User talk:Kalki/2011

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Kalki in topic Virginia Woolf

I have submitted a request for adminship status at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki. Your consideration is welcome.

This is an archive of discussions which occurred on my talk page in 2011

Sporadic attendance to matters here edit

I currently am in a state of attending to very diverse concerns and needs of others, and often cannot reliably have even a few minutes of work here, without being called to attend to other matters elsewhere. I am far busier in this regard, and to many other things than I had expected to be until very recently. Thus, though my work here will probably be something I attend to daily, it will be something I might be attending to extremely sporadically throughout the greater portions of most days, sometimes with only a few minutes to work here at a time. I began working on the Abraham Joshua Heschel‎‎ page earlier, and have done some work, but still have more to do, and will likely not be finished up on it until later today or tomorrow — I have to begin attending to a few other things soon, so am just briefly making this note before preparing for that. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I expect this state of affairs to exist for at least a few weeks. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN notice edit

Please see Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Disruption_by_User:Kalki_at_page_Julian_Assange. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tigran Sargsyan edit

Hi. I see you have made some edits at Tigran Sargsyan. I wonder why you have changed the order of quotes. I prefer to have them sorted by date in decreasing order, so that newer quotes come on top. Please let me know if something is wrong with that. Thanks. --Ashot Arzumanyan 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks. --Ashot Arzumanyan 06:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you edit

Thank you for your comments about my work creating the page, Gabrielle Giffords. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conspiracy page edits edit

Either do not sabotage the Conspiracy page any more, or fear the consequences.

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

My edits to that page consisted of expanding the intro with info from Wikipedia, doing some cleanup, adding images, and adding the quote of Robert Anton Wilson from Everything Is Under Control : Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-Ups (1998), Introduction, p. 16: "You simply cannot invent any conspiracy theory so ridiculous and obviously satirical that some people somewhere don't already believe it."

The images I chose to accompany some of the quotes admitedly followed the satrical lead made by Wilson's comment, which though I believe it to be technically untrue, like many consipiracy theories clearly are, I believe was also one of the more notable quotes on conspiracy as yet added to the page. Debates upon which images should be used on the page can proceed upon the talk page of the article, not in obscure or ominous threats to me here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Examining my edits further, I notice that I also added a couple quotes by Alan Moore that I believe were entirely appropriate:

  • Yes, there is a conspiracy, in fact there are a great number of conspiracies that are all tripping each other up. And all of those conspiracies are run by paranoid fantasists and ham-fisted clowns. If you are on a list targeted by the CIA, you really have nothing to worry about. If however, you have a name similar to somebody on a list targeted by the CIA, then you are dead.
  • The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.
    • Alan Moore, in "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" (2003)

Such edits are certainly not "sabotage" of the page, but are well-dedicated and well-intentioned efforts to contribute to the page and this project, and to the general good humour and rational skepticism of humanity. ~ Kalki 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to see you are still active here edit

Says it all really :) Like the talk page too! Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very glad to still be active here, and in many ways, much like an Ent, my roots, strengths, capacities for enduring irritations with stoic fortitude, and potentials for swift action, when I actually deem it necessary or proper, are far greater than those prone to be hasty in their shallow small-minded judgements against others generally expect, or any which they are likely to have ever encountered before. I am often very slow in making firm resolves — but have proven to many adversaries that I am no one to be trifled with in truly disrespectful ways. Lately, I remain far more active on other things than on my tasks here — but I do plan to make many facts that have long been ignored, overlooked, hidden or obscured far more apparent in the months ahead. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC) + tweaks ~ 01:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article move edit

Hi there. Could you help me out by moving new article Nicolae Ceausescu to the correct spelling, Nicolae Ceauşescu? 08:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has now been done. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Lennon Misattribution edit

There is an allegation on the John Lennon page that his cousin Marilyn Mccabe wrote a letter to Oral Roberts and signed his name to it, however I can find no evidence, nor allegations outside of this website suggesting that this letter was indeed written by Mccabe and not Lennon. The misattribution refers to a book about Oral Roberts, but the book makes no mention that Mccabe wrote or falsified Lennon's letter. It only states that Mccable wrote a letter to Oral Roberts herself, and that later Lennon wrote the letter himself to Roberts. Please advise.

