • "If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.)
Please let me know if you too agree with this.
Wikiquote is not prepared to handle persistent, disruptive editors like MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who by his own admission is "constantly monitoring" me, attacking me for alleged religious bias or my alleged religious beliefs, and reverting all my additions with poor excuses that in most cases he refuses even to discuss. It cannot be in Wikiquotes interest when such editors can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with censoring and blanking quotes. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's disruptive editsEdit

What does User:Jedi3 hopes to achieve by repeatedly complaining instead of any actual cooperation? When I discuss he either abruptly leaves or keeps on repeating the same things. He keeps on edit-warring over and over and even started edit-warring right after User:UDScott block on him expired.

All of the "complains" of his based on poor fact- reading and hiding the truth again. Oh he doesn't mention some of the comments made by other users about him:

  • User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claiming Template:Remove doesn't allow for removal of quotes and mandates moving and discussion. But I found out he hasn't read it properly. Templat:Remove itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. It says: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.
Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked.
  • What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.
  • He has also made some utterly false claims of "blanking", even though my removal of his quotes didn't involve more than 1 or 2 quotes and removed only a small part of the article. Some of his utterly false claims of "blanking" are here, here and here.
  • There is nothing wrong in checking another editor when they are being disruptive like User:Jedi3. And what I actually said was me categorically proving I never censored him. I was checking whether his edits are non-notable and non-memorable. "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • I already suggested at talk:India, let's discuss all quotes one by one at the relevant article talk pages. He refuses to do so.
  • Jedi3 keeps on smearing and making false allegations of "censorship" just because I disagree with many of his quotes being relevant. That too me telling it plainly I have only removed non-memorable/non-notable quotes: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • After Daniel Tom reverted me at Talk:India for removing Jedi3's vandal comments of baseless accusations and taking the issue to an entirely unrelated article while the actual discussion should have been at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles where I actually removed his quotes. His actions were very similar to Jedi3 by baselessly accusing me of censorship despite me discussing and compromising despite the quote being not notable, I asked him not to take sides with jedi3 over any ideolgical affinity. I told DanielTom about this [12] and also tried to prevent another edit-war at Talk:India like it happened on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I also told him the same at his own talk page.
  • After Kalki reverted me twice at talk:India and warned me, that was my last revert. I didn't start edit-warring and reverting like Jedi3. At User talk:Kalki#What censorship at Talk:India I asked him to effectively moderate and enforce the rules by blocking Jedi3 for his consistent disruptive editing. He kept saying he didn't have time but I pointed out I already made Jedi3's disruptive edits clear and if he moderated then this place would have been a much better place as i believe Jedi3 is not fit for here. I asked him to act against Jedi3 as the latter kept edit-warring right after after being warned and blocked by UDScott.
  • Jedi3 has no problem in making false claims about quotes. Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source, even though it isn't about Martand temple. He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic. He made up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.
  • Jedi3 tried to justify his edit-warring claiming he had no choice as "I wasn't discussing". This despite me telling him that I already tried to discuss. I never said there will be no discussion ever. All i said was I couldn't discuss all of them at once. I have already asked him to discuss the quotes one a time.
  • Just a Regular New Yorker laimed in his comment that quotes canot be removed if they are sourced. He doesn't seem to have read tyhe policies.
  • Except Wikiquote:Wikiquote, WQ:Q and Template:Fame saying this is for notable quotes. And the Template:Remove Jedi3 keeps talking about itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning." I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES?
  • Jedi3 points to the comment "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...." Except I never said such a thing. But I do dislike is Jedi3's disruptive edits and him not giving two hoots about notability.
  • "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion " Will Jedi3 say it is Kalki claiming so about me removing his unrelated vandal comments at Talk:India which had nothing to do with India. I had even explained this to him in my only revert of his unlike jedi3 who still edit-wars after being warned or blocked. And I have repatedly said I don't remove any quote I found notable: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes aren't even near to what he claims. This is aside from the fact that especially a user merely calling something as notable or poignant or witty doesn't make it notable. But then again he doesn't even care about the dictionary meaning of the words he's talking about. From Oxford dictionary Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Anyone who reads a dictionary can understand he's making it up about any of his edits being eloquent, poignant or witty etc. yet he makes the same claim at Talk:India yet again despite already being made aware his quotes are not near what he's falsely claiming them to be.
  • All policies say this website is about notable quotes. Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced. WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "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." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Not to mention the quote itself being notable criteria mentioned by it as well.

Jedi3 needs to be blocked for his constant disruption, caring for nothing except POV-pushing at all costs even if becomes disruptive, bad faith edits and accusations as well as false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 starting edit-warring againEdit

Jedi3 has again started edit-warring despite being warned several times even by admins. I ask you to please block him since he has abused the chances given to him. It is clear there is no chance of his improvement. Just today, he edit-warred on 7 different articles: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Enough is enough, I request he be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I have grown tired of User:Jedi3 and his constant edit-warring, bad faith accusations, false claims etc. I can't edit like this. He is not a user that is supposed to be here. Either you block him or I quit permanently. Then Jedi3 can do what he wants. It is clear he won't stop until either of us are blocked. Please stop his disruption. He even keeps posting the same comments on my talk page. Another user or maybe the same user, DanielTom keeps supporting him for ideological reasons and also makes similar disruptive edits. It may sound like a threat, but the reality is I can't take this harassment. Months have already been wasted on him. I don;t want to get blocked because of him, nor I am willing to continue this cycle of harassment. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


I think if we study the primates, we notice that a lot of these things that we value in ourselves, such as human morality, have a connection with primate behavior. This completely changes the perspective, if you start thinking that actually we tap into our biological resources to become moral beings. That gives a completely different view of ourselves than this nasty selfish-gene type view that has been promoted for the last 25 years.

-Jane Goodall

Is she referring to the book by Dawkins?

What argument is she trying to make, exactly, and what would the implications be?

What exactly is she arguing against?

Sorry if this isn't the place for this, but I'm curious about this.

Benjaminikuta (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The interviewee is Frans de Waal, not Jane Goodall. Today's QOTD is a misattribution. 🙈 ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Benjaminikuta: It seems that both de Waal and Kalki misunderstood the whole point of Dawkins' book. The Selfish Gene is about altruism and people who think it champions selfishness have not read beyond the title-page. I'm sure Dawkins would agree with the first two sentences of the above quote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice as to the misattribution — I have just corrected that, in the QOTD — and will do a few more corrections here, and then must be leaving again. I should be back again in an hour or two after that. As to some of the various notions which have arisen around the term "selfish gene", and the role of genes in evolution, I have been quite aware of gene-centered views of evolution and Dawkin's work on popularizing the term inThe Selfish Gene, but as I prepared the QOTD yesterday, I realized that the quote seemed to be referring to a more constrained sense of "genetic basis for selfishness" which actually have arisen along with many popularizations of the term, and misunderstandings of its initial usage. I don’t have much time to do much right now beyond some quick corrections, but will do what I can to fix the current mix-ups before leaving. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 19:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that misattributed quote of the day. Figures.Edit

I'm afraid I can't technically count that as having attributed a quote of the day to the site, I suppose I could still in all honestly claim it as akin to an assist, it's not polite to gloat anyways. Had I bothered to double check I would have still been able to count that this morning,but not now. Oh well, another day maybe. That would have been a great way to retire. Sorry about that. With the exception of critically acclaimed films and television, (rather than CGI animal movies) I have little I'm interested in adding in ways of about sections, so I'll probably be leaving soon. Thank you for highlighting that quote for quote of the day and sorry I flubbed that. I never do anything right, though an inaccurate extreme absolute, is more correct than it is wrong I feel. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


This seems to me to be a rather uncontroversial categorization given it is in use on wikipedia, however the births categories were deleted in January by Ningauble citing speedy deletion. I was wondering exactly how many pages do I need to categorize to avoid that happening again? I don't particularly like just adding categories as it brings back some bad memories of my last few months on wikipedia and I'd prefer to find quotes; however whatever the magic number to avoid deletion is, I'd be willing to reach to avoid having to do this a third time, unless the majority of wikiquotians believe that knowing when people were born is not particularly useful, yet knowing when they died is. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The years of births are important, I think, like the years of deaths. Both are mentioned at Wikipedia. But the years of births should be mentioned BEFORE the years of dyings.--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting...the order of categories isn't something I've given much thought, though shouldn't birth always be the first category and death the last if they are creating a timeline of chronological points in the person's life? CensoredScribe (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the birth usually happens before death. The other orders of categories vary.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to categories for years of births, and do not believe there is any "number" of occurrences which actually applies on the matter, but some care should be taken when adding any category, and with either alphabetical or chronological considerations in any listings "birth dates" should occur before "death dates". ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine! When I search where people are from, I can add the years of birth at the same time.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
That there are categories for where people are "from" is a more problematic consideration, and I have not attempted to weigh on that issue at all, but technically anyone can be said to some extent to be "from" everywhere they have lived within their entire life — and especially those places where they have spent the most amount of their lives — and not merely their places of birth. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the metropolitan areas count. It made some work to find out that Hitchcock was born in London.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Understood, thank you both for your input. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Descriptive text for video games.Edit

I've recently been adding one sentence descriptive text to video game articles, which as I've seen it done with famous novels and other video games didn't seem that uncontroversial, however now Daniel Tom is telling me it makes the page for The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past look "ugly" and that these are too "encyclopedic" for wikiquote, which seems like an oversimplified arguement. Personally I think many of the basic descriptions on wikipedia are too detailed and relay information from stories chronologically instead of the order how it is discovered, often because it is written by fans, and all the summaries I've added are both short and descriptive in their use of wikipedia links to relative concepts repeatedly mentioned in the games and by their creators. As much, I'm confused where the hostility to me adding these comes from, I don't intend to add any more instruction manual quotations until the matter of the basic descriptions is settled. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

QOTD: 2016 Apr 16 & 2013 Apr 15Edit

The 2016 qotd for April 16

The acquisition of any knowledge is always of use to the intellect, because it may thus drive out useless things and retain the good. For nothing can be loved or hated unless it is first known.
~ Anatole France ~

is also shown as the 2013 qotd for April 15

The acquisition of any knowledge is always of use to the intellect, because it may thus drive out useless things and retain the good. For nothing can be loved or hated unless it is first known.
~ Leonardo da Vinci ~

Which is correct? bystander (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci is the proper attribution. All that I can surmise is that I somehow mixed up the citations in gathering up suggestions for the 2 consecutive days some years ago. Thanks for discovering and pointing out this error. It has now been corrected. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

My reasons are genuineEdit

My reasons for removing the quote on Taqiyya are genuine. w:Raymond Ibrahim is biased against Islam. One can't trust his "translation" of others just because he claims so. You can see the Wikipedia article I tagged. I am not removing it under frivolous reasons.

