User talk:Kalki/2008

New Year's resolution

Happy New Year! One of my New Year's resolutions is to finish Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index - but I can't do it alone. There are 234 red links for which articles need to be created, and 275 blue links for which articles need to be checked. Although I've been trying to get one done each day, lately I have not had time to do even that! Please consider making a commitment to help me keep my resolution by creating or checking one entry on this page per week. Help public domain quotes find their home in 2008! Cheers! BD2412 T 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will probably try to do at least a few of these soon, but I make no commitment as to when. ~ Kalki 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Better than nothing - I'll take it! ;-) BD2412 T 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Huard said something here...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Primetime

Noticed this talk here, leaving for you to see. -- Greyed 00:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Johney

Delete this page, block this user, and delete my talk page (english: satan homosexuality boy! Get a life, satan. You are homosexuality). This Johney isn't me. --82.203.139.241 14:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't listen that troll. I don't know what IP 82.203.139.241 is trying to do. --Johney 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

English wikiquotes Johney isn't Johney. --82.203.139.241 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. --Johney 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Johney isn't Johney, prkl. --82.203.139.241 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I already say that. --Johney 16:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This pointless editing will end or there will be a block on both disputants. (message left on talk pages for both of the disputants above)
I just recently returned to my computet after having been gone for several hours, but will likely be leaving again soon for much of the day.
At this point I do not know if the user name was chosen in innocence or as an infantile selection of a troll. I do not even know that there are actually two disputants in this rather pointless time-wasting session that seems to have been going on for over an hour. I will request an IP check on user Johney, but until its results are known, I would advise anyone involved in this petty dispute to be quiet for a while and actually do something worthwhile with their time and their life. If such pointless bickering continues both disputants are liable to be temporarily blocked. ~ Kalki 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this is never ending if you don't block both (me and that ip). -Johney 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Probable troll-impersonator

There was an apparent dispute which occurred earlier today between User:Johney and User:82.203.139.241; The IP has been used for previous linking to articles on the Finnish Wikiquote, so it's use by the Johney there might be genuine, but there has thus far been no confirmation of this on the Finnish user's talk page. The user "Johney" seems to have been engaged in nothing but disputing on the talk page of the IP and myself, and I blocked this username as a probable troll for 3 days after its request for a block on both itself and the IP. I afterwards deleted its user page which seems to have been created as an attack page by an impersonator. If you or Aphaia have time to check in on this any time soon it might be helpful. ~ Kalki 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed that and have been doing a little research on the Finnish WP. These two seem to be having a disagreement there as well, although I can't quite decipher Finnish well enough to understand what it is. Finnish "Johney" seems to be a substantial and serious contributor there, so I'm reluctant to do a CU that might tell me his IP (possibly the same across projects) without more background. I've asked him to explain on his Finnish talk page, in English, what he thinks is going on. If I don't get a reply or the explanation doesn't tell us enough, I'll do the CU. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The user named Johney here is an obvious fake and troll who has made several repugnant personal attacks. I translated some of his Finnish-language contributions to English:

• This means “You are the culmination point of homosexuality.”

• This means “Suck fuck your father's dick and do a good job about it!”

• This means “Go and suck your father's and brother's dick and swallow the sperm.”

This is very obscene language, and I am sorry that I had to repeat it. I recommend infinite block to that user, since his account is clearly intented solely for vandalism. –Finlux 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the same user as Ejs-80 in Finnish Wikipedia. This diff confirms it. –Finlux 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Johney from fi:WP has responded that the IP is his, but the existing "Johney" here is not him. The IP behind that user happens to be from a network operated by a hosting service with a history of compromised servers, so I've blocked the IP for a year as an open proxy/zombie. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Buddy

Buddy.. you truly are a pretentious wanker, and, dont remove my opions on things from discussion pages, nothing gives you that right. Suppose you'll remove this anyway though, being the weak tosser you are though. Wanker.

—This unsigned comment is by 58.106.105.113 (talk • contribs) .

I am not your "buddy", troll.

I do not presume to know what all your problems are, but plainly you are a person who has problems with both comprehension and civility. Your earliest comment at Talk:Dune was both presumptive and indeed pretentiously threatening, and yet I addressed it with a rational and detailed response. Your second was far fouler, and seemed primarily aimed at hurling insults rather than making any lucid or coherent arguments or reply, which I still responded to with a respectful answer, and the third one was simply a brief remark which was clearly meant as an insult, and nothing more, and was removed as nothing other than a mere personal attack by a troll. It is common practice to remove postings which are merely personal attacks as mere vandalism and trolling, as I could easily and rightfully do even with this one.

There are many anonymous cowards, who would probably not risk loosing their teeth and whatever shreds of dignity they might possess to say such things to a person's face as they regularly say with casual and safe abandon over the internet to others they are unlikely to ever meet.

It is not "pretentious" to express one's thoughts with precision and validity; it is very pretentious to presume either precision, validity of argument or anything resembling true courage, where they do not exist. And simply going around calling people "wankers" is an argument commonly used by shallow minded and pretentious cowards who are very little more than that.

I have just returned to the internet, seen your message, and replied to it with a typed response. Further messages merely to insult me or anyone else will be treated with the contempt they fully deserve, and flushed away as mere troll-droppings ~ Kalki 08:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hume/Avicenna

I slapped myself in the forehead when I realized what I had done. That's what I get for habitually importing code from the David Hume page. Thank you for fixing my error! Postmodern Beatnik 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Manson Wikiquote page

I ask you to consider undoing your revision of the lead sentence of the "Charles Manson" Wikiquote page. Manson was convicted of the Tate-LaBianca murders and of conspiracy to commit them. Although the jury presumably concluded he had directed his followers to commit the murders, it’s incorrect, I think, to say he was "convicted of directing his followers to engage in" them. The charges, to say it again, were conspiracy and murder; the visitor to the Wikiquote page can read Wikipedia’s "Charles Manson" article for details.71.242.195.148 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier the intro existed in the form:

Charles Milles Manson (born 12 November 1934) is a convicted murderer, musician, and counter-cultural figure of the 1960's and 70's. He was convicted of primary involvement in several murders, including that of Sharon Tate.

This was changed to

Charles Milles Manson (born 12 November 1934) was a commune leader and musician manqué convicted of 1969's Tate-LaBianca murders.

In a bit of a rush and with not much time, I recently changed this to:

Charles Milles Manson (born 1934-11-12) was a commune leader and musician manqué convicted of directing his followers to engage in what became known as the Tate-LaBianca murders.

I have just changed this by adapting the Wikipedia intro to read:

Charles Milles Manson (born 1934-11-12) is a convict who led the "Manson Family," a quasi-commune that arose in the U.S. state of California in the later 1960s. He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in the cases which became known as the Tate-LaBianca murders, which members of the group carried out at his instruction.

I also did a bit of format cleanup on the page, but there is much poor sourcing on it, and I might attempt further sourcing work on it within a week or so. ~ Kalki 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Susannah Constantine

Hi there. Noticed that you left a cleanup tag on Susannah Constantine's page. What exactly needs to be cleaned up, as I didn't see a note left of the talk page. Many thanks. 62.136.135.238 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

After doing some minor format tweaks, I placed a cleanup tag because many of the quotes aren't properly sourced and tagged, and I did not have time to properly divide them up and sort them into the normal "Sourced" and "Unsourced" categories. Normally sourced quotes should be arranged chronologically, and unsourced ones alphabetically by first word. ~ Kalki 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see! It's my fault, what I've done is I've used the same source for more than one citation, but instead of pasting the URL like four times, I've just written the author from the quote that is stated above. What should I do if I want to use the source more than once? Many thanks for your quick reply! 62.136.135.238 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are more than 1 or 2 quotations from a single source one could create a section heading for that source, and place that as a sub-heading within and below the general "sourced" quotes. These sections should also be chronologically arranged; otherwise a full citation for each quote should be used. ~ Kalki 18:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I just have a sources section and put the quotes in chronological order, it should be OK, I think? 62.136.135.238 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It will probably be acceptable. I will probably review it later, and do what further cleanup might be proper. I will be leaving soon, and might not be back for a few hours. ~ Kalki 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be great if you could do what remaining cleanup is needed. I did do some more but User:UDScott has placed another cleanup tag on the article, so clearly my edits were not enough. If I could see the article as it should be, I can create more Wikiquote pages to supplement my work on Wikipedia. 84.69.166.169 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I formatted the page into a standard Wikiquote layout, with citations of sources immediately below quotes or section headings for specific works. Footnote citations for quotations are not encourage here, though they have been creeping in due to their extensive use on Wikipedia. ~ Kalki 15:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's been a huge help. I've now done a similar layout on the Trinny Woodall article. Many thanks. 84.69.166.169 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kalki

thanks for Mazzy Star i have many more and hope them become good quote pages thanks again --72.87.57.201 20:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Date links

Hi, Kalki. I noticed that you changed the date links in Husein Gradaščević to point to Wikipedia, not Wikiquote. I thought our standard was to point to the Wikiquote Year page even if that is just a placeholder. Am I wrong? --Ubiquity 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually my change was from WP links to the WQ links, but there seems to be some malfunctioning in some of the New page displays for me. Which leads me to fear there might be more instabilities at work. ~ Kalki 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nix that, also: I had not noticed the Recent changes had split up in displaying the history of "Husein-kapetan Gradaščević‎" and "Husein Gradaščević". ~ Kalki 15:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes....