—This unsigned comment is by Culturejammr (talkcontribs) .
With the information previously available from the sparse "snippets" accessible online this quote had once seemed a misattribution — but now that the full text of the page it appears on in the published book is viewable online it appears to be a genuine quote, erroneously regarded as a misattribution. I checked a few other sources referring to this as probably genuine, and have now moved it out of the misattributed section and into the standard chronology. Thanks for pointing out this error. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Apollo 11 fuel question edit

A good deal of misinformation and myth is in circulation about how much fuel was left at engine shutdown during the Apollo 11 moon landing. Andrew Chaikin got his arithmetic wrong, and that can easily be shown from official NASA documents.

Some people have based their fuel-remaining calculations on the mission transcript, which gives a false impression of the situation, because flight controllers gave quick judgements on the fly during tense moments of the mission when onboard lunar module fuel quantity sensors showed slightly incorrect values owing to spacecraft tilt and low gravity.

NASA produced a post-mission analysis report, a painstaking and forensically exact engineering audit of all recorded mission data, and debriefing of the astronauts and mission support personnel, the Apollo 11 Mission Report. It is the official space agency post-mission document about the flight of the first moon landing — the Apollo 11 bible. It makes absorbing reading for anyone who is interested in one of mankind's most astonishing adventures.

That official report, the definitive analysis, reads as follows (section 9.8.3, page 9-23):

"The low fuel [warning] light came on at 102:44:31.4, indicating approximately 116 seconds of total firing time remaining."

The lunar module descent engine shut down at 102:45:40 (report section 1.0, page 1-1), that is, 69 seconds after the low fuel warning. Thus, following that 116 seconds of fuel remaining warning, they landed 69 seconds later, with 47 seconds of fuel left in the tank, not 11 seconds, as you say. These figures can easily be verified from the official Mission Report and by applying basic arithmetic.

Forty seven seconds of flying time is a significant percentage during a a short 12 minute descent flight — a full 6.53 percent of fuel remaining at engine shutdown, in fact. I have changed your statement of 11 seconds on the Armstrong quotations article and included a citation of the NASA source. I strongly recommend downloading the document from NASA's server at the link provided above: it is a fascinating read. O'Dea 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just happened to check in briefly here, and must soon be leaving again, but would like to note that after restoring information concerning the fuel remaining, as a means of emphasizing with what extreme precision and rigor the pertinent risks and abilities were calculated, which involved in decision making by Armstrong and tension levels in Mission Control, I did not actually insist on asserting the 11 second figure which has been quoted by some, and simply cited published sources indicating the 30 second until mandatory abort signal from Mission Control had already been given. I do believe such information is relevant to include in relation to the context of the quote, despite recent removals of such. I might not have time to argue that case immediately but do believe including such information is entriely appropriate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone else removed that information; it was not me. But 11 seconds was wrong, and so was Chaikin's figure. Anyway, all that is for Wikipedia; the one who removed it is correct, he said this is Wikiquote, not Wikianecdote. The fuel in the spacecraft does not belong in Wikiquote. You can add it to Wikipedia if you like; that's a good place for it. Odea 07:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not object to some proper objections and corrections of the previous comments, which had existed on the page for years, as perhaps not being sufficiently accurate or providing so extensive information as they might, but I can and must object to the implications which have arisen that any form of commentary which extends upon the context of a quote in ways not normally accessible to someone not already thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of it should be automatically deprecated. That has never been the case here — inclusions of notes on context have been welcomed, and though only relatively few quotes are well-served by providing any commentary upon them, I strongly believe that the context of the extensive tensions and many of the reasons for them associated this quote do merit some mention, and they have had it for several years now. Though it is not essential to appreciating the major context of the quote, as the first words from the surface of the Moon, there are very significant, interesting and pertinent aspects of the situation which are revealed by this further information.
Once again I am just now checking in, remaining active on several other things, and though I will probably be around a bit longer than I was earlier, I will probably be busier with other things than with many concerns I have here, for at least a few hours. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascism edit

Is it your opinion that David Bowie's song is referring to fascism as a political doctrine? 16:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a fact that David Bowie is referring to fascists in at least a generic way — whether he is referring to any clearly specified ideology or not. As George Orwell indicates in some of his writings — "fascism", like MANY other political terms — socialism, democracy, communism, anarchism and such — is a word which has been used in a wide variety of ways for political and polemical purposes. The corruptions or perversions of many others throughout human history, like honor, grace, truth, justice, liberty and law, and in recent years "Fair and Balanced" often stretch all standards of rational coherence or lucidity FAR beyond their breaking points. Orwell summarized that "bully" and "fascist" were rough synonyms to the minds of most. To the extent any terms are used, they are appropriate inclusions within themes — and Bowie here is clearly using the term fascist in reference to human attitudes and behavior, even without clear specification of any particular group of fascists or bullies — whether they identify themselves as such or not. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord Acton edit