If you want i can re-add it under the Disputed section. While I don't know whether his translation is accurate as I can't read Arabic, IHS Jane does point out that he is misleading and his interpretation about Taqiyya are misleading and cherry-picked especially from Quran even if it is factual in some places. (https://web.archive.org/web/20110811212138/http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Islamic-Affairs-Analyst-2008/Interpreting-Taqiyya.html)

We can use the well-reputed terrorism analyst IHS Jane to state that Abrahim's article is misleading even though factual in places. Then I can add the quote back. I originally had this in mind, but it will be better to re-add it as disputed if users agree. I wish no conflict here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

As I just stated in my edit summary, when adding a wikilink to the WP article on the translator — where I can see that this particular translator could certainly be biased in many hostile ways — yet I do not seen any glaring evidence that the translation itself inaccurate. IF indications of such can be provided, they can become noted, but while perhaps better alternate translations might be provided, I see no valid reason to remove this translation as it is provided, because one simply dislikes and is suspicious of the translator. I still have not had time to study many of the recent disputes that have gone on here — and am not likely to have much time to do so in the days ahead, but I have also indicated my antipathy to intensely partisan antagonisms, between those of any contending political, religious or ethnic factions. I do not suppose that their can be any complete or easy reconciliation of many views, but I tend to oppose any forms of absolutist intolerance of the rights of people to state their cases, to the extent they can, in preferably positively assertive rather than denigrative and diminishing ways. I do not have much more time to spend here right now — I have to attend to other things, and probably won't have even so much as an hour or more to spend here until much later in the day, if even then. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 06:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually there is proof. w:Jane's Information Group points it out about his whole work being misleading and cherypicked. Read (https://web.archive.org/web/20110811212138/http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Islamic-Affairs-Analyst-2008/Interpreting-Taqiyya.html). based on this I've added Raymond's translation under "Disputed" instead of removing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There is perhaps actually evidence towards your views — but that does not actually constitute "proof" of the unsuitability of the quote itself. I still don’t have much time to spend here, but I can much more readily accept moving a quote to "Disputed" section, with evidence indicating reasons for such a move, as you have just done, than simple removal of a quote, as you had earlier done. I certainly don’t have time to contend upon this or any other matter at this time, but such measures are such as I find generally more acceptable. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 07:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
When his whole work is characterized as misleading and cherrypicking by a reliable source, we can call surely call it disputed. Also please don't wrongly interpret my edits to be "CENSORSHIP of ANYTHING critical of Islam". If I wanted to "censor", i would have removed many more quotes on the article. My reasons have only been - Non-notability and false or dubious claims by jedi3. I've let all his edits which are notable and genuine remain not matter what they are. In this case, I was waiting for user opinion whether to remove it or not before I added it back. I actually did originally thought of adding it back under Disputed even before you came. MonsterHunter32 (talk)
This problem won't occur if Jedi3 honestly tried to verify the original sources from where the quotes of the secondary books he copies it from are. Same was on Muhamamd bin Qasim, I showed him the original source from where the quote was too prove it wasn't about Qasim. He still says he hasn't seen it yet. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. I don’t presently have time to examine or critique any of the other matters, but just in this incident he added quotes that serve his interests and inclinations, and you removed the one I happened to notice, while checking in here. Your initial removal of the quote was accompanied with the statement in the edit summary:

Raymond Ibrahim is biased against Islam. One can't trust his "translation" of others just because he claims so. The same website that published for him claimed his interpretations as misleading (https://web.archive.org/web/20110811212138/http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Islamic-Affairs-Analyst-2008/Interpreting-Taqiyya.html). Please use a neutral and reliable source instead

While it is certainly desirable that those who contribute quotes here be capable of ranges of detachment, neutralities and transcendence of various disputes, it is NOT imperative that any individual quotes or translations of ANYONE be or even seem "neutral and reliable" to the tastes or values of any particular persons or groups — it can even be validly argued there would be absolutely NOTHING to quote at all, were that standard absolutely adhered to.

I reverted that removal — and began to do some minor formatting work on the page — and discovered the quote had already been removed again almost immediately with the statement:

Undo revision 2389524 by Kalki (talk) My edits are simply based on that Raymond Ibrahim's claim of translation of other's statements can't be trusted because of his bias. I see no claim disproving what I said. Please don't revert without reason.

I was rather irritated and restored the quote again with the statement:

"restore apparently valid quote of views of notable person — I find it morally repugnant when people primarily post things that are simply critical of individuals or groups, AND when they simply seek to remove quotes if they are not complimentary to the views they favor, to the extent they can — MOST of your edits seem to be CENSORSHIP of ANYTHING critical of Islam — even as your primary adversary seems intent on posting as much as possible critical of it — I find BOTH inclinations infantile."

This was simply a brief remarking upon a notable INCLINATION in MOST of your edits towards "CENSORSHIP of ANYTHING critical of Islam" — quite naturally within such limits as are imperative upon any mortal being — it was certainly not meant to imply you had made actual attempts or could be successful in any efforts to remove ALL things critical of Islam — but to remove what ever was critical to the extent" which you could, by various arguments, and excuses valid or invalid. I perceive many of the additions you object to rather objectionable myself — but I have always preferred to let even the most ignorant, confused and stupid of views upon many matters be presented, so long as people are left free to counter these with genuinely knowledgeable and wise responses. I do not find it admirable when people's "contributions" are primarily denigrative of the traditions of others — but neither do I find it admirable when people's "contributions" are simply extensive removals of what they simply do not like. As I have indicated, there are many other matters I must be attending to soon — and I am certainly not inclined to advocate either absolutist acceptances or absolutist aggressions against anyone, but I recognize that there are many types of harsh contentions which make harsh resolutions eventually more likely than easy or pleasant ones — but among the genuinely wise, those should nearly always be striven towards, and certainly favored, to the extent that they remain possible. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 07:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

My judgment was based also on Jane's article. When someone points out that a work is misleading and cherrypicking, it is not my fault. While quoting from it, it should be classified as such.
I simply am removing non-notable and non-genuine quotes. Many of Jedi3's quotes are from a few selected propaganda books that cherrypick quotes. He doesn't even mid to check whether what he is adding is true. But I let go of his non-notable quotes as I don't want an edit war unlike him. However, there is no excuse of non-genuine quotes. Despite me pointing out the problem of false and unrelated quotes, he doesn't accept it. Example - Sikandar Butshikan, Muhammad bin Qassim, Alauddin Khalji, New Delhi.
I don't mind criticism of anything. I have myself added quotes about criticism for many topics, including about Muslims. Regardless after Jedi3's frivolous claims at me being a sock, his many other false cl;aims of his quotes being eloquent, poignant, witty, I still decided to stay away after an admin told me to just avoid each other. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Besides I don't want to remove it anyway. If I wanted to, I wouldn't say let's have it under the disputed section. Jedi3 needs to verify his quotes from the original source before adding anything. As it has already been classified by reliable source as such, I classed it under disputed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Kalki, isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes critical of Islam (as you yourself have pointed out). One quote added by Nvvchar years ago about the sword of Tipu was removed, restored by me after discussion on my talk page, and now months later MonsterHunter32 removes it and calls me an "ideological edit-warring vandal" for undoing his removal, which was done without prior discussion and against consensus. It's very clear that he needs to be blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Just take a look at MonsterHunter32's edit-warring and massive unexplained censorship of sourced quotes with no talkpage discussion here.
MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, and which as disruptive vandalism are surely a blockable offence. What more does one need to do at wikiquote to get blocked?
He has been warned enough times already.
He has been told enough times already that he should at the very least observe this rule:
All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.
He just ignores it, and continues with even more massive censorship than before. I agree that it is time that he gets blocked. --Jedi3 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have made additions to articles DanielTom. I have added quotes. The problem, is disruptive people like Jedi3 are present. Besides you haven;t still apologized edit-warring even when offered a compromise. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh and please do not Tom, unlike what you think, most of my edits are not about Islam,. but even abotu Christianity, ancient India and even other topics. Nor I remove anything that is notable. The only censorship is of you and Jedi3 stopping me from removing your disruptive edits. Besides I wonder who these two came online in a minute of each other. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the massive and unxplained (no talkpage discussion) censorship, not his bias or the topic area. MonsterHunters edits are almost exclusively in articles I edited (not only in articles related to Islam, but mostly). The vast majority of his edits are just plain unexplained censorship and removals (without talkpage discussion) of sourced quotes. He made a few token additions, maybe so he doesn't quite appear like a plain vandal. (My edits are across many topic areas, and I edited not so much about Islam, except at the beginning, and would have edited much, much less about this topic area, if MonsterHunter hadn't been doing his disruption in this topic area so much.) --Jedi3 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please take actionEdit

Even though I decided to stay away on admin advice, Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].

Not withstanding most of my edits aren't about Islam, they are mostly about Muslim rulers, Jedi3's disruptive edits have also extended to European Christian rulers and ancient India.

He actually made 6 reverts, another one without any reason : [25]. Why don;t you do anything? he has lied multiple times, but I don't want to edit-war.

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [26], [27], [28]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [29], [30]

Some false claims of "massive blanking" despite only one quote being removed: [31], [32], [33].

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [34]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [35], [36]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

If you're not going to block someone who edit-wars, lies, and refuses to acknowledge it, while making dubious complaints against others, what is the point in having an administrator? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

We have already been told by admins to avoid each other, yet now you continue with it. If this continues, the admins will put on interaction ban on us. Because of it, I am avoiding responding directly to MH32, but if admins have any questions or queries related to it, I will respond directly to admins. If I don't respond within 48 hours, please leave a notification on my talkpage that you sent an email. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 Blame your own habit of lying and not checking the original sources.. You let go of that opportunity the moment you decided to use false reasons for reverting me. It was me simply avoiding you, not any talk page victory of yours that let your revert. It was you who didn't bother to verify some of your quotes beforehand. Besides, the thing about "avoiding each other" was a suggestion. I followed that suggestion in good faith, however seeing how perfectly false many of your edits are, you have broken that faith. Enough is enough. A person who keeps on habitually misleading doesn't deserve to be here. Kalki please take action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I will point out that though I have accepted and promoted respect for various generally helpful guidelines, that I, for one, have never sought to absolutely formulate or impose very narrow constraints on the contributions which others could make, and have sometimes clearly objected to the attempts of others to do so. I believe that in the course of many years, beyond diverse contributors to many of the games and television programs, there have only been a few people who habitually or extensively contribute such quotes as I would be inclined to designate "not sufficiently notable", or argue against including as such.

I do recognize that what some people with rather limited or shallow ranges of concerns tend to find most notable is VERY often narrowly partisan and denigrative of others, or their various beliefs or customs, believing that to be a good way to build up appreciation or reverence for themselves or those such as share many of their views, though those of broad and genuine wisdom recognize that such tendencies merely indicate their own forms of shallow, narrow and limited ranges of perceptions and concerns.

I am considering the idea that at least a short-term blocks might eventually be appropriate, but with much current involvement with many other concerns, I simply have not spent a great deal of time here lately, and haven't had the time to examine the situations thoroughly enough to sufficiently indicate the rationale of any actions which I personally might come to believe to be definitely appropriate.

As I have noted previously, I believe both of the individuals most extensively involved in the current disputes definitely seem to be promoting various forms of biases, with disregard or hostility to any statements of evidence or indications of the worth of views contrary to their own, though I can agree that I currently tend to believe, from my limited observations, that the assumptions and actions involved in the removals by MonsterHunter32 are generally the least tolerable.

That said, I will admit to a tendency to be strongly and overtly hostile to inconsiderate removals, even of such quotes as I might consider rather inconsiderate in character, or even belligerent trolling, but I also have a hostility to the zealous promotions of such assertions as promote or strengthen intensely divisive animosities as well as to the censorship of valid and honest presentations of significant opinions and facts (even many of those I find personally objectionable, and often used in deluded and deceitfully imbalanced ways in the promotion of various forms of bigotry and intolerance).