They're coming out of the woodwork this morning. -- Greyed 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

John Ruskin

At the beginning of the Sourced section of the Ruskin page are three unrealized images without any captions. Did you wish to include these images, or were they abandoned? - InvisibleSun 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They were some potential images to use which I had forgotten about in my "multi-tasking" of several things. Thanks for the note. ~ Kalki 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hi Kalki. I am a relatively new editor to Wikiquote, but a big one on Wikipedia and the main editor of Wikipedia's Ronald Reagan page. I was looking for specific tributes to President Reagan when he died, and although you have done wonders with the Wikiquote Ronald Reagan page, I oject to the merging of the Tributes by world leaders on the death of Ronald Reagan page with the regular Ronald Reagan page. This is mainly because the Reagan page should be exclusively for quotes by President Reagan, and the other full of quotes about President Reagan. So I've seperated them once again and I hope this has not caused major trouble. Again, thanks for all your work with the regular Ronald Reagan page, and you can expect to find me there are well. Thanks, Happyme22 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it is standard practice here to include sections for quotes about an individual, or about a work on the page for that individual or work, not to create a separate page for such quotes. There might be a few non-standard violations of this norm, but it is not the common procedure here, and I am reverting your recent edits to place the quotes about Ronald Reagan on his page. ~ Kalki 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Hello i would like to know if you could help me find my way here on wikiquote? I like quotes from many programs video games artist etc but i don't recall remembering any quotes from books or movies or anything is there a place online that is free where i can find some quotes? thank you i really hope i dont have to just read quotes online. thank you very much Kalki. --Coretega 07:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) asap if you can

On the adding of quotes or the creation of new pages: simply examine a few of the pages which exist, and follow the recommended formats. If you do not have any you wish to add, simply read what is available. ~ Kalki 12:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor Farjeon and King's Cross

OK, I've tried the one of the clock. It's just that Londoners get irritated when people mix up King's Cross and St. Pancras.--Cato 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WQ:RFA reminder

The (postponed) close of the current request is coming within a day. Since you reserved your vote, it is a reminder for you to review your vote before its closure. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

delete

hi! can u please delete We are on good and on bad forever. It's a load of rubbish. A wrong, direct translation from Polish (I'm a polish native speaker). Nothing worth remembering. Thanks! 85.89.183.250 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comet Holmes

Greetings. I wanted you to know that I've lifted and dissected your Comet Holmes box above for the Astronomy page. Great quote. --Bradeos Graphon 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious Albert Schweitzer quote

Kalki,

You know that incendiary passage by Albert Schweitzer which appears all over the net on racist websites? (""I have given my life to try to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all white men who have lived here like I must learn and know: that these individuals are a sub-race....") It seems you wrote this on Wikiquote:

"As quoted at "FAQ about the life and thoughts of Albert Schweitzer", which also includes a "Note on translation: Some of the most troubling and even offensive passages in Schweitzer's writings as they have appeared in English reflect problems or even frank errors in translation, rather than Schweitzer's own thoughts." The text has also been cited as something "said shortly before his death" when in fact it dates from writings very early in his career in Africa, and expresses ideas that he later repudiated."

Now, I have been in touch with Dr. Lachlan Forrow, a man whose name I am sure you are familiar with, and he assures me Schweitzer never wrote any such thing. Can you shed any further light on this? Also please see the current Snopes.com investigation into the matter:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=501940

I have moved this statement into the disputed section. I had always been skeptical of the accuracy of it, and even with more extensive search capabilities now available on the internet I can find no definite indication that it actually was in any published edition, and no more credible citation of it than that found at "FAQ about the life and thoughts of Albert Schweitzer". With any definite verification that it is NOT in the 1939 translation, I would probably change it's section heading to "Misattributed". ~ Kalki 19:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Single login Username requests

Hi, I'm w:User:Nick - could you possibly rename User:Nick here in order that I may "claim" the account with my global account. Thanks in advance. 172.214.47.190 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot rename this account locally, as it has already been migrated to the universal login account, and I believe you should thus be able to use it already. ~ Kalki 12:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Please rename user:Raul654 (a vandal account who impersonated me) so that the username becomes reserved for my global account. The Real Raul654 07:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This account has been renamed. ~ Kalki 12:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

WQ:AN#usurpation request

Hi, Kalki! There is a pending usurpation request on WQ:AN since we currently have no clear guideline or policy about that. I think it won't be nice for us to leave it forever and we'll want to conclude it in a decent term. Your opinion as a b'crat will be very appreciated. --Aphaia 12:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming an account

Hello,

Is it possible to rename Special:Contributions/Yann (2 contributions) to something else so that I can get this account? Thanks, m:User:Yann 88.160.188.126 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to grant the usurpation request within the next week or so, if you can show that you are the admin who has obtained the Single-user login rights to this. ~ Kalki 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(from user talk:Aphaia Hi, since the edits came from this user:Yann seems a meaningful goodfaithed edit, I am hesitate to let you usurp that account immediately. He must give a chance to challenge your request at least, I think. Could you please give a look to WQ:AN where you find a similar request and how we have handled it? Also I recommend you to submit your request to WQ:AN, instead of asking several b'crat personally, regarding it may not be necessarily an impostor. --Aphaia 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To Kalki: while we are now relaxed to accept requests for rename, should we rather to have them request it on a specific page on wiki, rather ask randomly each b'crat, either it is on WQ:AN or an dedicated page (and hence to be created)? I tend to think particularly usurpation isn't appropriate falling upon on a sole b'crat discretion randomly. --Aphaia 00:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded somewhat hastily, as I was getting ready to some quick edits and then leave my home earlier, and I'm just back from a short time away. I do agree requests should be made at WQ:AN for now, but anticipating that there are likely to be many more such requests, and probably much more information and contentions to sort through once Single-user login is extended to non-admins, we probably should set up a page just for username-related requests. It is also probably best that some notice be posted to non-vandal accounts for at least a week, and perhaps even a month or longer, if usurpation is requested. ~ Kalki 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote quote of the day

Based on your response in the wikiquote page, you are saying that you don't want any contribution to the main page just because the quotations are made by Nazis? Let me guess. You don't want any quotes by Italian Fascists, Russian Communists...? That's like taking your own personal opinion and applying it to standards...I mean I don't want to be rude, it shouldn't matter whether I personally like the people or not, and you know from past experience that I'm rather respectful towards other opinions, but generally speaking, these people were exceptionally more historic figures than the likes of "Dinah Craik", "John Muir"...or most recent others being used...besides you should be looking at the quality of the quote alone, and nothing else. Personally, all military figures have more exceptionally powerful and moral quotes than any writers, artists, travelers, etc. that have already been listed. If you examine the message behind the quotes, you will find that they are very moral and hold a lot of meaning. It shouldn't matter to you who is saying them, but for informational purposes, you should know that they are all historic figures and you shouldn't disregard them just because you may not like them personally. Please know that they are exceptionally important and not everyone will agree with your ideology that they shouldn't be used. I just want to point out that I categorized them based on birth date like you said, since most of them will be regarded only if you would take them into account if they are on the birth dates. But seriously, I spent quite some time compiling them, and having about 30 quotes in 365 days from my contributions isn't much...since you do pretty much control all of what is chosen, from what I can see, I just don't want you to disregard them just because they are said by fascists or nazis. Please take the quotes into mind, examine the actual message (the military irony and value) and please judge based on that. Otherwise, I will be forced to think that you are judging simply based on your own opinion of the person and nothing else. I'm hoping this is wrong and that you can move past that and allow quotes from everyone. Otherwise, wikiquote would only be for people who believe in one perspective and would be dogmatic, unallowing other quotes and perceptions to be seen. Let me know if any of my quotations will hold moral worth, or maybe I should just refer to wikiquote's main page quote selection as kalki-quote and end it there. You know I respect you, and I've actually talked with you very often in the past, respectfully, and I want to keep it that way. But I am going to ask you to please try and accept the quotes for what they are saying, beyond who is saying them. Then you can judge thoughtfully, the moral worth and message behind each quote I give. If you want, you can give this up for further deliberation, but my perspective stands. You know what I believe, that a quotation is worthwhile for its powerful message, regardless of anything. And I find these quotations highly magnificent, charming to the last. Please take my plea into account. Thanks for your time and I still maintain respect for you regardless of your decision. - Zarbon 00:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Respect must usually be earned, and to actually expect it from others is often very foolish. I do not at all "know" that you respect me or anyone else here, and have never once pretended to. Many of your apparent attitudes, motivations, and your actions throughout your periods of activity here have been and remain of dubious value, and I have never been inclined to accept all the appearances of sincerity which people are inclined to present at face value. If my words and attitudes here appear overly harsh, they are honestly expressed.

I would like to assert most vigorously that I am not at all ignorant of the virtues of military discipline, and greatly respect it where it is employed to preserve, protect and defend liberty and justice, rather than to suppress them — but I value all logical forms of discipline in the service to fairness and truth far too highly to cherish such forms of craven corruption of all moral ideals as would insist upon anyone's absolute deference and obedience to any person, or any fixed set of beliefs or ideas, such as definitely marked the Nazi and Soviet communist regimes, and many others. I have never been at all fond of the delusions of those who would assert that there should be absolute obedience to anyone, or any idea as part of the proper disciplines of life.