Hello, Kalki. I was working on the Acton article on Wikipedia. Do we have a source that specifically mentions April 3 or 5, 1887, for the "Power corrupts . . . " quote? The sources we cite in Wikipedia and Wikiquote mention Mrs. Creighton's permission but I don't see April or 1887 mentioned. Thanks for your time. (Plain old Kenatipo on wikipedia). --Kenatipo3 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though I believe that there was at least one normally reliable source which indicated the letter was dated 3 April when I first composed the article comments, most of the sources which I have been able to currently check providing a clear date indicate 5 April 1887. I do not believe I have ever seen even a facsimile of the original manuscript so as to be able to better assess whether any confusion on the matter may have occurred because of the legibility of a 3 or a 5, whether such dates are construed by other evidence, or whether it was a simple misprint in some publication, but it is often cited as in the British Museum catalogue as BM Add MSS 6871.
Some available sources which clearly cite 5 April 1887:
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 14th Edition (1968), edited by Emily Morison Beck, p. 750
The International Thesaurus of Quotations (1970) edited by Rhoda Thomas Tripp, p. 493
Social Science Quotations : Who Said What, When, and Where (2000) edited by David L. Sills and Robert King Merton, p. 1
The Conscience of Abe's Turn : The Birth of the Conscience (2008) by J. Timothy King, Vol. I, p. 1
One of the earliest sources currently online (Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton (1904) Ch. XIII : Historical work, p. 368), has rather confusing date citations which indicate the correspondence between Acton and Creighton in late March and early April 1887, but some of the date headings published at various points are rather unclear in some ways, and though "5 April 1887" does occur on a page it doesn't appear to make sense relative to other text on the page, and might involve jumbled and inconsistent typesetting.
Based upon extensive earlier sources, what clearly appears to be an erroneous dating of the quote to the year to 1881 occurs in these works:
America's God and Country : Encyclopedia of Quotations (1994) by William J. Federer, p. 1
Judicial Tyranny : The New Kings of America (2005) by Mark Sutherland, Dave Meyer and William J. Federer, p. 101
That about summarizes some of the most easily accessible information online — and because of it, I will change the designation on the page to 5 April 1887. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kalki, your work is outstanding! Thank you. I'll use Bartlett's 14th and ITQ 1970 for the Wikipedia article and change it to 5 April. Thanks again! Kenatipo3, Kenatipo (not signed in!) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes on the State of Virginia edit

My primary objection to merging Notes on the State of Virginia back into Thomas Jefferson is the considerable length of the latter page. BD2412 T 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully accept the separation at this point — I generally prefer unity when possible, but acknowledge the separate article has room for much expansion and the Jefferson article is already large. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits to Mark Twain quotes page edit

Dear Kalki: Please do not turn this into an edit war. My edits are in good faith and consitent with form for all Wikis. These were my very first three edits at Wikiquote - I have over 7,500 at Wikipedia -- and you summarily reverted changes in them in your haste to make other changes. Let's not escalate this trivial matter. Yours, 12:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've actually again reverted your changes, back to the changes Kalki made, which I believe are consistent with form for this Wiki. If you wish to further discuss changing things, I suggest you do so on this page or the Talk page for Mark Twain (or on Village pump) before making the changes. The bolding of quotes has been discussed before, and there is no real consensus on this one way or the other, but I hardly see the harm in keeping it - in fact, I like when it draws attention to the most well-known quotes. And the placing of other works by an author at the top of a page is well established here, as Kalki suggested in the edit summary. ~ UDScott 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks UDScott, for the pointing of this out — I was preparing a much more extensive reply along those lies, but will supress it for now, and resume working on another page I had begun working on earlier. I do wish to state that though I truly believe I have no ill will toward anyone, nor to any just opinions, I do tend to have intense animosity to acts of people behaving presumptively with arrogant suppositons that what others find convenient elsehere should simply be adopted here, without any question or resistence. I am very familiar with such modes of behavior. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 15, 2011 edit