There has arisen on the internet and through popular and unpopular media of various types, many emerging species of belligerence among those most eager to denigrate, diminish or destroy the proper social rights of many, or most, or, in the most extreme cases, even any and all of those who do not embrace or submit to their peculiar ranges of ideologies and idiocies.

Recognizing the immense complexities of human inclinations and affinities, amidst every and all possible groupings, I do not pretend to claim that there can be any easy or swift elimination of many or even most of the foul forms of fanaticism which have grown bold in many ways, save through even fouler catastrophes of various sorts of anti-social chaos, and confess that I perceive little hope of the gradual diminishment and transcendence of their foully dangerous and destructive influences save through the determined and gradual growth of a more general awareness and appreciation of MANY of the forms of genuine mental health and moral strengths which can and do exist, as well as recognition and rejection of many of the pervasive and prevalent forms of mental, moral, amoral and immoral forms of delusions, deceits and decrepitudes which exist among many diverse human minds.

All that being said, I cannot actually stick around here much longer, and presently refrain from direct action on this particular matter, having not yet examined the copious disputes which have occurred, beyond a few brief glimpses at a few of them, and I actually do not anticipate having a great deal of time to examine situations extensively in the coming days, though I do anticipate I might become somewhat more actively involved in the discussions, to the extent I do have the time to do so. I might have a little time to do some work here, after I return, but also anticipate that I will be very busy with many other things, and will also have to try to get at least a couple hours of sleep, before leaving again. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC) + tweaks

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32s mass censorshipEdit

Why did you block me for pointing out an issue on the related talkpages and starting moving/discussing the censored quotes on talk but not MonsterHunter32 who censored the sourced quotes? Do you think this is fair?

MonsterHunter mass censored the quotes without even at least observing the rule (as he was told to you many times):

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

If MonsterHunter is not doing it, then someone else has to start moving/discussing the censored quotes on talk, don't you think so?

I still would like to know why MonsterHunter32 has not been blocked yet? Do you think his mass censorship of sourced quotes is not intimidating behaviour/harassment? Do you think that I am not harrassed by the massive censorship of MH32 and by the lack of repsonse from admins about it?

Should the mass censorship of sourced quotes go unchallenged even on the talkpage? Is it now even censored to discuss the censorship on the talkpage of the very aricle that the quotes were censored from?

Don't you think MonsterHunter should have moved the quotes to talk, and since he refuses to do so, someone else should be doing it?

Other editors have also said asked you, "isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes".... It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.

I find it extremely objectionable when you are making it sound like it would be fair if both of us are blocked with the same block length. i find it very objectionable when making it sound like there is any equivalence between the actions of a vandal who indiscriminately mass censors sourced quotes without explanation on talk [37], and another one who constantly discusses the censorship on talkpages before doing any reverts.

All the more so because MonsterHunter has basically admitted that he is being so disruptive so that he get can get both of us blocked. His goal is to get blocked, as long as I (unfairly) get blocked too. That is why he is being so disruptive.

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?

How would you feel if I were also to remove all your quote additions, using very poor excuses, only calling them non-notable and biased in the edit summary? Would you like that?

If you woulnd't like it, don't you agree that it is understandable that I try to discuss the issue, and shouldn't you be understanding of this?

Are you aware of the mass censorship of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter? Did you look at this link here?

It only takeas a few minutes to ascertain these facts, not more. Is that asked too much?

THis is what another editor said:

"I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer." --Jedi3 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I very briefly blocked you to immediately stop your mass creation of talk pages for repetitious presentations of your particular arguments. I indicated this on your talk page, and posted it just prior to your posting of further arguments here. To consolidate some of the materials being discussed I am including the comments just made on your talk page here upon mine:

Please block edit-warring and misleading Jedi3Edit

Here are the exposure of Jedi3's deliberate omissions and desperate attempts to have his views inserted at all costs. There are many proposals what to do with him:

All I have ever said to him even here lately, that let's discuss it one-by-one.

Even discussion at Talk:Somnath temple hasn't been resolved. This is the article where we had the earliest issue. Instead he has started using their talk pages merely to complain and bash me. He never listens.

He often abruptly stops discussion. Look at the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days).

WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "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." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Also it clearly says, "It is the quote itself that must be notable".

Jedi3 has no problem in making false claims about quotes. Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source, even though it isn't about Martand temple. He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic. He made up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

It is clear Jedi3 is only interested in POV-pushing even if his quotes are notable. Even another admin has already judged some of his quotes as non-memorable and merely POV-pushing. So he should be topic-banned from all topics he has edit-warred on.

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] and [43].

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring after his week-long block expired. These are only a few examples: here, a here, here.

Jedi3 was recently blocked by you for his disruptive behaviour of repetitive comments and mass-copying and pasting at talk pages.

Jedi3 again resumed edit-warring today. Already two reverts made the last time I checked: [44], [45].

It is clear this "interaction ban" is a malignant attempt by Jedi3 so I cannot even comment on his edits, let alone touch them. I have never sought any interaction ban on Jedi3. It is clearly visivke who doesn't esnt a dBut I do think he is disruptive and should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to discuss one at a time, you also need to delete one at a time. Simple as that.
Monsterhunter is using this one-by-one. as an excuse, so that he can refuse to move all the other censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning.
Somnath temple, I have also explained to him already, I said that in some of the discussions outside opinions from other editors are needed to progress, and I have asked for them. That is not the same as ending a discussion, in which MH as a rule refuse to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion. He will never admit that others might have a different opinion, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. That is why I asked others for opinions from other editors. This is normal procedure also in wikipedia.
The examples given have nothing to do with the massive censorship. He is always using this as an excuse to avoid discussing the censorship. Some of the examples were mistakes, which happen to the best of us, some others are just misleading and misrepresentations. But they are all unrelated to the massive censorship.
MonsterHunter should never again accuse others of edit-warring, after he as been mass deleting massive amounts of quotes from over 100 articles in one hour.--Jedi3 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
First of all let me rephrase reality: Your quotes aren't going to run away so there's nothing preventing you from discussing one by one. Instead you will be able to easily access which quotes were removed

Second: I will accuse you of edit-warring because you started doing it.

Third: Stop accusing me of vandalism and censorship as well as others. Stop dithering about discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • First, as was told to you many times, you need to move quotes to thte talkpage with your reasoning for the deletion. AS another editor told you also: "Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ "
  • Second, you started the deletion of the quotes, didn't you? I was only maintaining STATUS QUO during discussions, and after having discussed the matter. Not like you at all.--Jedi3 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No first, No body stopped any moving or discussion. All I said is let's discuss one at a time. Did you do that? No. What you do is go into a "vacation" for many days during discussion. Who's responsible?

Second, as I already said, Template:Remove actually says, Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

Third: Despite Template:Remove not mandating it so, I did try to move and discuss. You kept edit-warring, stonewalling discussions and abruptly stopping discussions.

Fourth: Does the main page say any quotation? No. Did or not you also add misleading quotes some time in the past or quoted whose original source you didn't check. Yes.

But here is what many pages of Wikiquote rules say:

WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "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." WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." And also, it says it is the quote itself that must be notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • First, If you want to discuss one at a time, you also need to delete one at a time. Simple as that. Monsterhunter is using this one-by-one. as an excuse, so that he can refuse to move all the other censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning. We both didn't talk at Somnath during this time. You were also not editing the talkpage during this time. We stopped discussing at almost the same time, the discussion was going nowhere, because you as a rule refuse to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that he was wrong, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. That is why I asked others for opinions from other editors. That is standard procedure also at wikipedia in such cases.
  • Second, the exceptions to the rule would obviously only be clear vandalism. So it does not apply to your censorship. That was explained to you many times already and it is misleading if you bring up this point again and again.
  • Third, you almost never moved deleted quotes to the talkpage, and added full reasoning on talk. Often I had to start moving the quotes to talk. see the table here [46]
  • Fourth, The examples given have nothing to do with the massive censorship. He is always using this as an excuse to avoid discussing the censorship. Some of the examples were mistakes, which happen to the best of us, some others are just misleading and misrepresentations. But they are all unrelated to the massive censorship. --Jedi3 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No first, you are still accusing me of censorship at the original quote at Talk:Somnath temple. You never even resolved that one.

No body stopped any moving or discussion. All I said is let's discuss one at a time. Did you do that? No. What you do is go into a "vacation" for many days during discussion. Who's responsible?

Second, as I already said, Template:Remove actually says, Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

Third: Despite Template:Remove not mandating it so, I did try to move and discuss. You kept edit-warring, stonewalling discussions and abruptly stopping discussions. Even at others where you insisted, I did try to discuss. But you kept edit-warring and stonewalling over others as well.

Fourth: I didn't make the pages about notability of quotes. Another admin has already warned you. Is it an excuse wgen your quotes are not per the policies abd guidines?

The real excuse: Your complaints and requests for interaction ban. MonsterHunter32 (talk)

Brief block of massive posting actionsEdit

I just returned to the computer and noticed the recent activity of repetitive posting a MASSIVE argument on MANY talk pages and have briefly blocked you. SUCH an addition of argumentative materials to so many pages is NOT APPROPRIATE. IF you had simply posted this to a single page, with a link to it, that probably would have been acceptable — but from my perspectives, BOTH of you have been acting with extreme conceits that others on this project should be PRIMARILY concerned with your rather extreme biases and disputes. WERE that the case, you BOTH might find yourselves blocked LONG-TERM as interminable belligerents. I will very probably have to be leaving soon, so I will probably not have time to comment upon this matter much more very soon. I would recommend NOT attempting to add the material you were adding to further pages at this time, or you might find yourself blocked for more than the 15 minutes of the block I just applied, upon noticing your recent activity. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 10:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC) + tweak

I have deleted the massive creation of talk pages you recently created for repetitious postings of your particular arguments. Such activities are generally considered disreputable disruptions on the Wikimedia projects. Were a minor wiki-link added to all the pages in contention, to a presentation of your arguments upon one of your own talk pages, or the admin notice board, or such a single page, it would probably be far more acceptable. I will probably not have a great deal of time here today, and will likely be leaving within about an hour or so, and currently must be preparing to attend to many other matters today. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 keeps on posting the same arguments everywhere. It is clear that he is trying to "outnumber" my posts by pasting them om multitude of talk pages. I don't have any problem in arguing with him at select talk pages like AN or relevant talk pages of the articles where the quotes were removed. But his behavior is getting extremely disruptive. I have let many of Jedi3's quotes remain. We can argue over others. But he doesn't seem to be in a mood to do anything except getting either of us blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do somethingEdit

Kalki, please do something.

MonsterHunter32 has mass deleted sourced content in over 100 articles without giving any reasoning on the talkpage, and nothing has been done yet.

--Jedi3 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

At the very least this rule should be enforced

All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo version should be kept and/or restored, by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion.

This is the bare minimum, and more will likely be needed, but MonsterHunter32 refuses to respect even this bare minimum, despite being asked many times by multiple editors and admins, but admins need to tell him more clearly that he needs to respect it. --Jedi3 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No first, you are still accusing me of censorship at the original quote at Talk:Somnath temple. You never even resolved that one. I haven't removed even all of your non-notable quotes. I left many of your quotesn, even non-notable ones.