I am very aware of the admirable quality of many military figures and have worked extensively on the pages of a few of them here, but frankly, anyone who would state so profoundly foolish a thing as : "Personally, all military figures have more exceptionally powerful and moral quotes than any writers, artists, travelers, etc. that have already been listed" is probably beyond the ability of logic to easily reach. I believe that the greatest military leaders of the ages would fully agree with me on this. Some of your suggestions have emphasized a grandiose exaggeration of the value and worth of obedience, such as have existed among the Nazi and many other regimes:

It isn't right to be obedient only when things go well; it is much harder to be a good, obedient soldier when things go badly and times are hard. Obedience and faith at such time is a virtue. ~ Wilhelm Keitel

A soldier's first duty is to obey, otherwise you might as well do away with soldiering. ~ Albert Kesselring

Even on dates to which these quotes have some correlation I personally would never rank these quotes highly. Though I have a great respect for principles of duty, I believe it is a person's fundamental duty as a living human being to think for themselves. Though I recognize that in many military efforts the capacity to respect and obey the decisions of higher ranking figures is essential, to artificially insist upon such respect and obedience, or the value of military aggression in achieving social objectives is usually extremely detrimental to the things of supreme value in life. Many of the greatest generals and commanders of history have also expressed such opinions:

I don't underrate the value of military knowledge, but if men make war in slavish obedience to rules, they will fail. ~ Ulysses S. Grant

Though I have been trained as a soldier, and participated in many battles, there never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword. ~ Ulysses S. Grant

Mortal danger is an effective antidote for fixed ideas. ~ Erwin Rommel

Nine-tenths of tactics are certain, and taught in books: but the irrational tenth is like the kingfisher flashing across the pool, and that is the test of generals. ~ T. E. Lawrence

Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. ~ George S. Patton

I also have long greatly respected many of the expressions of the famous martial artist, and founder of the discipline of Aikido:

In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally. ~ Morihei Ueshiba

The Art of Peace is not easy. It is a fight to the finish, the slaying of evil desires and all falsehood within. On occasion the Voice of Peace resounds like thunder, jolting human beings out of their stupor. ~ Morihei Ueshiba

At the close of a fierce world war in which many millions of people died because of the ambitions and military aggressions of a few, the Commander in Chief of Pacific Forces declared of those who had died in that war:

We have a solemn obligation — the obligation to ensure that their sacrifice will help make this a better and safer world in which to live. ~ Chester W. Nimitz

I usually refrain, so much as practically possible, from getting into unnecessary disputes with people who are plainly inclined to be extremists, idiots, fanatics or fools, but I do not shrink from engaging in dialogue and contentions with them when for some reason it seems necessary, or ultimately unavoidable. I generally feel I have much better things to do with my own time than to focus primarily upon the foolishness and deficiencies of others, or correcting many of the flaws in other's discernment which often seem almost beyond repair.

I generally judge other people's will and intentions by their actions more than by any particular words they might choose to speak, or claims which they might make, and your words and actions have often had extreme discrepancies. Much of your activity here has been marked by a general disregard for advice given to you by others, even in regard to basic formatting practices on the abundant pages you have created for many Nazi and a few communist figures. I have never objected to the creation of such pages, and recognize that such figures should have representation here, despite having much reserve about the judgment of anyone who seems to primarily focus upon them. Even after being directly informed that the practice was to find quotes of the day with some relation to the date, you continued to post quotes with no relationship at all to the dates onto the pages for April and May. I am glad to see that today you have been removing some of these, and thank you for that, but in response to the flood of quotes unrelated to date continuing, one of my comments in ranking a quote a "1" was "No relation to the date, and I have no inclination to regularly quote Nazis, and definitely none to have the WIkiquote quote of the day turn into the "Nazi quote of the day."

I have never absolutely ruled out any source of quotes for "quote of the day", and to imply that I have is either deceitful or merely honestly erroneous. I have expressed a few of my opinions in ranking some of your suggestions, but it is hardly extraordinary for a person to have little or no desire to spend a great deal of time focussing on the immoral abyss of the Nazi regime, or collecting or publicizing what might be a few admirable words from largely un-admirable, deceitful and hypocritical figures, whose general attitudes and actions in life can hardly be considered exemplarily. It is certainly not in any way my obligation or duty to "want any quotes by Italian Fascists, Russian Communists" but even without such desire, I have never sought to exclude them from consideration, and have not yet ranked any "zero". In some of my comments in the rankings I have simply honestly stated my own personal inclinations in regard to them, and any suggestion that I should abjectly accommodate your own inclinations by merely "having about 30 quotes in 365 days from my contributions" which thus far has seemed to skew primarily towards quotes by Nazis or other dictatorial regimes something that I find both ridiculous and frankly disgusting. If the people regularly involved don't find sufficient merit in even one of your quotes to rank it ahead of others it will not be used. Thus far, you are simply being outvoted, by the very few participants in the ranking and selection process for the quote of the day. Though I have always been and remain the most involved participant in this process, it is NOT something that remains entirely ruled by my own preferences. Conceivably other peoples rankings of quotes could change, and conceivably I could defer to the general will of regular participants here if there were actually a majority of people involved who wanted a regular dose of remarks from some of the foulest hypocrites and oppressors which the world has ever known. I am quite willing to defer to the opinions of others where I am actually outvoted by regular participants in the processes, but I am certainly not so craven a person as to feel I should defer to anyone's suggestions, that I myself should give the views or expressions of Nazis equal respect to those of anyone else.

With only a relatively few exceptions occurring in the past, the practice on the suggestion pages has been for a person to choose one quote on any date as one they would rate a 4 — as quotes that should certainly be used. You have given almost all of your suggestions a ranking of 4, and I have honestly given almost all of them a ranking of a 1 — as acceptable suggestions under current rules, but which I as a participant in the ranking and selection process have no particular desire to see used for "Quote of the Day."

In the four years in which I have been involved in selecting the Quotes of the day, I have only had a very few complaints made of my suggestions and selections, and have believe that overall I have received more compliments than complaints, even when my judgement alone was involved in selecting them, and in all this time there has been only a very few disputes of the fairness of my decisions once the ranking processes, which I devised to allow more people to be involved in the decisions, began to be used in 2005.

Though there have thus far only rarely been more than 2 or 3 people involved in the rankings at a time, there have been many times when I have not gone with my own strong preferences but with the strong preferences of others, even in the case of ties. There is no absolutely clear and definite way to tabulate the opinions of people on complex issues, but the numerical rankings give people involved the ability to give indications of their levels of favor and disfavor.

I do actually recognize that some of your suggestions have some merit and value, and might eventually be used, on dates to which they have some relation, but you declare that in regard to all of them: "If you examine the message behind the quotes, you will find that they are very moral and hold a lot of meaning. It shouldn't matter to you who is saying them."

If a famous but vicious or otherwise incompetent idiot says something, which by itself is of some worth, of either ethical, comedic or dramatic value, I would certainly not exclude it from consideration as a quote of the day, but I am honestly not inclined to rank statements which might have some worth in themselves, said by people who are steeped in paths of malicious deceit, hypocrisy and outright evil the same weight as those who express them with full sincerity, and whose practices are most fully in accord with their words.

Though I do not choose to voice many of my opinions about many matters, when I do, my personal imperative has been to voice only my own honest opinions and to let others voice theirs, so fully as they wish, unlike the nazis, fascists, communists, and most other ideological fanatics and extremists of history and modern times.

To some degree, I respect the worth of all people, but I have never at any time pretended to respect the worth of all their opinions and ideas, or to treat all ideas and ideologies as if they were equal. Such absurd notions as those that all ideas should be regarded as of equal worth, or virtuous words made by a liar and a malicious deceiver should be treated as having equal value as those made by someone who is sincere and honestly compassionate are delusions of such profound stupidity that I believe that very few people actually hold them, though I am very much aware that there are many would try to assert, or evenly honestly believe that such an attitude is a standard "liberal" stance, or try to argue that such standards should be applied to judgments regarding their own personal inclinations.

Though I have some capacity for delight in the irrational and appreciation of the absurd, and am certainly no authoritarian in regard to human beliefs, I do adhere to certain truths and principles of reason as having imperishable and irrefutable value, and I abhor the myriad forms of profound hypocrisy, stupidity, malevolent deceitfulness or nihilism such as would assert the absolute equality of all values, or absolutely deny their worth, or ultimately that of life itself.

Though I certainly do not wish to erase or deny mention of past forms of extreme foolishness and stupidity which have existed among people, and recognize that there is a need to be familiar with them to some degree, I believe that one better serves the best and the greatest capacities of humanity by doing what one can to regularly remind people of the good which has, and which can, and which does exist in people, rather than the bad, which has, and which can, and which does exist in many. This attitude has always been part of my general process in the suggestion and selection of quotes, and hopefully can continue to be. ~ Kalki 18:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kalki, I commend you on such a thoughtful and comprehensive response on this issue. Rest assured, your work on QOTD has always been appreciated and your choices reflect consideration and thought. I just could not resist commenting on your essay above - it was well-written and I quite enjoyed it. ~ UDScott 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Great essay! Even if it is a work of occasion, I'd love to see it in a dedicated page (your user subpage or just on meta as a personal essay). Meta, said I, since I think it rather be written from the community view of point, while it cannot come from nowhere but your continuous and individual labor and wisdom. --Aphaia 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that one better serves the best and the greatest capacities of humanity by doing what one can to regularly remind people of the good which has, and which can, and which does exist in people, rather than the bad, which has, and which can, and which does exist in many." Let me point out that I don't agree with this whatsoever and I feel that everyone should be regarded, even those you may consider "bad." That was a highly well formulated response and all, but please note that you did promise to give somewhat consideration. Of course I am a little hurt that you find my perspective of trying to bring in the dictatorial regimes "disgusting", that is rather harsh of you to say, since I personally like the initial quotes dealing with those regimes most of all. Although you may not agree with hypocrisy in general, or the facet of lies, they are what created a very powerful era in history, whether it be to your liking or not. Actually, amongst all my submissions, the two you stated...by Keitel and Kesselring, along with one other by Kaltenbrunner, are three of my alltime favorite quotations in history, in a historic perspective. Please, reconsider them for usage. I seriously adore the quotes with all my heart and it shouldn't matter to you who is saying them. If it was based on that, then they are all very historic figures and have left a strong mark in history, in the deliberation of right and wrong, and more importantly, in their severe loyalty to the regime and moreso the outcome of the Nuremberg Trials and the creation of the War Criminal conception. But regardless of any of these informative gestures, I know that you personally don't like any of the people I noted and I tried my best to keep them only on their birth dates mostly, so as to follow your guidelines, but if we were going to go into deliberation furthermore, you should know that I hold all the military figures in high respect, from the Germans, to the Italians, to the Soviets, and furthermore, to the Japanese. And it isn't hard to figure out that I personally feel that the "devotion complex" or better described as "blind loyalty" is what creates the iconic people whom I find personal historic charm. The whole concept of free-will destroys the powerful epitome of what a soldier is all about. More specifically, I really hope that you will consider all the quotes and the three which are my three personal favorite quotes, you will eventually hopefully use, since I hold them in high regard and I back up with all my strong conviction and devotion. Again, please be aware that I do indeed respect everyone here (except for some vandals who cause chaos) and I hold personal respect for you. So please don't think for a second that I don't respect your opinion. I do. But at the moment, if you disregard all my submissions, I really would feel rather awful since I would like all people of history to receive coverage on the quote of the day. Generally speaking, 3 quotes out of 365 isn't much to ask for...since pretty much none of them are horrible quotes. They are all actually full of moral worth. I do understand that you want to use all quotes from writers, painters, etc. but not using any from the people I have contributed is rather dogmatic, a one-set perspective being cast, not allowing for the "evil" as you put it, to be seen. All perspectives should be overshadowed and spotlighted, not just the righteous and inspiring ones. "With only a relatively few exceptions occurring in the past, the practice on the suggestion pages has been for a person to choose one quote on any date as one they would rate a 4 — as quotes that should certainly be used. You have given almost all of your suggestions a ranking of 4." What I will do in response to this is lower the ratings for all of my submissions to a "3" except for the three quotes that are my personal loved quotes of all time. Again, for reference purposes, the three quotes I strongly like and feel should definitely be used are:

• The quicker humanity advances, the more important it is to be the one who deals the first blow. ~ Ernst Kaltenbrunner
• It isn't right to be obedient only when things go well; it is much harder to be a good, obedient soldier when things go badly and times are hard. Obedience and faith at such time is a virtue. ~ Wilhelm Keitel
• A soldier's first duty is to obey, otherwise you might as well do away with soldiering. ~ Albert Kesselring

Baring in mind that western culture and perspective is highly different from this perspective, it will be extremely hard to convince you to rank these quotes highly. But, I know for a fact that I personally feel they are three of the greatest quotes in all history and I'd very much like for you to include them, not just for my sake, but for the sake of maintaining a balanced perspective, far from a one-set mind of only allowing people whom you feel are "righteous" or "virtuous". It's obvious at this point that almost all the people I put up are far from the qualities you seem to be looking for. But that isn't reason enough to disallow their initial inclusion. Please look into these quotes and give them a chance. I would really appreciate it, strongly. - Zarbon 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it is now September 17 and the date nears my three QOTD suggestions which are my all-time favorite quotes (September 22, October 4, and November 30) which I referenced above to you many months ago. Please be fair in judging the quotes as I have been throughout the entire year, since I complied to the standard of following birth dates, etc. I am very anxious to see my 3 favorite quotes make it this year (again they are the only 3 quotes I am giving a rating of 4 as a suggestion. Please, please be fair as I have been rather patient waiting for these 3 quotations my dear comrade. - Zarbon 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a rating of 4 surpass a rating of 3...I mean, I really hope my suggestion for September 22 makes it this year because I waited a whole year for it... - Zarbon 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In the tabulations I do of the various rankings I take into account all the rankings of all the quotes, and usually treat a single 4 ranking as better than two 3s, and thus roughly equivalent to three 3's in value, but even tabulated in this manner, the quote you preferred did not rank as the highest among those suggested. ~ Kalki 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain, because the "0" rating shouldn't be taken into account as I explained since it was on wrong pretenses. I explained furthermore but since this person was new I assume he didn't know that a rating of 0 is only plausible for quotations that are completely date-irrelevant or already used. I'm seriously annoyed considering I only have 3 suggestions for the entire year a rating of 4. You can still fixate the suggestion. Or otherwise, I can still recommend the quote for the person's date of death. I really want these 3 quotes to make it this year. I have seriously limited my suggestions with this high rating in the hopes that they make it. You know how important these 3 are to me. - Zarbon 03:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you are ignoring the actual voting and deciding on your own. The quote I waited for all year received two votes of 4 and I reduced my votes on the rest, as well as the one you "chose" yourself in order to purposely ignore the votes. I didn't think that was possible, it destroys the purpose of having suggestions and votes if you are going to choose them without consideration. - Zarbon 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I found it irrational to choose a quote that received 3 as its highest vote prior and I substantially found it pointless in casting my vote since the most intrigueing quote was blatantly shunned because of your own basis. I assumed that the quote of the day was based on suggestions and suggestions alone, not selected solely by your final decision. - Waheedone 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SUMMARY of what occurred in recent edits as I made the October 16 selection : there was what could be considered a 3 way tie as I accounted things, and I decided to shift my own preference of a 4 to what had been someone else's top choice, but mistakenly marked the wrong quote. I posted the quote, and only then noticed my error, and corrected it, but there was an edit conflict I did not initially notice to my updating of things. I then finally updated the ranking page fully in accord with the selection I had made, and retained the final rankings, though one other ranking had also shifted AFTER I made the selection (from a 2 to a 0). At the time I actually posted the selection, the rankings I believed I had made, and had meant to make had given the highest rank to Ningauble's original top choice, rather than my own. ~ Kalki 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain your vehement rating of 0 just to spite my suggestion. I waited an entire year so that the quote would fall under its correct pretext. I followed all the needed basis of suggesting on the correct dates. And the least you could have done was allow the quote to go through, considering I waited an entire year. And the fact that you blatantly ignored this was also rather annoying. I never ever rated any of your suggestions a 0 before...especially if the quote was a 4 rating. I took time to rate them in accordance to the message behind your quotes. I never added my own basis of "lets judge the person". I bet you that you would not have given the quote a second thought if it was said by someone like Helen Keller or Mahatma Gandhi. But you didn't assess the quote correctly. You must realize that the quote said nothing of the sort with what you explained as your basis for rating it. It simply says that it is virtuous to be loyal at times of difficulty. To remain loyal through thick and thin. That is all. There was no hidden agenda. And you apparently failed to realize the overall message. It's not too late to change the initial quote chosen. You know that it means too much to me. I don't want to have to wait until NEXT september 22 until the quote will be allowed to be taken into consideration again. I wouldn't be annoyed if I hadn't mentioned this throughout the entire YEAR about fifty times at a minimum. - Zarbon 00:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I had to leave immediately after posting my last message and didn't get back to my computer until a short time ago. Just a few minutes ago finally got around to checking in here and reading your above comments. I will point out that I believe the links I provided in my comments on the suggestion page give the most standard definitions of what the words used in the statement actually mean. I did not rank it a 0 merely to spite you, or because a Nazi said them, I ranked it a 0 because there are few attitudes that I hold in greater contempt than such attitudes as those words indicate, no matter who might declare them. I don't believe you have a good grasp of the words or their standard meanings if you can actually insist on saying "It simply says that it is virtuous to be loyal at times of difficulty." That is one thing that such a statement can imply to many people, but it also inherently implies that there is some form of hierarchy of command of those who should exercise the judgment of their own perceptions and will to decide for others what they should or should not do, and issue commands which others should be absolutely obligated to obey. There are many reasons I have long rejected such attitudes and ideas, and I don't have time to go into even many of the most fundamental of them at this time. "Obedience" in the sense that it is usually used, is not something I consider to be inherently virtuous at all, and quite to the contrary, I believe those most insistent upon it are most prone to manifest many forms of cowardice and villainy which I abhor. I believe people should always seek to influence each other respectfully, with clear indications of the truth, and usually with clear statement of reasons for whatever aims they would like others to become involved in. I recognize that there exist and will long exist positions of great prestige and power among many where instructions are given to others, and compliance expected or even required of their positions within various social alliances, but I adamantly reject the idea that any human being should ever be in an position of absolute and abject obedience to any other person or group of persons, or the delusions of those who believe it is ever anyone's absolute duty to abjectly accept the command of others. ~ Kalki 15:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to wait another YEAR now...as long as you do not use your "tactics" on the date of birth again. You initially and originally gave the quote a 2 so I am hoping you maintain your vote so that the quote makes it next year on September 22. - Zarbon 22:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I did use one of your "favorites" this month, despite my own extreme distaste for some of the assumptions evident in it, as it did actually have the highest ranking, and I could honestly rank that a 2 at the time, but only because I could appreciate some ironies which were later amplified by certain synergies of fate, and being able the next day to use one of my favorite quotes of Václav Havel: "Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not."
After extensive reflection, and some expressions which began at the very start of this section, I cannot honestly say that I am likely to retain a ranking of 2, or perhaps even a 1, for any of your remaining favorites, nor for any quote glorifying "obedience" even if I could work in something ironic to in some way counter it. I recognize that there are admirable duties, loyalties and many virtues that demand a great deal of self-sacrifice and suffering, but, as I have stated, I do not consider "obedience" in the sense which the term is usually used to inherently be one of these. I do not consider it my duty to explain all of my own views or the reasons for them to others, but I do consider it my duty to be as honest as I can be in any statement I do make. I am very loyal and devoted to the cause promoting awareness of many forms of Truth, and exposing many forms of error. But in this I am obeying only my own conscience, and not the demands or commands of any one else, and yet affirming an awareness that being respectful of my own integrity and worth is something ultimately dependent upon my respect for the worth of others, and for the value of Awareness and Life itself, and never something that can be entirely independent of them. ~ Kalki 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, just as long as you realize that I only initially had and still have three "favorites". It's not like I was trying to persuade 365 days of quotes to my desire. It was only for 3 quotes, of which only 1 has made it so far out of those 3. I'm simply hoping that the other 2 make it in order to have literally given me the 3 quotes I have waited for so long. All I'm asking is that you not give my other 2 negative ratings so that they are allowed an equal chance to make it. Think about it, it's a mere 3 quotes in an entire year. That shouldn't be a lot at all, especially with my constant saying that it's a small amount in comparison to the year's suggestions overall. - Zarbon 13:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Radio and Wikiquote

I see the warning that you're somewhat less active at the moment, but a fair bit of that activity seems to be on the QOTD stuff.