Dear Kalki, I think that this wall of red and black icon images you've added to Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 15, 2011 are in a bad taste. They almost look like childish vandalism to me. It would have been much nicer to leave it without image I think. B jonas 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Beware the March of Ideas?" So it goes.... ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work edit

I know it is a little late but your contributions at Edward Abbey were fantastic.[1]Cptnono 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation. I know some people might believe I overuse some of the images which I find most applicable to many things — but some of them simply are splendid images with wide applicability and I don't like to retreat from using good "visual quotations" of the universal patterns and symbols of Eternity without having even better ones available, to spark human interest and thought. There are indeed a growing number of significant images available at the commons — and I have begun to collect many of my favorites onto the pages User:Kalki/imago and User:Kalki/α for eventual use in various places by myself and others. I of course love to collect significant "verbal quotations" of ideas using words as well — but find that the combination of well chosen words with interesting images can be especially thought provoking. Like one of my favorite poets, Wallace Stevens, "I like my philosophy smothered in beauty and not the opposite." ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive editing. edit

Apparently there is a user who has made over 80 edits to disrupt the project. He goes by the name "I want a blowjob!" Please do something about this. He can't get away with this. Dantherocker90 22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue has been addressed by others. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you edit

i don't know where or if the appropriate page exists to tell you that i love you. it's all in my mind. I know, but so what?

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
Such professions, can be believed appropriate or not, for various reasons, but must always be responded to with some skepticism and restraint, especially as I certainly am not seeking to encourage such professions here.
Though you might know some of what I have done and said, you certainly do not KNOW me, nor I you. You may know of a few aspects of my behavior and their appearances here, and I am always pleased to know that others are pleased by what I am doing or have done, but I also know that this is not always the case, even when professions are made that it is so. Low forms of trolling are far more common than any form of high romance on the internet. That brief summary is about all I seek to present for now. I expect to expound much more extensively elsewhere upon my personal perspectives upon many things within the coming year, and even then, I do not intend to indicate all which I could upon personal and vital matters. Though I sometimes seem verbose when prompted to respond to others actions, queries or intrusions in words, I generally retain a rather taciturn disposition — which I am usually amused to let slip upon relatively rare occasions, in both revelatory and mystifying ways, to the consternation of allies and adversaries. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

alright already edit maybe I don't. but I'm not trolling in low or high form. I'm not lurking in the shadow of your wikiness. No need to shred a mere flower offered innocently, without guile or agenda other than to offer it. hard to believe in these jaded day, but true.

know me? know you? perhaps not, but we are fifth cousins, twice removed at the very least . My profession is not a professional one, nor rank amateur. my sentiment like most is not so bound by dialectic reason or the laws of gravity, they go opposed, in deference to a more orphic ethos. I wouldn't insist my meta romantic utterance was truth or not. no point in parsing poetry or putting it on trial. Nola contender.

no harm, trolling or intrusion meant... or done... I think. so that you may better animate your disdain of the text if associated to a biological entity, my name is Dan. my blood type is red positive- negative. feel free to delete what doesn't please you. I won't take it personally or comment further.

what I meant was that I love your sensibilities.

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
I am delighted that you admire my apparent sensibilities. I had no wish to offend anyone in any of my previous responses to messages here, but I often find I encounter very shallow and presumptive sensibilities, and it is often appropriate to respond to many assertions with much reserve. Many people fail to learn such vitally crucial lessons, and some of them have been responsible for promoting many extremely false presumptions and damaging slanders about many things and many people, and I know the harm and damages they can do to the lives and welfare of others. I have certainly have no strong resentment of proper admirations, nor of suspicions and reserve in others at all — it is in the realms of presumption, assumptions and judgments against others and their proper rights and abilities where people fall into the most grievous forms of error.
I generally tend to maintain a casually stern and playful reserve at many of the professions of others of either admiration or hostility — I know many of the limitations of both words and human sense — and how often people loose much of their sense and sensibilities in relation to words and become enslaved to mere words and false and shallow assertions and notions about what words mean or must mean.
I don't usually waste much of my time in playing games or doing things which I consider to be of little or detrimental consequence — I am nearly always seeking to be involved in constructive and creative arts and works of utmost beneficial consequences, and yet many forms of acclaim that many crave along with such things are such goads as I have long ago learned to treat with much reserve, for other's sake and for my own — and would rather appreciate many forms of truth and beauty that abounds in ALL things — rather than presume to speak a great deal about it, as if words could suffice. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh.... would that I were so noble. I'm more an archaic font of useless historic or hysterical trivia myself. Not that its a laughing matter but does laughing figure anywhere in such a demanding social commitment and the discursive promulgation thereof? I kid. but I can do that because im a discursive promulgater myself. but I joined a group. it's called, "On and On Anon" Either way, you'll like this one: I heard a homeless guy saying, "you know what the funny thing is about being homeless?" "What", I offered. "NOTHIN!" he emphatically assured. I laughed. i think he was right. That must be the only funny thing about being homeless. So then I gave him $10,000 and he asked if I had another cigarette.