Second, No body stopped any moving or discussion. All I said is let's discuss one at a time. Did you do that? No. What you do is go into a "vacation" for many days during discussion. Who's responsible?

As I already said, Template:Remove actually says, Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

Third: Despite Template:Remove not mandating it so, I did try to move and discuss. You kept edit-warring, stonewalling discussions and abruptly stopping discussions. Even at others where you insisted, I did try to discuss. But you kept edit-warring and stonewalling over others as well.

Fourth: I didn't make the pages about notability of quotes. Another admin has already warned you. Is it an excuse wgen your quotes are not per the policies abd guidines?

The real bare minimum: Stop disruption, edit-warring and making excuses and discuss for once. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't remove quotes because of biasEdit

If you want proof that I am not removing quotes because I don’t like them, here it is: Recently, I added quotes that criticised Aurangzeb: [47], [48].

This is not the first time I added quotes critical of a topic. The only thing I have a problem with is non-memorable quotes. The non-notable quotes were clearly added only for POV-pushing and I'm not making it up. I don’t mind the content, I only had problem with disruption and non-notable quotes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem and the issue that you should have been addressing is this
By constantly talking about other things instead, you are making it appear that you are trying to obfuscate the issue and trying to avoid discussing about the real issue wich is your massive mass deletion of sourced quotes in over 100 articles without any explanation on the 100+ talkpages or even moving the deleted quotes to the talkpage. Aurangzeb is one of the few articles in which you have added some quotes, and not only removed quotes, and I have in general not opposed your additions (although I didn't find them always appropriate, but as far as I can remember I have not deleted them (except perhaps once accidentally, after you added a quote just after mass deleting other quotes)). --Jedi3 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 I have already addressed it. The reason is not censorship as you keep claiming The reason is your bias overriding everything else. Had you cared about anything else except POV-pushing at the cost of even non-notable quotes, I would have never removed anything. Had you even attempted a compromise instead of baselessly claiming poignant, witty, pithy, eloquent etc, we could have arrived at a consensus. Do you know why I haven't added many quotes? Because of your disruption. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Kalki, User:Jedi3's sole purpose in his edits has been POV-pushing to spread hatred against non-Hindu religions even if his quotes are not memorable. Please be careful of his intentions and edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Please watch this page. Someone is trying to change policy without discussion for suspicious reasons. It should be obvious that some quotes, like Cervantes calling Camões "the most excellent Camoens" in Don Quixote, merit inclusion only because of the notable work they appear in. Anyway, I already reverted the attempts to change this policy (which has stood for over a decade) twice, and would appreciate it if you reverted any further suspicious changes made without prior discussion or consensus. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please also have a look here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I will bear such things in mind, but I spend much less time attending to this site than I once did, for many diverse reasons. I have been appalled at various attempts at casual constraint and reduction of options here for some time, but there will be more attention than my own needed to adequately address such issues. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Please see this – again reverts of a well-over-a-decade-old policy without prior discussion or consensus. Perhaps it would be best to fully protect the page. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Making the use of descriptive texts across work pages uniformEdit

I started a discussion at the pump and was wondering if I could get your view on the sentence long descriptions that appear to be ubiquitous for written works that have their own pages, but not film, television or video games. I've been told descriptive texts should not be there, but I have the strange feeling it would be considered vandalism if I just started deleting all the intros for novels. From what little I've seen, most novels don't have descriptive text because those novels are just sections on the page of their author, I don't think anyone has tried adding descriptions to these, I imagine the argument is that having descriptive text outside of the intro to the page itself is distracting, though I imagine having images would be much more of a distraction, but we have those. (Forgive the whataboutism of bringing up the additional topic of images, but I thought images might be a larger contributing factor when it comes to making the pages "ugly", than adding a single sentence of text at the top. So far the arguments against descriptive text appear to be based on asthetics and an apparent need to differentiate wikiquote from wikipedia. I find our intros are generally shorter and better written, requiring less knowledge of the work, and as such are distinct from the descriptions wikipedia uses which are filled with links to the characters and concepts, to the point fans just keep adding minor details, defeating the point of having a summary. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Quoted in MuhammadEdit

Is the author of the quote a highly notable person? WQ:Q Who was talking about his views? Is an award winner and recognized author? I don't know about the quote itself, "Individual notability of the author is required for a quote about another person to be included in a page on that other person." Rupert loup (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Being polemical for his views doesn't meant that is notable, notability is timeless.Rupert loup (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
But I'm ingnorant about the author or his work so I trust in your judgment, to me is just a normal author like the other thousands of barely known authors. I'm doing what I said that I never will do again in Wikias, that is get involved in them. So maybe is time to stop editing existing content. Rupert loup (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually the quote you have insisted on removing is PART of a VERY famous and WIDELY quoted statement by Michael H. Hart, from his VERY famous work: The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978), which Wikipedia notes "has sold more than 500,000 copies and been translated into 15 languages". In doing a google search for a famous part of the quote, I came across thousands of repetitions of it — including the very recent work by Jimmy Carter: Faith: A Journey For All (2018). Certainly the author is not as famous as Abraham Lincoln, Jesus Christ or Muhammad, or even Jimmy Carter — but I believe your conception of "highly" notable person is more than a bit constrained and exclusive if it insists on so high a level. Whatever might be some of the more deplorable views the author might have, the WORK by this author which the quote is from IS quite famous — and his ranking of Muhammad as the single most important individual in history was VERY widely reported assessment when the work was first published, and it actually remains a very famous assessment — despite your apparent lack of awareness of this fact. One's own immediate awareness of something as noted or notable should certainly not be a primary criterion of notability, such as impels you to so swiftly and insistently remove a statement which I believe has probably been on that page for years, and has just recently been restored by more than one person disputing your insistence that it "not-notable", including myself.
I intend to extend the quote slightly for context to read:
It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus.
Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time.
Of many important historical events, one might say that they were inevitable and would have occurred even without the particular political leader who guided them. For example, the South American colonies would probably have won their independence from Spain even if Simon Bolivar had never lived. But this cannot be said of the Arab conquests. Nothing similar had occurred before Muhammad, and there is no reason to believe that the conquests would have been achieved without him. The only comparable conquests in human history are those of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, which were primarily due to the influence of Genghis Khan. These conquests, however, though more extensive than those of the Arabs, did not prove permanent, and today the only areas occupied by the Mongols are those that they held prior to the time of Genghis Khan. … the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.
Even the other quote you have been removing, which is far more critical, and from a relatively obscure work, has in recent years become notably attributed to John Quincy Adams — and thus has probably become sufficient notable as to be included, but I believe only with a notice of disputation — from what little information I personally have been able to locate in recent years, regarding such an attribution, I myself find it highly disputable and VERY suspect, and believe it should be noted here ONLY as a DISPUTED attribution, until more substantial evidence of Adam's authorship is provided.
Over an hour ago, I actually was just very briefly checking in, considering a few minor additions to some pages, that I decided against attempting, and was about to leave again, when I noted your removal of what I recognized as part of a famous statement — and have delayed an excursion primarily to adequately respond to your insistence on removing the quote again, after I restored it, before leaving. One of the many reasons I have often come to avoid even briefly checking in on this site when I have the occasional chance to do so, is that I am well aware that is is likely to take up so much of my time, entering into rather vapid disputes which are often not worth the consumption of my time and efforts, relative to many other tasks. I am now once again preparing to leave, but will make such restorations, and notations as I have mentioned before doing so. After I return from my excursion, I might actually have a small amount of time attend to some of what I had initially thought of doing, before leaving again. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 06:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Lauretta Bender, LSD and schizophreniaEdit

I was wondering if it would be wise to add the conclusion from "The Treatment of Childhood Schizophrenia with LSD and UML" or if it would just result in another comment about regressing to my old patterns by DanielTom; the schizophrenia page is a stub and Dr. Bender is notable, unlike most of the scientists in this type of research I would present on similar pages. I have not seen anything on wikiquote regarding medical references and quotes, on wikipedia with med refs it's typically phase 3 or a revert and I know most medical articles in journals don't meet the criteria for notable according to many editors unless quoted in another journal. DanielTom seems to rely on google hits, but I don't recall anything indicating google was the ultimate decider of notability. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV PolicyEdit

A few users, including me, have noticed what we feel is bias towards certain political views when it comes to picking the quote of the day. I am curious what your take is on this, rather I am not accusing you of anything. I am simply bringing it to your attention, that whether intentionally or not, this trend has been observed. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 01:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Page protectionEdit

Please semi-protect The Prince of Egypt. It has become victim to IP address vandalism. Thank you. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 02:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have applied one month of protection to permit only autoconfirmed users to edit that page. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 08:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminshipEdit

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions) - J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 18:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help with disruptive IPs...Edit

Peter PanEdit

One user continuously adds nonsense and completely unnecessary (and completely inaccurate) extension to certain quotes. I request that that article be protected and this user be blocked indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thomas and Friends-related articlesEdit

Especially in The Adventure Begins, where the IPs continuously change Sir Topham Hatt's name to The Fat Director (which he was NEVER called in either the TV series nor the films). I request that these IPs be blocked indefinitely and that the pages be blocked for no less than the same period of time. I reported them months ago, but no matter how much I try, these IPs never stop. WikiLubber (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Being busyEdit

Hello Kalki, I've noticed that you often leave these messages about being too busy in real life in both your comments and edits. However you don't need to. It seems you are often busy, that I understand might be due to your work schedule.

The template right at the topmost of your talkpage is still saying the same thing after 2 years that you'll be busy for many days. However, if it's your work then I suggest you simply leave an eye-catching message that you'll mostly remain busy because of your workload and won't have time.

When editing an article, it is not required to always tell them you are busy. No one is likely to delete your changes if you don't come back. Simply tell them you'll come back and edit again later. Or you can use a sandbox. I did this often on Wikipedia.

Anyway those are just my suggestions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The name of the page should be woman, not women, in keeping with Wikipedia, also making it equivalent to men redirecting to man. Also, two other matters.Edit

I tried moving this myself, but it wouldn't let me as there's already a redirect in place, I didn't want to blank the page and copy and paste the contents to the redirect page, as that would not preserve the edit history.
Another thing, I tried adding a quote from Ulysses S. Grant about the world being connected by transportation and having one language and being one nation to the page for globalism, as I thought it would not be appropriate for language or nations as that's not primarily what the quote is about, perhaps I'm mistaken and it would be more appropriate for those pages, it's a good quote, there just seems to be some confusion on where to place it. The definition reads, "Globalization is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture." if this quote isn't about globalism than I don't know what quote is, I did not think actually mentioning the name of the page in the quote was a requirement.
Lastly, if I am to assume what the administrator who reverted my edits to the pages for Misogyny and Misandry did was correct, than should I proceed to remove the merge template from the many pages categorized as pending a merge, which lack a discussion, or do you think it better to leave them as is? I would prefer not reverting, however I generally like to assume the administrators are correct as well, though in this particular case, given the deletion of the well populated births category, in keeping with Wikipedia, I believe I am being singled out, for whatever reason that may be, and it is making my editing here needlessly difficult and is ultimately disrupting the improvement of wikiquote. As the administrator in question is otherwise good at maintaining wikiquote, and the project is in need of more administrators, I believe a friendly informal intervention better than calling for the removal of their administrator privileges, assuming administrators even can be demoted, can they, and does it require a 75% consensus like is required to become an administrator to begin with? I know on Uncyclopedia if I'm gone too long than I'll no longer be considered an active admin, but I wasn't sure how it works here. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I am just briefly checking in, and don’t have time to examine any of the merging issues or others, but the quote you added to "globalism" is in some ways dubious there, but would probably be more appropriate at World government. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 11:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Bill HicksEdit

This page has been subject to vandalism from anonymous users. Please semi-protect it. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 19:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi. Let you look at the last 3 edits:

  1. oldid 2415754, 10 June at 20:20, "5.922 bytes added". The last line are:

"** Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428."