Since I don't really know any of the Wikiquote contributors you seemed a good victim contact to point at this over on Wikinews. If you can think of anyone else on Wikiquote that should be pointed at this, please do so. Not big-splash public announcements, but fairly low key - like on talk pages. I noticed today's QOTD is recorded, but if you're going to take a radio section that is proportionate with an introduction, so a QOTD would need fleshed out with more than just quote and source - eg publication or one sentence biog. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation request: Kaustubh <- Kausshas3

I would like to take over the account User:Kaustubh (no edits); I am using username Kaustubh on several projects, including mr:wp, commons, en:wp, meta and since my successful usurpation on en:wp too. I would like to be able to use that name everywhere with upcomming SUL.

--Kausshas3 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently we are handling usurpation requests at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard, though a dedicated page for this will probably soon need to be created. We have not yet settled upon a definite time frame for handling the requests, but a notice should be given on the user's talk page that such a request is being made. ~ Kalki 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have messed something up...

Hi there, Kalki. From what I can tell, you are a 'crat here on WQ. I'm an admin on English Wikipedia, and I've screwed up and I hope you can help me. I accidentally created a second account here as "Keeper76" when I was updating my global account through my preference tab on en.wikipedia. The problem is, right after I did it, I realized I already had an account here without the "76" on my name, as you will see in my signature. How do I go about combining my two accounts into one account? Is that even possible here? I'm certainly not trying to sockpuppet or anything like that, and I've by no means been very active here on WQ. My admin account on wiki is w:User:Keeper76, I will post a message there on my talkpage so you can see it is me. I will also post another message immediately here with my "other" account so you can see it is me, all one person. I would like to only retain the "keeper76" moniker here as it matches my Wikipedia moniker, and have the "keeper" account deleted here. Thanks for any help you can offer me, and any direction you can point me to get rid of the "keeper" account and have the contribs from it moved to "Keeper76". I'll be posting here within seconds with my other account that I have open in another browser... Keeper76 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kalki. Still me. Posting from my other account. This is the account I'd like to keep. Keeper76 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ack. Still me, now I'm logged in to my other account that I'd like deleted. Keeper 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot actually merge the previous account nor delete it, and renaming it a this point is probably not necessary or useful. There might be options to merge accounts in some future version of the software, but I doubt that this will occur anytime soon. ~ Kalki 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very busy period for me...

Though my activity here has diminished over the last few months, I expect to be even more busy than I have been with many other things for at least a few weeks. Though I will still be checking in daily, and perhaps even a few hours on some days, most days of the next month or so I might spend only a few minutes a day here. Eventually I do intend to devote more time here, but for now I have too many other things demanding my attention. ~ Kalki 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For the next few days, I will probably have a bit more time to spend here than I have had in the last few weeks, as some of the most pressing tasks that were on my agenda are now done, but I expect to remain busy with many things in the weeks to come, and there will probably still be a few days ahead where I can devote little more than a few minutes here a day. But there should be more days where I can spend a few hours here also, and hopefully these will be increasing even more after a few more weeks. ~ Kalki 02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Che

I would be more than happy to discuss changes on the article with you, and I am open to your rationale for why certain changes should not be made, but it is my assessment that this particular article needs a great deal of work. RedThoreau 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol of the Holy Spirit

Being familiar with many of the images at the commons, and those used here, I recently replaced a link to an image of a 17th century stained glass window of the dove of the holy spirit that was absurdly deleted from the commons as a copyright violation, with another more detailed but less colorful image of the same window. This is just a note indicating that the removal of the image on the page for Jesus has yet to be undone, because the page is protected and I could not yet edit it with this account. ~ The One 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take care of that image. ~ Kalki 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert War and obvious sockpuppets

I don't know how to go about dealing with this problem. I pointed out to the vandalism section about this person. Frankly, I am disgusted and annoyed at this same person's behavior. Please see to it that the rest of his sockpuppet user names I stated there are blocked, along with his ip addresses, in order to prevent him from vandalizing the pages as well as abusing me as he has continued to do, and as I have complained about for a very long time. Zarbon 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Though I have temporarily blocked 2 accounts which seem to be obviously engaged in multiple account abuse, I very likely won't have time to sort through all the edits of the editors you have suggested as sockpuppets today, and not all of the edits I've looked at are obvious vandalism or harrassment. I will be leaving for at least a brief period soon, and won't have time to get back to examine things immediately. ~ Kalki 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now blocked the most clearly abusive accounts permanently and will probably do the same on the other 2 before their block expires.~ Kalki 17:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename help

Please take a look at this.--Mohamed0 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

James Anthony Froude

The picture you had added of Froude looks exactly like Gladstone. I'm wondering if there might not be some mistaken identification. The Wikicommons image is described as being "From The Project Gutenberg EBook of Prose Masterpieces from Modern Essayists, by James Anthony Froude, Edward A. Freeman, William Ewart Gladstone, John Henry Newman and Leslie Stephen." The picture also appears on the Wikipedia article.

I've checked out Google images of Froude: he looks, to me, rather different. On the other hand, the same picture often appears among the results, including the cover of a book about Froude.

On the Wikipedia page for Gladstone is an engraving with the caption "A contemplative Gladstone." It looks as if it had been made from the photo alleged to be that of Froude.

The only way to obtain better evidence, I suppose, would be to go through all the Google images of Gladstone (6840) and Froude (721) and see if an original source can be found. I'll check on this and give you the results, if any.- InvisibleSun 19:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Followup: I've found this photograph from collection of the National Portrait Gallery in London. The description reads "William Ewart Gladstone by Elliott & Fry, albumen cabinet card, 31 March 1879, 5 7/8 in. x 4 in. (148 mm x 103 mm) image size. Given by Arthur Myers Smith, 1926-10." The image is a little small; but I think it suffices, especially when magnifying the image. I'll present the evidence to Wikicommons and see what they say. - InvisibleSun 21:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems there probably has been some misidentification — though there does seem to be a strong resemblance in the Punch cartoon of Froude with some of the images of Gladstone, other images at the National Portrait Gallery indicate that Froude actually had a longer face. ~ Kalki 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Urgent e-mail

Please check your in-box.--Cato 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhh

Did you mean to put this quote here? There's currently a redlink for today's featured quote. --Maxim_(talk) 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Guess there's no harm in just sticking it there until Kalki says otherwise. BD2412 T 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that earlier error, and thanks for correcting it. I wasn't working from my normal machine, where I have many templates and forgot that I had been editing the July 10 page to prep for July 11, and not actually the July 11 page. ~ Kalki 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?

Can you grant rollback? I would be able to help out with this vandalism better with it. Thanks! FrankTemp 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I guess you've got it under control. (Feel free to grant anyway; I don't spend all that much time here but it would be nice to be able to help out.) FrankTemp 10:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Even further reduced activity for the next week or so

I expect to be intensely busy with many things of immense importance to me for the next week or two. Though there are a few complex issues I know I must probably address here soon, I simply do not expect to have much time to devote to them or to Wikiquote in general for at least a week, and can probably be relied on to only spend a few minutes a day here for most days in that period. There might even be a couple times where I will select the QOTD a day or two in advance because I might be totally away from computer access an entire day or two at a time during a short trip I am planning. After the next week or two, I believe I will probably have a bit more time to spend here than I have had in the last few months, and might normally be able to spend a few hours a day here several days of the week. At least I am hoping to be able to do so. ~ Kalki 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To Kalki

I will apologize for that. Even though I read it, I should have asked an administrator if it was okay to move L.O.T.R. pages.
Thanks for taking it easy on me. It's appreciated. - Arbok 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior remains highly suspicious - I temporarily blocked you because you began moving all articles with associated with "The Lord of the Rings" to pages starting with "Lord of the Rings" with the comment "Read it on the offical page" and proceeded on all the others with "Same reason as before". There was NO clear reason provided as to why these titles, which matched those on Wikipedia should be moved to pages which did not, nor what "official page" you were referring to. Your activities continue to resemble those of a typical troll, who often does things which are not necessarily outright vandalism, but which seem designed to irritate others on internet projects, but without necessarily breaking any established rules. ~ Kalki 22:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cutting back on my time here even more for at least another month or two

I am credited with being one of the hardest workers and perhaps I am, if thought is the equivalent of labour, for I have devoted to it almost all of my waking hours. But if work is interpreted to be a definite performance in a specified time according to a rigid rule, then I may be the worst of idlers. Every effort under compulsion demands a sacrifice of life-energy. I never paid such a price. ~ Nikola Tesla

I have drastically revised my current plans for the next month or so. Many situations presenting both opportunities and problems which I feel I must respond to have become clearer to me after a brief trip I just made. On my way homeward I basically resolved that for at least another month or two I should spend far less time on Wikiquote or even on the internet, while I work on several projects I feel to be of far greater ultimate importance than anything I could do here.

When I arrived home I found that the system of severe thunderstorms which swept through the areas I visited also swept through the area of my home, and that for what is now the second time in a few years, I seem to have had the ethernet port of my primary computer knocked out by lightning. At least the behavior of my system now seems to be impeded in a similar way to what occurred during an earlier event when I actually saw and heard the spark from a lightning strike of nearby power and cable lines kill my ethernet port, just before the sound of its thunder reached me. Though I can probably set up an internet link via WiFi, I have not yet done so and am currently using someone else's computer from another location.

I am taking the circumstances as a further encouragement to hold true to my resolve and avoid the distractions which can easily arise by being linked to the internet much of the day. Thus for at least another month or two I will be cutting back on most of my activity here even more severely than I already have, and though I still plan to work here daily, normally I should only be relied upon to do only one session of less than an hour a day, to make QOTD selections and do a few other fundamental cleanup tasks. Though there will likely be some exceptions for various reasons, I currently intend to avoid browsing the internet for more than about 2 hours a day until a number of things I've long been working on have been finished, or at least moved far closer to completion. ~ Kalki 04:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot username rename

Hi, I'd like my bot User:Computer to be renamed to User:タチコマ robot. This rename request is per my wikimedia wide bot username rename. I have decided to have a single username to more efficiently use SUL. Thanks.