I'm quite familiar with the slander and disdain of the mob who as individuals I had, would, and did treat with respect. I've drank my cup of hemlock or two. it's a bit bitter at first, but with enough sugar.... it's still bitter.

im not familiar with wiki ways. I don't want to intrude. is this the wrong place to make unproductive banter?

—This unsigned comment is by‎ (talkcontribs) .
I am assuming you are the same person who posted a couple other recent messages to my talk page. WQ is not the place for large doses of non-productive social banter, any more than it is the place for people to indulge their suppressed or camouflaged fascist impulses in devising rules for others with little or no legitimate right to do so — but both abberations are to some extent tolerated by most, and sometimes encouraged by certain factions. I for the most part attempt to refrain from both here and in my life generally, but I expect that certain circumstances will impel a further exposition of my concerns and attitudes about many things soon, here and elsewhere.. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no, the directly above discussion/ comments are the only ones that have come from me ever. you must be referring to some other person. I see no camouflaged or naked fascist impulse or devising of rules. in my few above attempts at sanguineousitude. being unfamiliar with wiki format or your interest in my commenting , that is previsrly why I respectfully asked if this is not the place or there is a place.. but i assure you ive made other no other comments. accept the ones right here in the the last few days. doesn't my ip address show what comments from me...asuming I'm on the same computer? respectfully, Dan

PS. Does Beaty abound in all things? in nature prehaps but otherwise hadn't noticed. and I hadn't noticed that you think that way at all. is the fascist beautiful beyond a mere protoplasmic miracle ? social criticism would be of little value if all were intellectually, ideologically and conceptually equally beautiful. and what good is a philosopher if he doesn't annoy anyone ...Diogenes made that last line up and he was no silly semanticist.

—This unsigned comment is by‎ (talkcontribs) .
I simply meant that I was assuming you were the personage self identified as "Dan" — I am a person who am not inclined to indulge in a great deal of social chatter here, and my remarks on fascism were not actually directed at you, but at those who would make rules in general, including attempts to absolutely forbid social chatter. Still, I personally am not inclined to carry on many extensive conservations here about either personal or philosophical subjects, as there are many other forums for that sort of thing. I invite you to simply create a userpage so as to be more identifiable, to sign your posts, and to contribute sourced quotes to the quote pages if you are interested in developing this project in ways of lasting significance. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't seek the vanity of some lasting significance. I don't see the lasting or the significance. I just want a friend. but otherwise , am I allowed to source myself for my own quotes? you see I'd rather offer the imagined insight and irony of my own social commentary than to edit specific articles whose subject matter the expertise of others are more qualified . i get the vague notion that you would too. a passionate soul can't be neutral about everything. perhaps i errantly presume but judging from what little of the squabbling I read, isn't that at the heart of your own internecine wikiversy? is there a place in the wikiworld for social commentary... besides in hell? btw. it's refreshing to have someone take me more seriously than even myself. I kid. i kid. don't bite my head off.

—This unsigned comment is by‎ (talkcontribs) .
"I don't seek the vanity of some lasting significance." There is lasting significance to each and every thing done — it is in many ways vain to believe otherwise, whether people believe it or not — and I KNOW this to be the case in ways many others do not. Adding your own thoughts to articles is NOT appropriate here, but if you registered an account, within the limits of Wikipedia policies, you could provide statements of yourself on your user-pages. I would encourage you to study the thoughts of others and to seek them out — there are always forms of wisdom which can be developed even from seeds of extreme foolishness, if one's aim is wisdom rather than foolishness. It is wise to accept foolishness, and even encourage some forms of it — it is not wise to seek to abide only in some particular form of it, or impel others to do so — this is too often the inclination of far too many people, including trolls and vandals, as well as some of those most wearried in having to deal with their various activities. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok I'll take that under advisement. thank you kalki good morning to you.