  1. oldid 2415822, 10 June at , "2.765 bytes added". The last lines are:

"most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, as the noble associate of the divine Redeemer. .."

  1. oldid 2442166, 4 August at 22:18," 26.624 bytes removed ". The ending lines are:
    • Ulrich Zwingli, as quoted in E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

==External links=="

now note as follows
  • I have selected the paragraph titled "Mary, mother of Jesus", so it is strange that n edit ends with the paragraph "External links"
  • categories are always after the external links, to which I didn't made any addition or remotion of bytes'.removal. In the two previous edits there were categories without any external link.

May the revert be something similar to a fork of two or more edits??

  • I will add only the quotation given by Frank M. Rega. But I also think that 13 quotations by John Calvin are a too large amount. Some of them non verifiable, and has to be deleted.Micheledisaverio (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should resignEdit

Hello Kalki, I've noticed that you often keep saying that you don't have time. I think it's better if you give up adminship because it will often require a lot of time to understand a situation.

Also to be honest, based on your past behaviour I don't think you are fit for the job as you seem to make poor judgments. For example accusing me of censorship on talkpage of an article I didn't even edit when all I wanted was to discuss the dispute where it happened. You also needlessly threatened a block, which is a conflict-of-interest, even though never caring about complaints on AN or checking the quotes because you are always too busy.

You also support meaningless, biased and POV edits. The only quotes I really opposed were those that hadn't really achieved much notability on their own. I didn't start rooting them out of nowhere, it's in the policies that the quotes should be notable. If trying to follow policies is "censorship", then it isn't my fault. Such acts make it look like you favour right-wing politicial propaganda. Either gain a consensus to change the policies or follow them.

But much of this can be blamed on your lack of time. I am not saying it's anything bad. But adminship requires time. Say another person complains, or you need to check what's wrong with an article, or simply build an article, it requires time.

I encourage to give adminship to someone with more hands on his time. You can become a normal user like me and still occasionally contribute. There's nothing inferior in being a normal user. Hope you understand. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I confess that I believe that no one actually enjoys spending a great deal of their time trying to make expressions entirely understandable or acceptable to others who have demonstrated very limited mental or moral capacities in various ways. I will thus attempt to make this very succinct and very understandable even for those with very limited mental and moral perceptions, in a very little amount of time : your generous amount of ungenerous and unfriendly advice is properly being given the very little consideration it actually deserves. I believe that neither I nor you would be pleased for me to make myself more explicit on this matter. I now have other things to attend to. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually I was trying to be as friendly and polite as possible. I only said how I felt. Honesty is in short supply these days but you don't appreciate it. I thought you were just frustrated due to not having time, but clearly it's because you don't see others worth your time. Fine, I have better things to do than take this. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Fear of God and determining triviality in works known to millions of people.Edit

I'm confused by the justifications provided by Ningauble in the edit commentary section as to why the X-Men movie quote added to the page for Fear of God is not an acceptable edition, "(off-topic, trivial (and bizarre typography)", (off-topic should also be capitalized). I'm confused how it doesn't pertain to the topic, given it directly mentions the concept by name and elaborates on it in a unique and insightful way that the other quotes on the page do not. Also, since when are typographical errors justifications for deletion rather than correction? I'd also like a definition for what makes something trivial, given the work has been viewed by millions of people, it hardly seems trivial when compared to the quote from Pink Pistols on the page for guns which has been heard by only thousands; I know that just because a work is notable that doesn't mean that every quotation from it is, however given the quote pertains to one of the main characters' views on religion it seemed sufficiently important to include. Also, isn't the actual term used by Wikiquote's rules and guidelines notability, rather than triviality? The X-Men film is ranked at 81% by Rotten Tomatoes and is largely credited with launching the multi billion dollar super hero movie trend that has impacted the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions of movie goers, giving it historical significance if nothing else. Out of all of these it is only the triviality that seems to be an actual justification worth considering in my opinion, or would I in fact be justified in removing quotes with formatting errors as to increase my edit count, so that when restored, I may delete them again citing a different reasoning, further increasing my edit count? That's not particularly something that interests me, though if it were, this would be an excellent way of achieving that goal. Also, as I am interested in improving on my grammar and formatting, was the bizarre typography in question the asterisk and colon beginning the citation, or a lack of a semicolon following a list of commas for the multiple writers? Thank you for your assistance, I hope my recent additions have not created any trouble for others in correcting them or by providing others with an incorrect idea of what an acceptable quote here is. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

IP vandals and

Continuously add nonsense quotes to articles, such as the Toy Story series, the Shrek series, etc., and not to mention quotes that do not exist from characters that did not even appear in the films! Plus, they send messages on my talk page bragging about their edits just because they think they are funny. But vandalism is not funny. I request these IPs be blocked indefinitely, and all pages they vandalized be protected for at least a year. WikiLubber (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

IPs are rarely blocked indefinitely, and those used by most vandals are rarely fixed ones. I have blocked these IPs for a month. I do not presently see any immediate need to provide long term protection to any of the pages they vandalized. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, the IPs will not stop unless we protect all the pages they vandalized indefinitely (or no less than nine months), as well as my talk page, just in case. You see, recently, IP vandals have been rubbing their vandalism in my face, claiming their edits were funny. But vandalism is not funny. Yet no one bothers to take any action against them (the most they ever did was protect vandalized pages for no more than three weeks, which does nothing to stop them). That is why I elected to become an admin last month. WikiLubber (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Book of the DeadEdit

The stela that is the source of Budge’s Hymn to Osiris.

Hello. Your reversions at Book of the Dead are in error. Budge didn’t say the Great Hymn to Osiris was part of the Papyrus of Ani; he published the translation of the Great Hymn to Osiris from the Stela of Imenmes as part of an appendix to his translation of the Ani Papyrus, for the sake of comparison with similar passages in the Book of the Dead.

You can see that in Budge’s publication here, and if you follow the references that he gives on that page, you can also see that the source is the Stela of Imenmes, not the Papyrus of Ani. Compare Budge’s source (the pages starting here) with the stela at right, and you will find the two are the selfsame object. —Vorziblix (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Without seeking further, I can readily agree that you are probably right about the Hymn to Osiris not being from the Papyrus of Ani, but in checking a few sources before reverting I did come across a couple citations which declared it to be, which I honestly found a little dubious, though I knew for certain it was a Budge translation, but accepted those cites as sufficient indications in restoring the passages, as I was in a extreme rush earlier, and had to leave a few minutes after restoring the text. That said, the term "Book of the Dead" still can refer to a multitude of versions and remnants which varied considerably in presenting funerary rites and declarations, and the Papyrus of Ani is simply one of the most well preserved specimens of such selections, itself exhibiting omissions of major passages known from other renditions. I will not further contest the removal of the Hymn from that page for now, but even if you are right in it not belonging there, I will probably eventually create some other pages where it can be retained, perhaps within a week or so. I remain too busy to spend much time on this site right now. Thanks for the considerate edits, and I do concede it is perhaps likely that another page should be created for quotes from the Hymn to Osiris to find a permanent home. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure; I also think having a quote page for the Hymn in its proper context would be a good idea. Perhaps some newer translations from Lichtheim or Foster or others could be given too, as Budge was unfortunately writing at a time when the Egyptian verbal system was poorly understood. Thanks for the consideration yourself! Vorziblix (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

First page. What do you think?Edit

Postal. Trade (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent vandalismEdit

I noticed some vandalism going on as I checked in here, very briefly, and reverted what I could and did a few blocks, just before I had to leave. I checked in again as soon as I returned, and did some further reverts and blocks, but don’t have time to do much more checking in on things right now, as I have to be leaving again very soon. Thanks to all those who have done some of the vandal reverting. I will check in on things at least once more before leaving, and then further after I return. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 16:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Please delete the above article as it's out of the scope of Wikiquote. I tagged it, but the tag was removed multiple times and I'd rather not edit war over it. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This page has now been deleted by another admin. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 17:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

More vandalismEdit

Hi--there's more. [49]. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked that transient IP for a week, and I believe most admins here are well aware that there are more than a few infantile twerps active lately, who stupidly believe that it is something greatly impressive to abuse wikis in ways most 6 year olds could easily do, were they not actually mature enough to recognize such activity as infantile and idiotic. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry ChristmasEdit

Please see this. Can you block and revdelete? thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see comments on your personal views as expressed on these two pages =Edit

Tulsi GabbardEdit

I used to respect your edits but the page on Tulsi Gabbard is an absolute disgrace. A Hindu Nationalist she supports dictators from Putin , to Assad to Modi, to Sisi in Egypt. She is just a Kremlin tool. She is not anti war in Syria ffs. She supported the terror bombing of civilians when done by regime and Putin. Wake up Kalki. I think you are not the wise old soul I thought.

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
Being very busy with other matters, which often leave me active here only a few minutes a day, I am not so prone to respond to insulting comments or some forms of trolling so rapidly or extensively as I once did, and I could perceive from the start that you seemed very ignorant and confused about a number of significant matters. There are many comments on this page I have declined to respond to, simply as potentially just further wastes of my time, but I am responding now to yours, hoping it will not be entirely futile in making a few points.
I created the article about Tulsi Gabbard, well aware that I did not agree with all of her past or present assessments of many matters, but recognizing she seemed a generally intelligent and notable person, with whom, like most people, I could agree with on many matters, and disagree with upon some. I began the article making note of some notable statements I could generally agree with, and subsequently another editor posted statements by her or about her which they found notable, sought to make more prominent, as did you. I have just now created one for the far more famous and prominent Kamala Harris, and I was somewhat surprised that neither of these notable women had a page prior to my creation of them.
You declare this notable person is "is just a Kremlin tool." I must disagree with such arrogant assertions. I have profound respect for Humanity, and the potentials of most human beings for both virtue and evil, wisdom and idiocy, and I don’t believe that she, nor even so profoundly stupid, reprehensibly motivated and morally infantile a narcissist as Donald Trump is "only a tool" for the even more reprehensibly conniving tyrant Vladimir Putin, though I recognize that he has certainly become such a tool, as well as millions of others Putin has been involved in duping or manipulating. I actually do not desire either of these wretches to suffer any unnecessary distress or harm for the immense harm and distress they have surely done to their nations, and to others, and to Humanity. Yet neither can I honestly say that I wish them any further successes in their attempts at deceiving and tyrannizing others, and for the sake of Humanity, hope that their political reigns will be able to end within a few years, without much greater harm to many. I acknowledge such hopes are rather strained.
Those general statements regarding Humanity, and two of the foremost dangers to it, at this point in history, having been made, I will return to your comments on Gibbard, and note that it is a quite ridiculous falsehood to declare her a "Hindu nationalist", simply because she is a Hindu, or because she has met with people who might be characterized as such, or that she "supported the terror bombing of civilians when done by regime and Putin", or "supports dictators from Putin , to Assad to Modi, to Sisi." She might not be so actively opposed to some tyrants, or supportive of regime change in Syria or other nations as many other conscientious people have been inclined to be, in recent years, for various reasons, but I can understand and accept many aspects of her perspectives and stances against "regime-change wars", though I might not always agree with others. There are some things she has said, done, or believed in the past which I would consider either socially or politically naïve, but few things which I believe are unpardonable or inexcusable errors, especially in comparison to others in the fields of partisan politics, including the meetings with the morally depraved. In the developing alternatives to Trump in the 2020 election, I consider her and Kamala Harris both worthy of note, and though I have relatively minor reservations about both of them, believe them 2 of the more potentially impressive Democratic party candidates of which I am aware, with Harris and a few others as clearly people with more of a developed base of experience and influence, at this point.
I always retain very complex views on the potentials for virtue and evil in the attitudes or actions of EVERY human being, and do not consider any human being totally damnable or saintly, but know that there are attitudes and actions which can be and ARE so, from any perspectives which I would consider sane — and it is ever towards these which I most consistently direct my anger or praise, rather than individual people, in their various states of awareness, ignorance and confusion. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC) + tweaks
A very thoughtful response. But I can't agree with your rose tinted view of Gabbard. 'Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.[50] 'Gabbard said her trip to the region was born from “the suffering of the Syrian people that has been weighing heavily on my heart.”