• If this is not the right place to make this request, please move it to the right place.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot account has now been renamed. ~ Kalki 00:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please rename me

Hi, I have changed my username at my homewiki and want to to it here to. Please rename me to Calandrella. Here is confirmation. Thanks, Leo Johannes 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done the requested rename, but a warning occurred while I did so: "User Leo Johannes has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one." I don't believe this should cause any complications. The old username should still be protected from recreation as a SUL name, but you might need to confirm your password to attach Calandrella here to the SUL Calandrella accoun ~ Kalki 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Crum375

Could you please weigh in at Wikiquote:Changing username/Usurpation#Crum375 -> any name desired and WQ:AN#Crum375, please? There's a bit of a sticky situation which would require a bureaucrat. Will ^(talk) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The renaming in question seems to have already been done now. ~ Kalki 23:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

İsmail Enver

There's some unknown ip 212.133.129.16 vandalising the İsmail Enver page by removing all quotes. Please check on this. - Zarbon 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kerouac

Kalki, I respect your long time contribution to the project, but on this image issue I think the anon has a point. You referred to other articles with images, but I think it a weak argument: most of them are illustrated by you and it is unsure the community support it. Also on talk(s) some of them are/is laughed as "funny" if you miss that comment.

I am saddened to see you involved into an edit war. In my humble opinion you would have been better to stay away and have someone else undo the anon's version.

Cheers, --Aphaia 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The user at IP 68.81.240.182 removed images on the 5th of August with the comment "remove most images as they have nothing do to with anything." I restored these images with only the slight comment that I was doing so, as the objection itself seemed rather absurdly obtuse. On 6th of August the images were again removed with the objection "images are arbitrary, highlight certain quotes without reason, add nothing to article" and I reverted that removal with the more detailed comment "restore images, such as are used on many pages, and do relate to the quotes used as captions."

You declare this a "weak" argument, because I had added the images, as if this was some kind of rare augmentation. I spent much time over several years adding to the articles and much of at least the last couple of years adding images to them, with only very few objections ever being made to such additions. I have recently very much cut back on my activity here, because of greater involvement with other matters, but as far as I am aware objections to images relating to the quotes appearing on the pages remains very much an extremely minority position.

On the 24th the same IP reverted my restoration with simple "rv" (revert vandalism) which seems a rather facetious and presumptious comment to make, and I reverted that removal and yesterday this same IP reverted that edit, and I again reverted that removal.

As this IP has made no other edits at all save these image removals, I am very much inclined to view such edits and edit summaries as those of either a rather shallow minded or unimaginitive interpreter of Kerouac or merely a troll than a serious contributor to the project. Trolls often delight in causing major arguments on various projects with but minor levels of input, and sometimes characterize very conscientious edits as vandalism.

You state some of the images were "laughed at" — I am aware of some snide comments about a few images on a few other pages, but I am not aware of where such comments were made regarding these images, and am not greatly concerned about such. Kerouac himself was laughed at, and I feel I have no apologies to make for adding images to the page which some very dimwitted people might laugh at as merely "funny".

Only two images were not removed by this IP, probably because these relate specifically to Kerouac, rather than something he says, but this is not Wikipedia, and images on many pages are related to the subject of quotes and not necessarily to the subject of the pages. I do not feel people should always have to indicate the reasons images are chosen with a specific rationale for them, but in response to these rather casual and blanket objections, I will list some of the specific reasons:

- The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones that never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!" - uses an image of fireworks which I think entirely appropriate to the statement.

File:Clouds Goddess.PNG - Maybe that's what life is... a wink of the eye and winking stars. - Uses an anthropomorphic image of stars.

- I want to fish as deep down as possible into my own subconscious in the belief that once that far down, everyone will understand because they are the same that far down. - This uses a buddha-like image of the Mandelbrot set, which relates quite well to the quote itself as well as some of the buddhist inspired insights of Kerouac.

Who knows, but that the universe is not one vast sea of compassion actually, the veritable holy honey, beneath all this show of personality and cruelty? - uses an image of a galaxy which well relates to the cosmic imagery of the statement.

- All is well, practice kindness, heaven is nigh. - uses an image of a church and fireworks in close proximity to Kerouac's statement: "I went one afternoon to the church of my childhood and had a vision of what I must have really meant with "Beat"... the vision of the word Beat as being to mean beatific... People began to call themselves beatniks, beats, jazzniks, bopniks, bugniks and finally I was called the "avatar" of all this."

File:Yggdrasil axis mundi 1.PNG All human beings are also dream beings. Dreaming ties all mankind together. - uses an image of a male and female figure in union as portions of symbolic axis-tree of the world {This image was deleted as the commons, and has now been replaced with File:Taijitu polarity.PNG, using male and female, yin/yang imagery cycling within a famous Taoist symbol.} :

- I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion. - uses a chaotic image of colors swirling around darkness.

- What's heaven? what's earth? All in the mind. - uses an image of a Torii — a symbolic gateway between the sacred and the profane conceptions of the mind.

Now you understand the Oriental passion for tea... - uses an image of green tea in relation to the tea ceremony.

I felt like lying down by the side of the trail and remembering it all. The woods do that to you... - uses an image of the Muir Woods

Ah, life is a gate, a way, a path to Paradise anyway, why not live for fun and joy and love... - uses an image of Big Sur for a quote from the novel Big Sur.

I will die, and you will die, and we all will die, and even the stars will fade out one after another in time. - uses an image of the remnants from the supernova destruction of a star.

- There's your Karma ripe as peaches. - uses an image of a sliced peach in relation to the quote about peaches and Karma.

- I accept lostness forever. - uses what is probably one of the more enigmatic images — one which is indicative of the possible presence of as yet physically undetected Dark matter.

- My witness is the empty sky. - uses an image of the circuit of the stars of the sky.

Again, I do not feel an elaborate explanation is needed for the use of images in relation to quotes, but this indicates some of the thought that went into their selection as opposed to the thoughtlessness with which their relevance was rather summarily dismissed. ~ Kalki 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I expect to be online more often soon

I just located some of the equipment I had which was necessary to reconnect to the internet on my home computer, after letting it remain unconnected for a couple of months, and thus out of contact with most of my email accounts, and not showing up very often here. I will probably be a bit more active here again within a few months, but expect that I will remain very busy with many other things for at least a few more weeks. ~ Kalki 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for blocking User:Beano2 and undoing his vandalism. CALQL8 10:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware

I just want to mention that this person...Wikisaver62 seems more than a bit like a vandal. I wouldn't be surprised if it's another sockpuppet. Please just keep track of this person's activity as the user page and contributions look almost exactly like our past "sockpuppet extraordinaire" Wikistar's handiwork. Zarbon 03:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

October QOTD

I just noticed that the redirect to the October QOTD is a broken link. I also see that someone vandalized the page. It's obvious that this idiot is back with many accounts again. Can you fix the link please, from the main page, upon clicking the archive and going directly to October, it should allow us to see the entire month's suggestions, but instead it links to a double relink of the same page without anything on it. - Zarbon 13:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it mate. - Zarbon 13:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Valentine (film)

Hi Kalki. I prodded Valentine (film) because it has no quotes, but I wouldn't mind if you still want to hang on to it. (I have been reviewing "ShortPages.") ~ Ningauble 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of that page is nothing I have any objection to. I had probably had in mind creating a page for Valentine rather than leaving it a redirect page to the film. I had entirely lost track of it. ~ Kalki 01:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I had not thought you fancied the genre, but noteworthy ideas can turn up in the oddest places. ~ Ningauble 01:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words supporting my nomination for adminship. I will try not to make a mess as I learn to use the tools. ~ Ningauble 02:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Goebbels

I pointed out the reasons of the change on the discussion page. If you have good points against the changes, you should utter them there.
It was me who talked to you on the discussion page against the use of the terrifying pictures. They have been gone for a long time now. So I'm very surprised about the use of romanticizing pictures in the present article. Again – of course one could find a positive, maybe fascinating image which sheds a sympathetic light on every quotation – that's not the purpose of wikiquote.
Then I removed an unsourced quotation that was even emphasized with a picture. The "fabulously dying" quotation. I read a lot about Goebbels – and haven't seen that quotation. As long as there is no resource it's certainly an improvement of the wikiquote-page if it is removed.
Then there's another alleged quote which I removed. It is even presented with many alternatives. But logic tells us that the numerous paraphrases (which I did actually hear and read when people talked or wrote about the Big Lie idea which they erroneously contributed to Goebbels) do not speak in favor but against that quotation. What about an original resource? None is provided. That's why I removed it. Wikiquote really should impose higher standards. By the way – it's me who added the quotations from the book "Michael" and if required I can also add the page number of every single quote.
So why were the changes I made reverted and do you still think that it was justified?
Sincerely, 217.236.224.46 19:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

QOTD

I see you have begun to filter out the votes made by waheedone and fossil. I'm not against that myself. In fact, I encourage you to do so. But I would much prefer it if you would please stop referring to these people as "suspected sockpuppets" of mine every time you edit a date. I do not have any sockpuppets. I thought I made this clear already and it was proven through checkuser, in fact. Please, I implore you to not abuse my name for these other users. That is all I ask. I am already annoyed that you initially made the accusation, but to blatantly continue it after all that, without any evidence whatsoever is what angers me. My reputation means a lot to me. Please remove their votes but do not attribute my name to their actions. It's disrespectful. I have much respect for the qotd and I want to continue to uphold that respect. Although I may not share the same ideological views as you, I do share the same perspective of upholding and maintaining order on wikiquote and its sister projects. I also hold a certain respect for you and InvisibleSun, because I have been participating with you for quite some time now and I believe this respect is garnered through our diligence and previous work on this project as a whole.