But in 2015, she was one of just 47 Democrats who sided with Republicans and backed a GOP-sponsored measure that would essentially block Syrian and Iraqi refugees from resettling in the US.

Potentially impressive? With that level of critical thinking about the tragedy of the Syrian War? No way. how tulsi gabbard unites modi assad far right in U S78.147.53.22 21:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Update Wikiquote:GNU_FDL?Edit

FYI: Wikiquote_talk:GNU_FDL#Creative_Commons. While you're there, would you please consider moving the {{Official policy}} template from talk to the project page, and adding {{Policylist}} template to the project page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The requested move has now been done. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 21:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Would you please also consider adding the {{Policylist}} template? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This has now been done. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 01:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
And thank you for that. (Of course, if it wasn't permanently edit protected then I wouldn't have had to have bothered you.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Hello Kalkiǃ Have you noticed this? w:Wikipedia talk:External links--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

slave tradeEdit

For future reference of context, am making note that the recently contended edits, apparently made by you, and referred to here were on the page for Slavery, and a few others, under various IPs, including, (talk · contributions) (talk · contributions) (talk · contributions), and reverted by me and 1997kB (talk · contributions) on 5 February 2019 ~ Kalki·.

"strongly bigoted drive to focus any and all guilt you can on Arabian traders"? I said no such thing. Speak for yourself. You are the one who saw a picture of Arabs selling slaves and instantly leapt to racism. Sad. -- 03:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It is very sad indeed that your obviously asinine mental and moral incompetence, incomprehension, and flagrant efforts at promoting particular forms of bigotry impels you to declare that I accused you of "racism", which I actually did not (whatever your particular tendencies in that regard might actually be), rather than the particularly asinine forms of ethnic and cultural bigotries that seem quite apparent and evident, without you overtly declaring them to be such. Many, and probably most forms of ethnic and cultural animosities and bigotry do not actually involve self-declared forms of "bigotry", or even milder forms of biases, which are generally found in all living beings.
I can and do recognize wide ranges of obvious, overt, and subtle and camouflaged forms of vitally important or detrimental biases, and I certainly do not seek to severely condemn or oppose all of them, nor even most of them, even those I might personally find noxious and repugnant, but I tend to vigorously oppose those biases which impel individuals to seek to perpetrate and promote particularly pernicious and dangerous forms of bigotry or oppression, and I believe that it is quite evident that such is what many of the edits which you seem to have done in recent days have been inclined to do. Whether others might perceive it as major or minor in significance, the choice you have sought to impose is one I definitely perceive to be both inferior and detrimental.
The image you were replacing was not actually one originally chosen by me, but actually one chosen by a person who was often, but not always, adversarial towards my own choices, and whom I perceived in many ways to often be very ignorantly contentious, closed minded and intolerant in hostility towards many other relevant images on the wiki, but in this particular case, I believe that a good and relevant choice of producing that image and caption combination was certainly made by that editor early in July 2012, and it had remained uncontested as a good choice for nearly seven years, and I certainly believe it was far more evocative, interesting and relevant than the image you were attempting to replace it with, in recent days, as did at least one other active participant on the wiki.
This is but a brief reply to your brief comment and recent activity, and I have several other things to do for several hours. I will probably only have intermittent periods of activity here for at least a few days, though I anticipate I might be able to have a period of more extensive activity on the wiki within the next month or so, and catch up on at least some extensive cleanups I have considered doing for a few years. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 06:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC) + tweak

Continued spamming... User:Michael BoulosEdit

You may want to revoke their talk page acccess, regards. 16:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the account generally after the creation of several pages with spam links, after already providing a notice about the impropriety of such actions, and have noted the use of the unblocked talk page of the account for posting of unsourced quotes — but not as yet any further spam links. If any are posted, or other extremes noticed, that last page accessible to that account will likely be blocked. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Posted some spam links, wordpress and another link on his talk page. 16:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Change block settingEdit

Hi, please block talk page for Special:Contributions/Michael Boulos because he keep spamming. Thanks. Tomybrz (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes raised the issue above see [51]. 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the additional spam which was being posted even as I posted the above declaration, and the account is now entirely blocked from editing here. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

QOTD March 24, 2019Edit

May I ask, what are your thoughts on the QOTD for March 24, 2019? JessRek6 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I note that you selected William Morris previously, in 2006 and 2010, as well as Malcolm Muggeridge previously, in 2013, and Walter Hilton was used previously, in 2007, and Joel Barlow was used previously, in 2011. May I respectfully suggest that as of 2018, March 24 is perhaps more notable for the March for Our Lives anniversary than for their birthdays or days of death. JessRek6 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. Please wikilink AR-15 to AR-15 style rifle. JessRek6 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in some of my editing comments, I left after a bit of earlier activity here on a short excursion, which I thought would be a bit shorter, and had to take a bit more time to review the options than I had thought I would have to before the selection. As you obviously noticed, I extended on your suggestion for greater context, and that is probably about all I will do here for at least some hours. I will be leaving again soon.
I used the most pertinent image I could find on the commons, but am not entirely pleased with the options at this point. I might create a cropped image based on this one before the next QOTD is selected, but probably don’t have sufficient time right now. I have long been extremely dissatisfied with the visual imbalance created in using only one image with a QOTD of the day, rather than the triptych or arrays which I usually created for many years, and such imbalances with one image become extremely apparent in many of both the longer and shorter quotes, but I have been deferring to what I consider rather warped tastes and urges to constrain some of the more creative options available to myself or others for some time now, and don’t have time presently to extensively argue my case against such impositions. I might do sometime later this year, but remain too busy with too many other things to attend much to that matter right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I did have sufficient time to do a crop of the image used, and believe that it works a bit better in the layout than the base image did. I attempted to upload a WebP version of the crop initially, after checking to see that there were WebP images at the commons — but there currently seem to be problems with generating thumbnails of these, and I thus uploaded a jpg of the crop, which is currently being used on the layout. I had intended to leave by now, but might not bother going to where I had initially intended after all. — I have many other things to attend to also. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 01:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

subtle vandalismEdit

I have usually only been very briefly stopping in lately, but in only brief scans of various edits have been noticing a few forms of subtle vandalism occurring in recent days and weeks across a few different articles, which I do not have time to fully address right now, but will attempt to more fully explicate and remedy within the next week or so. I only have a few minutes to type this statement in right now, before leaving. I hope to address some of the more obvious of things within the next day or two. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 12:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC) + tweaks

After becoming busier with other things than I anticipated, and anticipating attending to even more urgent matters in the days ahead, I find it unlikely I will be able to sufficiently address some of these matters for at least a few days, but retain hope of addressing them within the next week or so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 10:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Toy Story vandal lingers on in the Shrek franchise...Edit

As this remorseless edit will prove to you. WikiLubber (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/April 26, 2019Edit

I haven't really messed much with the QOTD, but it seems intuitive that this should be credited to the fictional character Nick Fury, rather than "the Avengers". I kindof get that it is being credited to "the body of work" titled The Avengers, but since the fictional group is of the same name, it comes off as a little confusing whether it's being credited to the work or the fictional group. GMGtalk 12:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now altered the credit line — I had considered putting Fury's name there, but as we do not currently have a page for Fury, I thought it was potentially confusing in the formatting which might be used in the daily Wikipedia emails which contain our QOTD. I did not have time to start such a page, as I had just arrived home and had to leave to the get to the closest IMAX for their 6:00 showing in 3D, which I had purchased a ticket to a few weeks ago. I might start a page for Fury within a few days, but I remain rather busy with other matters, and am likely to become even more so in the next couple of weeks. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


I recommend our talk pages (including yours) be protected indefinitely against these IP vandals. WikiLubber (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As an admin, my talk page should remain open to anon IPs, despite the hazard of sometimes being the target of anonymous trolls and other twerps. Also being a primary target of such vandals often helps me to become more aware of their activities earlier than I otherwise might, so that I can become more swiftly responsive to them. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 01:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC) + tweak
But what else can we do to stop them completely? Block one IP, another with the same MO comes after you. Protecting your talk page is the only way to stop it. Besides, you have not received any legitimate IP messages lately, so why leave your talk page open to vandalism?
But there is one other thing. These IPs always remove my messages without explanation. Why mine in particular when other users have similar reports? WikiLubber (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I have little doubt that you have been targeted by trolls, and many of them, no doubt, tend to find it amusing to cause distress in others. It is the nature of wikis to be somewhat vulnerable to the assaults of idiots, and yet what damage they can do can be recognized as such and swiftly removed. I tend not to be very greatly distressed by what brief nuisances they can be to me with attacks upon my pages, and am primarily concerned with simply not permitting some of the most malicious or detrimental attacks on the main pages of the wiki from occurring without such responses as can be swift and thorough enough to sufficiently and rapidly repair the damages. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 03:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC) + tweaks

Does Wikiquote really need to have a page for Race and appearance of Jesus, just because Wikipedia has one and there's quotes about the subject?Edit

Would I be correct in my belief that a Wikiquote page for Race and appearance of Jesus should be tagged for deletion and that just because Wikipedia has such a page and there are quotes about the subject, that does not mean that it is automatically a good idea for us to do the same? I noticed we have pages for Religious views of Adolf Hitler and Depictions of Muhammad, I don't think adding Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln to Wikiquote would really be an improvement, I've noticed recently a trend of removing quotes shared between similar pages, which I think can potentially lead to those quotes becoming much harder to find. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that there is any pressing need, desire or benefit to having corresponding pages for either of the mentioned Wikipedia pages here. I would expect most others probably feel much the same, and the pages would probably be deleted. I myself am not usually inclined to divide pages out for anything less than a pressing need to do so, such as separate pages for very numerous quotes from prominent individual works or series by an author. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi Kalkiǃ Got a block at en-Wikipedia for linking to Wikiquote. I think it's unfair. I'd be glad if you could look at my wp-talk pageǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The block was not for "linking to Wikiquote", it was for "Personal attacks, inability to get the point, blocks on four other wikimedia projects suggest AGF has run out a while ago". see my response to the identical post at User talk:GreenMeansGo. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue does seem to be far more complicated than "linking to Wikiquote" — and the practice of using quotes for captions which is entirely appropriate on Wikiquote, is plainly not appropriate nor recommended in the articles of any of the Wikipedias. I perceive that the indefinite block might possibly be overly harsh, but I do not know of all of the contentions involved in past disputes and such warnings as may have been given. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 22:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can remember no official warnings have been given.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) - Let's look how this episode started, simple and clear: my main work at en-Wikiquote has been categorizing. Doing this I've checked the categories at English Wikipedia and at the same time that the links are there. Also have I added many missing categories to Wikipedia. Recently there was many new Indian related articles at Wikiquote, and I linked 'em as usual, there's nothing wrong with it - without any special interest in India. Now, someone didn't like that and managed to prevent me linking India-topics. Afterwards this in my opinion strange decision had to be justified by digging unessential stuff I've written during three years.--Risto hot sir (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi there, can you take a look at the page purpose? There's been a lot of reverting and counter reverting. Which person and edits were right? Thanks --2001:8003:4163:AD00:4115:73AD:8179:56E1 21:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The issues involved on that page, and on contentions on many other pages are complicated, and I do not have the time, at present, to sufficiently address many of the most significant of them. I will probably make an attempt at doing so within the next month or so, and perhaps touch upon some of them within a few days, but I am currently extremely busy with many other matters, and do not have so much time as I would wish to address many of the issues here. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Any chance you could lock purpose and Zionism, or tell Rupert to stop reverting me? It's getting a bit silly over there. -- 10:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of TyciolEdit

Hello, Kalki, I'm pretty sure that https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Unihoof and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ are both Tyciol, an ArbCom banned editor, seeing as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unihoof shows that Bbb23 has blocked them as a sock of Tyciol and the IP was blocked as a CheckUser block around the same time by Bbb23, as this shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ Also, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ranze is a sock of Tyciol, as this shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ranze. I'd block them all to be on the safe side myself, seeing as Tyciol and his socks are alt-right and are adding biased quotes on here and writing hit pieces on people they don't like. -- 22:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

In past months I have noticed remarkably increased numbers and severity of edits by those with obviously partisan agenda, among the narrow and often shallow ranges of ideological opinions and affinities commonly labeled "right" or "left", often using various IPs, but with similar styles, as well as various user names that might be sockpuppets or simply like minded people, but I simply have not had sufficient time to examine many of the contentions going on among them, let alone find and address all the abuses which I have little doubt have occurred, and continue to occur. I probably will become somewhat more active here within coming weeks, and perhaps sort through things a bit more than I currently have had time to do. I am generally reluctant to block users without incidents of clear and obvious vandalism or other abuses, and I have not even had time to examine all the links you have provided above, and I do not actually block people because I simply disagree with various ideas they seek to promote, but only when I perceive them to be clearly ignoring or rejecting established policies. I recognize that more subtle trolls and vandals are often harder to effectively deal with than the more overt ones, and I simply do not have time to examine all the issues presented by some of the situations above today. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Immigration and Immigration in the United States.Edit

Someone moved a bunch of quotes off the immigration page to Immigration in the United States and I figured you could better explain why we can keep these quotes on the basic immigration page as well as the more specialized one. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I generally dislike the needless creation of many overly specific theme pages, but this page seems to have initially been created in response to a great number of quotes that did indeed deal specifically with issues of immigration in the US, including various contentions about various policies or proposals, rather than general commentary on immigration. I actually do not see much reason for any of these to be on the more general page, though any quote largely dealing with more general issues of immigration, rather than focused primarily or entirely on specific contentions about US policies, practices, or proposals could probably be appropriate there as well. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on your over 117,777 contributions to Wikiquote.... that's allot of energy!Edit

Bravo Kalki! Om777om (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the VFD for Inceldom ever going to close or will the debate last forever?Edit

I've complained about the discussions at Vfd being slow before, but I think having votes that last years when the template suggests they should last a week is kind of needlessly confusing, why not just change the amount of time for voting to close to a more realistic month, or a year, or just get rid of the recommended time limit all together if so many votes go over it? I haven't looked too much at what Wikiquote used to look like, and really should have done so by now, however I assume the general amount of activity has gone up over time rather than down, and that even in the past when there were far fewer people editing, that votes rarely tended to go on quite this long (fifteen months). Can I just withdraw my nomination and concede defeat or something? This seems to be a discussion few people are interested in taking part in (it's a bit squicky), and those that have don't seem to have anything new to say, it's been over six months since the last post. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have relatively rarely gotten involved in Vfd matters, save when I happen to notice some nomnation of a page I believe worth retaining, and I actually do not regularly even check in on the page for VfDs, let alone become part of the procedures. I do not see any strong reason to remove the page, and if that is the closing which seems appropriate to most, I believe the VfD should be closed, and the page kept as an appropriate one. ♌︎Kalki·· 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I will not withdraw the nomination, though I don't expect any further conversation to actually occur, if it should, it'd be worth hearing why people think this is important to add. I do hope though that we don't end up having pages for the various slurs, designated by their first letter, or any other hateful phrase like Rhineland bastard or race traitor, which Wikipedia seems to think are good ideas to have pages for. I'm surprised mental cripple isn't a Wikipedia pages yet, it seems to be a relatively popular phrase used by officials in certain Asian countries. It would be interesting to compare all the current pages that are for terms not included in "The Dictionary", and I would like it if more people chimed in on the discussion as to whether they think words/phrases/memes that originated on the internet or in pop culture, such as inceldom, trigger warning, Twerk or Fo'Shizzle will ever be added to Webster's, (to quote Leonard Nimoy completely out of context from his guest appearance on The Simpsons, "The answer, is no.") CensoredScribe (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not generally have any strong obsession with focusing on the particular terms people use to indicate or obscure various notions or ideas, and am well aware there are many diverse reasons they use, misuse or abuse various terms and notions or expectations regarding them, and fail to discern many nuances or major distinctions in the ways others use, misuse or abuse such — or decline to do so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Img of Tross on soldierEdit

I request as an administrator for you to please arbitrate the page for soldier and at least provide futrther explanation as to why Peter1c is correct; at your convenience, I know you often have a lot of stuff to do and I'm in no particular rush. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Peter1c seems to be adding images to the talk pages of other users, which I'm guessing we shouldn't be doing?Edit

I have not reached my final form.

Um...would you please give me some advice on how to handle this strange situation developing with Peter1c, assuming it is now officially a problem. I imagine adding the basis of the MTV2 logo to Peter1c's page captioned as it is on my user page would correctly be construed as harassment or a threat, given it was inappropriate for the page for abortion. CensoredScribe (talk)

I am not sure why CensoredScribe interpreted this image as a threat. (Threat of what?) I know nothing about the characters in this fictional universe, so the image may have conveyed something unintentional. If so, I apologize. The quote was intended to convey that we are all still evolving. My husband is more familiar with anime and thought CensoredScribe would appreciate this quotation, which he thought might be relevant when I explained my debates with CensoredScribe. I know nothing about the characters in this fictional universe, so this was probably a bad idea. Sorry about the misunderstanding. The quote was intended to convey that we are all still evolving. I am sorry it conveyed something different. Regarding the appropriateness of placing the image and quote in the section where debate was still going on, I don't understand objection. Regarding ongoing discussion with CensoredScribe, I am doing my best to understand CensoredScribe's motivations, so we can work with CensoredScribe. My understanding is that consensus is: theme pages require a standard of relevance and many of CensoredScribe's additions on theme pages do not meet quotability guidelines and standards of relevance. If my understanding of consensus is wrong, of course I will alter procedure. CensoredScribe for some reason interprets quality control as unwelcome, but this is part of the project. This is not a fandom website, and I have repeatedly indicated to CensoredScribe that if he wishes to make contributions without editorial review and subject to review by consensus of the community, he would be better off with fandom websites. I would sincerely like to understand CensoredScribe's position better, but at present I don't understand the motivation for low quality additions which do not improve the quality of the project. Even if we leave aside the question of quotability, many of the additions fail to meet standards of relevance to the page topic. I am very sorry to see this conflict. My aim is to uphold consensually agreed upon editorial standards on Wikiquote. If I am misinterpreting the consensus on this topic, I sincerely apologize and will alter my procedures accordingly. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been asking for arbitration regarding this issue for some time now, an actual graph of unacceptable edits over time compared to acceptable ones, or just a tally to a certain number of unacceptable ones. Peter doesn't seem to understand that other people might interpret a two headed dog the wrong way, that's okay, I was referring to what I might do, I understand topic sentences are not your thing Ryu- I mean Peter. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing we can't sell our accounts for money, right?Edit

Hypothetically if we thought another user quit and sold their account, what would be the correct way of making that accusation, assuming that's actually against the rules? If selling our accounts isn't a problem, I'm guessing we still aren't allowed to let Wikiquote serve as the auction house or the street corner to paste a flyer, correct? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Another IP vandal...Edit

IP user is constantly adding categories that are absolutely wrong to certain series.

It refers to Alvin and the Chipmunks (1983 TV series) as a Cartoon Network show, but that series was cancelled BEFORE Cartoon Network even existed!
It refers to certain anime series as American TV shows, but none of them are!
It refers to some anime series as cancelled shows, but virtually none of them are!

I request that this user be blocked indefinitely and that all of its edits be undone. There are so many, I cannot do it alone. WikiLubber (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Koreans and Korean language...Edit

I've been adding quotes to the various Korea pages recently and was wondering whether one I found would be appropriate to add to either the pages for Korean language or Koreans, or perhaps Korean immigration to the United States, to go along with Immigration to the United States? I know I've expressed a lack of interest in hyper specialized pages, and I doubt you are interested in helping me find quotes about snowboarding.

  • "Chloe can be really famous in Korea," says Hwang Hyeran, one of her reps at Seoul-based SEMA Sports Marketing. "There is much interest in her and much potential for her to have Korean sponsors." If his daughter wins Olympic gold here, Jong believes her Korean marketing potential could reach the millions -- not to mention her haul back home.
    Tonight is about unlocking that potential. She plans to address the nearly 50 reporters waiting for her in Korean, a language she speaks fluently but never in public. "Korean is such a complex language, and there's a respectful and a casual way to say things," Kim says. "The last thing I wanted to do was offend anyone as soon as I got to Korea."
    Her father believes that using the Korean he taught her will convey respect for the media. "It will show them she cares about her heritage," he says. "Then they won't ask why they should promote a Korean-American snowboarder instead of a Korean athlete."

—This unsigned comment is by CensoredScribe (talkcontribs) .