I'd also like to mention that there are some other users who have absolutely no history on wikiquote other than casting votes to the qotd. Among them, denji, lyle, etc. I believe they should be treated the same way as these other users. Anyone who comes here just for the sake of casting votes should not be taken seriously. This should be the basic rubric for us to follow, a guideline if you will. You'll find that I want to help you take care of this problem in itself because I'd like to maintain an easy community without the excess of random people who simply cast votes and don't contribute to wikiquote in any other way. Zarbon 03:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd that you would remove the votes of the likes of fossil,waheedone, etc. and not lyle. he has no contributions other than the qotd suggestions. his votes are better not to be counted the same way the others aren't, or is it only beneficial to you not to count the votes of people who seem to have an opposing vote...? I believe the rule should be maintained and should be applied to all users, not just the ones you feel. lyle is another user who has no contribution. his votes should also be removed along with the rest until he has done more than just vote. Zarbon 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not got around to blanking out all the currently irrelevant votes on all the suggestion pages, even for the month of November, but Lyle actually has made a few contributions, in that he contributed "Taming the Bicycle" quotes to the Mark Twain page in October, and has also been active here since May of this year, and his votes thus count under current guidelines. I probably will not have much time for a more extensive response to this and a few other matters today, but hope to get around to addressing a few issues of dispute within the next week or so. ~ Kalki 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough contribution, if any. The user fossil had also shown much more contribution...he had created a few pages worth of material. But that doesn't seem to matter since his votes are voided. I just think that all non-contributors should be treated the same. Going into one page and making some edits doesn't make that user a contributor. What extensive contribution has this person shown other than voting for the qotd, it's annoying to let every random person vote when they haven't made the same contribution as say, the likes of you and I. Zarbon 00:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

complaint

why the HELL was all my votes remove!!!? i look to see my votes are gone and i know i had voted for those days. then i look at history to see that someone screw with votes. then i see your name saying you are removing votes made by me...puppet something. What the hell and why the hell are my votes being removed. i joined this wiki quote so that i could vote. now i am angry that my votes deleted! do i have to need some kind of history on here to vote, what i did wrong? Waheedone 03:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you need to have a history of making positive contributions to Wikiquote for your votes to be counted. Only by going through the process of building and fixing articles can any editor gain an appreciation of the standards employed by this project, and the underlying need for those standards. BD2412 T 03:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your quick vandalism revert on my user page yesterday. :) -Sketchmoose 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

QOTD vote-counting

I've been wondering for some time how the final choice is made for the Quote of the Day. Is it done by totalizing the rankings, or by averaging them? No system that I can think of seems to explain all the results. There may be an explanation of this elsewhere, in which case I'm sorry for wasting your time, but I couldn't find it. I understand the recent measures restricting the vote to established users, of course, it's just the actual vote-counting that has me confused. --Antiquary 10:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There has never been any definite formality established — I have tended to compare scores using the averaging process in most circumstances, especially when there are no extremes indicated, such as a 0 or a 4, but I also usually take into account when there have been many responses at various levels as opposed to very few, except sometimes in the cases of suggestions made in response to sudden recent events, such as the deaths of notable people. When considering the element of the strength of many responses, I long had taken a zero as a severe blow, designating a quote someone found absolutely unacceptable as a QOTD under nearly any circumstances, and thus as one that should probably simply be eliminated from consideration — but it seems to have been deployed in recent months far more often in a merely tactical manner, simply to make the likelihood of the use of other quotes become greater, and thus I have tended to take the severity of it as something less than I previously had. A ranking of 1, I tend to take as a mark that people would prefer the quote not to be used; a 2 as an indication of a quote they find acceptable, but with no strong preferences whether it be used or not, a 3 as one they strongly like, and would like to be used eventually. A ranking of 4, where people assert a quote should certainly be used, I tend to treat as a vote for immediacy of use, and I usually count a single 4 as greater mark than two 3s and roughly as strong as three 3s. I sometimes have used this mark myself to tactically shift the balance of things, when I perceive one of the higher ranked quotes to be preferable to others, even though I might not under normal circumstances rank it a 4, simply because it seems to me for some reasons to be the best of those currently suggested and within range of being used, sometimes even though I myself might actually have preferred another. ~ Kalki 12:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand. It's a more informal process than I'd imagined but, having mulled it over, I can see it has some advantages. A certain opacity in the final decision-making at least tends to discourage tactical voting. It seems to work pretty well in practice anyway. --Antiquary 14:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I also approve of a little "constructive ambiguity" in the process. Because any fixed, formal system can be gammed, subjective assessment by an honest judge is not a bad thing. Kalki has been upstandingly honest in administering the process. ~ Ningauble 15:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The formality of this process is not faulted, it's just that when Kalki decides to shift his vote right before the change in date is what makes it rather faulty. I don't necessarily agree with this as he frequently changes his vote "tactically" in the last hour and voids other suggestions for the day. Also, the tendency to count his 4 higher than my 4, for example, is frequent. I believe that is one thing that should be fixed. Another instance, for example, as he has just explained...he asserts that a single vote of 4 maintains a higher apparatus than two 3's. This doesn't seem to be the case for many suggestions and many days as many times that a quote has received 1's and 2's...he has used the quote just because he had given it a 4. But apply this same scenario to one of my favorite suggestions, and the result has been vice versa. In the long run, the chemistry that his 4 counts the highest, moreso than someone else's 4, seems to be the consensus. Take today's suggestion for example. The quote chosen had 4 votes...a 1 from me...and two 3's from Antiquary and InvisibleSun. Other suggestions of the day seemed to surpass that one, but he overruled that with his 4. So basically, his 4 ends up counting moreso than a vote of 1 no matter what. If someone had given that quote a 0, it would still have made it for the quote of the day because he had given it a 4. It comes down to what he chooses as his 4. I'm also worried about this because my favorite quote is coming up in approximately four days. It's highly likely that Kalki will rate it low and give another random quote a high rating. The possibility that my rating of 4 will not even be considered is more than likely and this is what becomes annoying. I hope that in fairness, Kalki will not grade my favorite suggestion low. That's another thing that should be fixed, otherwise all else seems fine. Zarbon 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, I've thought of something else. Maybe a rating of 5 can be suitable and limited to 5 quotations in the entire year. That would work well to differ from the daily limit, meaning every one of us can choose 5 of their favorite quotes from the entire year and rate those a 5, giving those 5 a higher chance to make it. Since the rating of 4 is limited to one per day, limiting a rating of 5 for 5 days of the entire year would be nice. I mean, it's a good way to make sure that we all have a higher chance for our favorite quotes, which we want more than others, to be chosen. Just a suggestion. Zarbon 04:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this last suggestion of yours really doesn't accommodate anyone's needs or desires but yours, any more than the voting records and other incidental edits of "Waheedone" and "Fossil" have, up to this point.

Though the above response occurred to me rather swiftly, I will make a brief apologies for a delay in my actual response here. Many things are currently occupying much more of my time and attention than any issues at Wikiquote, and probably shall for at least a few more weeks. I do intend to address some of them in the days ahead with what time I have, and do expect my activity levels here in coming months to eventually increase over what they have been in recent months.

Addressing your statement: "his 4 ends up counting moreso than a vote of 1 no matter what. If someone had given that quote a 0, it would still have made it for the quote of the day because he had given it a 4. It comes down to what he chooses as his 4."

This certainly is not always or even usually the case. The suggestion I ranked a 4 was one made by InvisibleSun which everyone who had voted except you had ranked at a 3 (indicating a strong desire to see it used); you alone had ranked it at 1, (indicating no real desire to see it used, and in this case very effectively blighting the high ranking of everyone else who had voted on it): "Statistically the probability of any one of us being here is so small that you would think the mere fact of existence would keep us all in a contented dazzlement of surprise. We are alive against the stupendous odds of genetics, infinitely outnumbered by all the alternates who might, except for luck, be in our places. ~ Lewis Thomas

You more often than any other regular voter seem to rank many people's suggestions at 1 or 0, especially if they are in any competition with the quotes you favor. The only usernames who have perhaps used such rankings more than you are the recent voters "Waheedone" and "Fossil", which I and others have suspected to simply be your sockpuppets. Most other people rarely use these levels of disapproval for quotes, and when they do they are often for some of those you have suggested, not because of they are made by you, because a few of the suggestions you have made have been ranked highly, but because they seem to be some form of either nihilistic, authoritarian or highly partisan statements promoting some extreme levels of harshness and brutality, which have very limited appeal, if any, to most other voters.

I had ranked the above quote a 4 simply because I perceived it to be the best of the available quotes within the current circumstances, as I perceived them. The alternates were some you had also ranked at only 1 or 2, or some by yourself which you had ranked at 3, and nearly everyone else had ranked at 1 or 2, with the only exception being one of yours which did receive two other 3s, and a 2 from myself.

Though I don't deny that I have changed my rankings to favor some quotes more than others, I really don't give a damn who suggests them, and when I shift the balance within the last few hours I am often inclined to do so by shifting a 4 away from my own strongest favorites, which I usually mark with a 4 well in advance, to some one else's, rather than my own, and by an impulse to solidly support what seems to be the best of quotes within range of possible inclusion, and sometimes to avoid selection of a much less appealing or sometimes extremely deplorable statement, which has gained a greater prominence than might be expected because of your tendencies to not only rank your own favorites highly but to rank those by many other people very low.

I don't deny at all that there are several instances where I have felt impelled to rank a quote a 4 which I might normally rank only a 3 or even a 2, simply because I definitely considered it superior to some deplorable statement you had ranked a 4, and which otherwise would be chosen because of the levels of extremely low rankings you give to nearly anything else in competition with your favorites. Sometimes not even this has been sufficient, especially when I was still counting the votes made under the names "Waheedone" and "Fossil", which not only perhaps exceed you in ranking other's suggestions at 0 or 1, but seem remarkably inclined to rank your often very peculiar favorites very highly at 3 or 4.

I again will acknowledge that some of your favorites which you have ranked at 4 are admirable, and I and others have ranked them at 3 or even a 4 as well, and I assert that some of these have been chosen, but other suggestions you seem most heavily inclined to promote remain of extremely questionable value and extremely unpopular with others, and no one, including me, has any duty to simply accommodate your wish to see them used because it is so intense, and persistently expressed.