The above anecdotal excerpt from an article on a particular person doesn’t strike me on the whole as a very notable quotation of itself, on any general theme. It's use in full is something I do not actually perceive to be very appropriate for any theme page, as it is clearly primarily focusing on several aspects of the life of the person "Chloe Kim", and not actually on any particular "theme" beyond a few in specific relation to their very incidental correspondence to aspects of her life and interests. Beyond it's use on a page for that person, which is its primary focus, the rather small statement within it that "Korean is such a complex language, and there's a respectful and a casual way to say things" could perhaps be acceptable on a page for the Korean language, but I would assert that it is probably not a major statement of note, as probably not entirely original and rather mundanely descriptive of a fact common in many languages. The whole excerpt's very obscure and indirect relevance to any page for "Korean immigration to the United States" is something that is so strained as to definitely make it inappropriate for such a page, let alone creating such a page for such a quote. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 23:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC) + tweaks

"Proving notability" and locating the original sources of quotations.Edit

I was wondering if you might be willing to look at say, the last 5 edits I've made and review whether they have "proven notability", as Peter1c calls it, the particular word "proven" seems to be absent from any rules and guidelines listed on Wikiquote and appears to be something this particular editor has added into comments as some kind of requirement only they know the actual definition of. In particular, the revert to the abortion page seems a bit off, as I generally haven't had quotes from The Atlantic reverted before, and the additional commentary provided by the author is not included in the excerpted book, and does not really work without the quotes the article's author is commenting on. I assumed being in The Atlantic was that proof, however I've been wrong plenty of times before and thought seeking clarification from an administrator appropriate. Peter1c also seems not to mind any of the quotes added to force-feeding despite lacking any such proof, which suggests some form of bias is involved.
I'm sorry if I've been pestering you recently, I know it's incredibly annoying from having had it happen to me recently with one user's apparent concern over my editing patterns for theme pages, (concerns being something I also have for their use of images, such as on the United States page, which others have expressed on the talk page); if there is another administrator you think would be interested in arbitrating the abortion page and explaining the fault in my reasoning behind including The Atlantic article over the original source, I will relay this message to them in hopes of a faster response. I know UDScott is interested in fiction as well, and appears to have somewhat more time for addressing minor concerns such as these, so they would be the better choice for asking why some quotes from Blade Runner and The Boondocks are appropriate for theme pages, while others are not; however given the contentiousness of this topic and your comments on partisanship increasing in recent months, I thought you best to handle arbitrating this particular highly contentious topic. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If I request that you ban me, could and would you be willing to do so.Edit

I'm worried about the impact I'm having on the mental health of other editors, including some administrators, and how they might deal with their potentially turbulent and confusing emotions, and as such would like to tend my resignation to you, pending your approval or rejection of that proposal and dismissal or admission of my founded or unfounded concerns. I really don't want to edit somewhere where the vast majority of people dislike me and will potentially deal with their existential crisis by lashing out at easier targets, be they on or off wiki. I'm aware that I could just walk away and never come back, but that would not alleviate the concerns of said editors the way that a block or ban would. Considering my record, it would not be difficult to justify in a discussion, assuming those are needed. I believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one and that this sacrifice would be for the greater good from a Utilitarian perspective. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I am presently in the midst of several simultaneous activities, and shuffling my attention between them... and expect to be doing so for a couple of hours, before leaving again — and I now return my attention to this project and your assertions: I would suggest simply taking a rather extensive wiki break, and in the future, whenever you return, to be more carefully selective and considerate in minimizing or diminishing statements with little or strained relevance or significance, rather than prolific and often rather loosely focused in your contributions.
I will probably not be thanked in rejecting your present offer to voluntarily be blocked, as a missed opportunity for eliminating or diminishing many recurring nuisances. I actually can agree with many of your more avid critics that there are problems with your additions and some of your apparent attitudes, and that many of your contributions have often been far more problematic or even detrimental than beneficial, having either strained or little clear relevance to theme subjects to which they are added. I myself have been moved to make some criticism of them, especially of their often very casual and improper formatting, but have usually declined to do so, even after composing some comments on the matters, out of awareness of much of how complex and time consuming many of the issues that eventually need to be more thoroughly addressed actually are, and how little time I have had to deal with them.
As I have stated, I would suggest a present reduction of activity, and a more careful consideration of how to add but a little at a time, which is very clearly relevant, rather than including much, which might have very little or no clear relevance. That is about all I will state for now. Now I am on to a few other activities... ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 00:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi Kalki. About the Andromeda thing we can talk later on email. I'm kind of a professional astronomer, and we're all serious about myths and constellations and stuff. My email is astronomy.service@my.com. Bye! Anyways, read my talk page, and the Andromeda talk page. Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC) To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoting science journals doesn't make this an encyclopedia, any more than it does for Today in Science History.Edit

I've been having some issues with Peter1c, since, well, I forget exactly when this started, (last December after quoting Inuyasha on my user page I suppose is when their "concern" got really bad), however, now things are getting a bit out of hand as I am no longer allowed to add sentences from science journals, just "real" literature and the occasionally accptable obscure website for Jewish women that is definitely less famous than a random article from a major newspaper or magazine. Would you be able to suggest an admin that would mediate this situation, I'm concerned if any of my additions from science journals are in fact welcome here, it seems odd to wait this long to mention this was an issue, it's been nearly a year, should I be worried about Genetics, Evolution and Eating disorder being left to the more knowledgeable literary authors instead of scientists and journalists? It's not like I hate literature, I just don't add alot of it, but is Wikiquote relly supposed to be just for the humanities and not for including Carl Sagan's somewhat lengthy commentary on science, or worse, including actual science journals? At 700 some words, I have to assume the science page is an example of complying with LOQ, so long as none of the quotes is contiguously longer than 250 words, give or take a dozen or two. I don't think this particular user has ever added an academic journal in the time I've been here, or ever. Have you, or anyone else you could direct be towards, added any I could use as an example before? I could use your help with something I've added hundreds of quotes for already, it's easy enough to delete for Peter1c or anyone else who cares enough to do the clicking, I can't imagine it would take more than a day or so to look through my history for 10,000 byte additions and revert them all without bothering to read any of them. but I'd be happy to do it myself if that's the consensus among the admins and other editors. I gave this offer to Peter but received a typically vague response when I asked how this list of bullet points would be applied by them to the page I just asked them about: I don't trust people who won't answer a direct question, particularly when asked repeatedly, it's like that Seth Meyers segment the other day with Mike Pence as a malfunctioning robot.
I've ended up working with Peter1c on creating pages for media studies, which was rather unexpected, I'm confused why the references on the page for medical drama are some how more acceptable than the ones Peter has been deleting since around yesterday, I've been told motives don't matter, and I agree, but this is getting kind of creepy, I've asked why they keep coming bak. Would it be possible to get an interaction ban imposed, I'm tired of being told about my mind and soul, I'm concerned for the bodies of anyone listening to Peter1c but I don't think my mentioning that is particularly constructive for building an encyclopedia, and I try and respect the beliefs of others by not imposing my own on their talk pages. I prefer keeping to myself as I don't feel the need to chit-chat and being provided a seemingly endless series of links to articles that say nothing about science journals being non notable, what does that even mean in terms of Impact factor?
Also, I imagine there's probably some sort of rule about sexually harassing other users, correct? I've never seen any definition provided on Wikiquote of what the verbal form of that might be considered nor have I ever seen users flirt with each other in an acceptable form either, perhaps it's never occurred before on Wikiquote outside of vandalism accounts. I told them I consider Plato a rape apologist, the next time they do that I'm quoting the dialogue from rape and incest survivors on their talk page, seeing as I know the canned response I will get for adding the statistics from Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars.
I imagine the next development will be that I'll add another 20,000 byte article for a mental illnes, it will get reverted and I will simply quit, at which point, problem solved, I guess. This doesn't seem to be an issue for Peter regarding my Tupac quotes, an unaired MTV interview must be a notable, quotable source, unlike anything on PubMed. (Last updated: CensoredScribe (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC))

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Block.Edit

Thanks for the block you gave Christy0496. A lot. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protecting my talk pageEdit

Hi Kalki. Can you please semi-protect my talk page due to nonsense and vandalism? Thank you. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for this. The second thank is for blocking Showmehowtonelikeyou, who vandalised many talk pages and seeing my warnings on his talk page insisting I had done the vandalism and making edit summaries like “Too bad there’s no admins stopping me lol” and “You’ll never win this war” and all kinds of mean things. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem with the semi-protection. I set it as only temporary at this point, but could always extend it. There remain a few very infantile people who waste much of their own time and other people's in vandalizing pages in various ways that most 6 year olds would be mature enough to refrain from doing. So it goes. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 01:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, mind protecting it again due to vandalism again? P.S. I think the new vandals are the same contributor as Showmehowtonelikeyou. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 08:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now set it to semi-protection for 3 months. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 08:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 08:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The same vandal is now replacing my user page with old contents; can you block that IP? Thank you! ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 08:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now permanently semi-protected your user page. ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 11:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation pageEdit

Hi Kalki, I made the page Watership Down be a disambiguation page. Did I do this correctly according to how Wikiquote works? Thank you, ↠Pine () 02:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That is an acceptable way to do a disambiguation page. Since there is no page for the book, one could also make a redirect to the film, with credits to the author of the book prominently in the intro (or, perhaps somewhat less conveniently, to the author's page, with some prominent linkage to the film page). ~ ♌︎Kalki·· 07:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Anastas MikoyanEdit

Could you unlock Anastas Mikoyan? It's been indefinitely locked since 2015 for no reason I can see --2001:8003:4085:8100:71DF:F2BF:7413:91E7 18:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now turned off the protection from anon edits that had been placed on that page in early 2015. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish you would remove the rap lyrics about guns.Edit

I find it somewhat odd that no one here seems to question removing anti-gun quotes from DC Comics or The Venture Bros., (visual mass media), yet tweet long rap lyric), some of them probably even from Warner Records, were fine, up until I removed them just now.
I know guns are for weak people isn't long enough or pithy enough to be a quote we can add (there's no other quotes that express that sentiment. Would you happen to know any quoteable enough ones you would be willing to share? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC) (revised CensoredScribe (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)) P.S. Ningauble quotes themselves on their user page, can I quote Irritable of Contents from Uncyclopedia on various topics or would that be different and auto-blackball me from ever becoming an admin here as well? I still don't want your awful, thankless, job, but would like to know it isn't off limits.
Also just to let you know I won't be reverting Peter1c any I think I'm taking a break from this place until I decide to add the rest of the psychological disorders, I'll make sure to check Eating disorder to see what ultimately becomes of it before I do, if it remains the same after another year than I'll assume that despite some editing being required, the addition of another 200 Pub Med articles will not be instantly reverted. Until than... CensoredScribe (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I will leave many of my own responses to this word salad unstated here — but I will note that I did just revert some of your recent edits which included massive removals, some of quite famous quotes, among others which might arguably be culled as minor or trivial. There are MANY things occupying my time right now, and I certainly don’t have time to stick around and sort through many of the messes which have been building up here in recent months and years. I have to get going now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Would you please mind explaining why the above paragraph I just wrote is "word salad" so I can do better by you next time? Is there something semantically incorrect about what I said that made it difficult for you to follow, I noticed the image you removed on firearms was of a type of boat called a broadside, it's not a tank, which makes your edit summary a bit "factually inaccurate". Not that I really care that you made an error, you seem to find them far more amusing than I do, despite also making them.
I imagine having your signature in a post three times is pretty annoying for most people, so I won't do it again if I ever update a message. This isn't an online news article where it is a formality to note both when the article was originally published as well as when it was last updated, when other users like Peter1c have revised their messages on my talk page, signing every update with your signature isn't customary. CensoredScribe (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I have only a few minutes to check in here today, will be gone until sometime tomorrow, and do not expect to even have a chance to check in here on my iphone but perhaps a few times in the next 24 hours or so. I do not have time to make any full replies right now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please range blockEdit

The turkish IP LTA has returned, please block this range and yank talk page access. Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)