"I hope that in fairness, Kalki will not grade my favorite suggestion low." Not out of spite for you, but In fairness to others and to my own conscience I cannot rank your "favorite" suggestion as anything but low. It is a statement by the Nazi general Albert Kesselring : "A soldier's first duty is to obey, otherwise you might as well do away with soldiering."

Not only I, but many of the greatest generals and military and social leaders of history would assert that such soldiering as this certainly should indeed be done away with. Any effective warrior or promoter of any worthy cause must always do within any circumstances what truly seems to be the best course of action, often in a very dangerous but committed struggle against strong and brutal opposition, and sometimes this will impel a respectful or grudging obedience to others will or decisions, and sometimes it will not.

Such extreme arrogance as presumes it is anyone's "first duty" to obey anyone else certainly should be done away with among all people who are rationally coherent and entirely sane. Each person, so long as they live can be perceived by themselves and others to have many vitally important duties to others, but foremost among the duties of any rational person is to think for themselves, and not consider it their own or anyone else's duty to abjectly obey the commands or demands of another. They might comply with another's wishes or demands if they truly perceive clear reason to do so, but it is no one's duty to presume that there is always clear reason to.

Later today I will probably attempt to finish ranking suggestions for the rest of this month, and I assure you, though I might not actually rank it a zero, because there might conceivably some ironic reasons I might someday accept its use, I will certainly not rank your "favorite" more than a 1, because there are no reasons which I can think of to not consider such a statement profoundly stupid and deplorable. ~ Kalki 17:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know as to why you keep bringing up these others. How many times can I say that I don't know them. This Fossil seems to have stopped voting for the most part, and Waheedone seems to have only posted once here. I will try to convey the message to this person to stop voting. They aren't even any of my concern but since you keep wrongfully associating others with me...I will tell Waheedone to try and stop until he has shown contribution for a few months. When it comes to the selection, this is what I'm talking about. The very fact that you would refer to something as "stupid" or "deplorable" to end an argument...it downright strikes me as mean. I've never ever and I mean never said that any of your suggestions are "stupid". I may have argued that some aren't worthwhile and do not hold a deep enough meaning, a core moral message. Something that is not thought-provoking and/or sympathetic to the intrigues of mankind. That may be my argument. But I have never ever said that any of your suggestions are stupid. That's an incoherent judgment. Even if I may not agree with some of your ideological perspectives, I do respect your right to them. All I am saying is that you show the same courtesy bestowed upon you. You have to admit that if I do like something, I don't care who is saying it, I will push it forward. I have liked so very many of your suggestions that I am not bothered by mentioning which I don't like. But you know that this one quote is decisively my favorite of the entire year. Not only the entire year, but probably the entire decade. It's a message of power, a message of loyalty. And I explain this further time and time again. I don't like misinterpretations. The message is of following command no matter what. It's a message that defines the soldier elite. The soldier is an archetype of universal imagery, a man embodied by sheer ferocity, a stagnant being that is steel inside though flesh outside, where nothing surpasses his order. This message is beautiful to me, and apparently some may find it equally beautiful. But to dismiss something as stupid is not only a bad judgment but also a negative way of looking at all things with fairness, openness, and more importantly, without a dogmatic perspective. If you can learn to love all things, not only the things you view as "good", then you will find true moral and power all around. I don't know how else to express just how important I feel this quotation is to me.

Also, you did not even give me a response about my suggestion of having a rating of 5 limited to 5 quotes for the entire year. I think it's a good way to tell apart our most favored suggestions, that way there's a higher rating ascribed to them since 4 is the highest rating for every day. I'm not demanding anything, I'm just asking that you take it into consideration and think about it, it might work well for all of us since we'd all have a satisfactory way of choosing the specific quotes that we feel stand out. Zarbon 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your proposal in my very first sentence: "As far as I can see, this last suggestion of yours really doesn't accommodate anyone's needs or desires but yours, any more than the voting records and other incidental edits of "Waheedone" and "Fossil" have, up to this point." Also, the reason which I have refused to drop the issue of "Waheedone" and "Fossil" is that, from the very start, they appeared to me to simply have been very extreme attempts to stack the deck in favor of some of your particular preferences, with very minimal divergence from such objectives. Though I recognize it is not proven, and probably not technically provable, I retain very little doubt that they have been agents of your will, based upon edit patterns, apparent objectives, your extensive history as a suspected misuser of both sockpuppets and voting procedures both here and at Wikipedia, and certain manners of expression very common to many of the suspected sockpuppets both here and there. I might attempt to present a far more extensive listing of past edits and reasons why my suspicions remain strong in the days ahead, but will simply let my suspicions stand as having been stated for now. ~ Kalki 16:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But I already admitted to having made a sockpuppet way in the beginning...I don't see the point of my dismissing a sockpuppet if I had made one...? What would I get out of it, it's a moronic waste of time. I already contacted Waheedone about this. Please see this person's user page. What do I need to do to prove that I don't have any puppets...? I find it useless to begin with. The only reason I had even made a sockpuppet back in 2003 or 2004 was because I had to combat against a real sockpuppeteer who had a slew of puppets...I had to revert some pages and I wanted to avoid the 3rr rule on wikipedia. I wish I hadn't made that one puppet back when so that it wouldn't have stained my reputation originally. I don't appreciate it when every time some idiot shows up for me to get accused. Above all else, I would like to win your trust because we seem to be working on a mutual level together and like I said many times, I respect you and I want to maintain that respect. On another note...do you have a facebook account? We can better chat through facebook if you'd like. I was also hoping to ask all the administrators and regular contributors here if they would like to add me for facebook but I don't know where would be a good place to bring that up mate. Zarbon 06:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Expand/Collapse Template help

Hey mate. I need your help. I looked through the help sections but nothing in particular aided me. I am trying to figure out a way to make a small template for my user page. I want to have an expand/collapse template for all the information on my user page so I can expand and collapse the sections at will. For example, I have a section called "Favorite Characters" and I want to be able to collapse that section so the page looks tighter and expand it at will the same way there's an expand and collapse template on every page for the donation commercial bracket. Is this possible? Zarbon 00:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure, and I am sure I don't know how to do it. I usually avoid getting too caught up in the examining the code and various functions, beyond those I actually need. ~ Kalki 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. I've been examining the codes and functions in order to try and compress the page, but it's hard to find the template codes. If you know of any member who might know more about the codes and functions and/or can help otherwise, please let me know. Thanks again. Zarbon 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ice Storm Blues

Please excuse the interruption which occurred in the QOTD selection process, as the entire region i am currently living in has had a power outtage, which might continue for several days, where I am located. With a laptop, I have found a wifi hotspot outside a factory building with its own power and what i assume must be a sattelite internet connection. As my battery power is limited I will use this oppurtunity to make QOTD selections for several days in advance based on current standings, which other admins can alter prior to the UTC deadline, if appropriate. I will not likely make contact here again until i have power and cable connections working at my home. I am working in the sun on a very dark hard to see screen on a cold day, so i might not finish all i would like to before running out of battery. ~ Kalki 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your resourcefulness in the face of adversity is commendable. I hope life returns to "normal" soon. ~ Ningauble 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have medals for this kind of devotion to duty? --Antiquary 18:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A refined sense of comradeship to notify of your difficult platitudes. I commend you for your diligence in times of hardship. Zarbon 06:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not able to complete the stated intentions of my last message, as I was informed that I was not welcome to remain where I was for even the few minutes longer which it would have taken to do a few selections of the QOTD for a few days in advance, and I had to leave. In times of widespread difficulties most people exhibit an attitude of helpfulness summed up by the phrase "we're all in this together" — and there are clear examples I could recount of such helpfulness on the part of myself and other people in the last few days, but such an attitude certainly was not well exhibited or even respected in regard to this rather low level functionary of a company which shall remain unnamed.
Power and cable remains out at my own home, but it has returned at another home where I am welcome, providing what is likely a stable connection and reliable access to the internet until it does return at my place, so I should be able to resume the normal QOTD selection processes today. I probably will make some preliminary selections for at least a few days in advance, just as a precautionary measure, because there are still many repairs going on, and most the trees are still heavy with ice, even after 3 days. ~ Kalki 21:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made preliminary selections up to the 21st, as a precaution against further power and cable losses which remain a possibility in my locality. I remain busy with many things at this time, and I might not be able to do much more editing here for a few days, even if I do retain connections. ~ Kalki 22:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Power and cable to my home was just restored a few hours ago, after being out since very early last Friday morning, and I am catching up on a number of interrupted activities now in regard to many projects. There were some pages I had wished to do more work on here last week, which I might not be able to get around to for another week or more now. ~ Kalki 20:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

December 18, 2008 QOTD

It appears that the newly chosen QOTD is the same as the one chosen for December 18, 2007. - InvisibleSun 21:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that error out — that one was entirely my fault, for not removing the suggestion last year. I've just added 3 more suggestions for the date, and will hold off changing things for a while. ~ Kalki 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick ?

Hello, (hope life is well) I was wondering what I would need to do in order to tweak my username by uncapitalizing the "T" in RedThoreau. This difference, apparently keeps me from synchronizing my various wiki accounts, which do not contain the aforementioned capital letter. Thanks :o) RedThoreau 03:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to rename your account "Redthoreau" but could not do so, because the name already exists, probably as a result of your global SUL account. I do not know how to proceed beyond this, and don't believe the slightly different names can presently be merged unless a steward temporarily removed the SUL accounts, renamed your account here, and then allowed recreation of the SUL account. I haven't dealt with such renaming issues in quite a while and am not actually sure of all the present procedures available. ~ Kalki 09:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaliki, thanks for your attempt. Yeah it seems that I am the registered user of both names. I'll have to see in the future about having them merged. I appreciate your effort. RedThoreau 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)