Latest vandal edit

Wow, I missed quite a lot this morning - I was delayed in looking at the site today (work has a way of interfering with the more interesting parts of my day). Thanks for your reversions and it's too bad you no longer can truly take care of such issues quickly. I assume all is cleaned up now. Thanks again. ~ UDScott 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benazir Bhutto edit

Thanks for correcting the Benazir quote page. I should have placed it in that section in the first place. I am still awaiting permissions for the other parts of the project from various sources. I will get them posted once I get the permits. Thanks for your kind review in the meantime. Charlie wilson 16:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kalki, I have made some additions to the Benazir Bhutto Quote Page. Please have a look. I received the permission for the photo ( from the owner. However, there was a query raised by the OTRS team about the owner ship since the owner also appears in the photo. I asked the owner about it and the required explaination was given which I had forwarded on 20th April 2011 under Ticket#2011041910016607. However, still the OTRS status has not been updated. Could you please help on this.

I had requested the owner for photo submissions where the owner does not appear himself. Now is this a strict requirement? I would really appreciate your advice on this.

RegardsCharlie wilson 19:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only have time to check in very briefly right now — but I am honestly not familiar with all the OTRS processes — and thus really can't help you much — the image seems okay, but if it was possible to crop out the information without violating some license it would probably be better. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Kalki for your prompt response. If I have a few relevant questions shall I ask you here or on my talk page? Regards Charlie wilson 19:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would probably be best to ASK me here — I cannot always review recent edits, and I might miss your messages otherwise. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please guide me on the following, (For wikicommon usage) - How do I get permissions for photos submitted by Authors from their private collection. (Un-published content) - What type of license is required for photos submitted by Authors where they themselves appear in the photo. - Where can I find a list of OTRS staff to contact for ticketing issues.

Thanks in advance for your usual good advice.

Regards Charlie wilson 10:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really believe you will have more success finding answers or informed responses to such questions by exploring things at the commons. I have not kept up on many of the policies and situations there, and truly cannot give you much more advice than that at this point. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, NawlinWiki blocked my contributions both here and on the wikipedia page. Additionally reporting my activities as vandalism. To my knowledge I have been following the rules to the dot. Could you please have a look at the Benazir Bhutto page history and let me know if I was wrong in verifying the info and then posting it. Regards Charlie wilson 21:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must confess that at least one of your most recent photos appears to have been photoshopped to my casual observation, and some of the recent quotes seem more like spam than quotes worthy of preservation here. I am am always willing to concede that I might be wrong where there is no clear and definite evidence either way in regard to a dispute about the authenticity of materials, but at least your latest contributions do seem highly dubious in some regards. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quote of the day edit

Hi, Kalki! I would like to know if it's possible to link from Wikipedia to the template "Quote of the day" placed in Wikiquote. Please answer me here. Thank you.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño 08:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just saw your note soon after the placing of it. If you do not respond to this note here, I shall reply at the link provided. So far as I am aware there is no way to display this on another wiki — but I am not sure of all the technical details of how it might be done, or what impediments exist. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thank you.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño 08:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See w:Template:QOTD, which is served daily by a bot[2] at the English Wikipedia. ~ Ningauble 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for providing that info to both me and the questioner — I might add it and a few others to a personal FAQ page, among my user pages, and we might make this information more prominent and accessible on other pages as well. When I resume editing as Kalki at Wikipedia, after what I expect will be a successful contention against the block Cirt initiated against my accounts months ago, after getting into an editing dispute with me here, I will place that on my talk or user page there. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wish to plainly note that I have no intentions of requesting Cirt be blocked or desysoped for what I genuinely believe to have been an extreme abuse of status and other people's trust, here and elsewhere, but I make no effort to hide the fact that I find the examples set by those actions some months ago far more clearly contemptible in nature than anything I have ever done or even considered doing in any of my multiple guises here or anywhere else. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I quite agree that Cirt's conduct on that occasion was over the top, but subjective comparisons are probably bootless. Consider that, as a practical matter, your own occasional bellicose remarks may have had a more lasting deleterious impact on the project, by frightening newcomers and, as appears to have actually happened, chasing away very good contributors. I do not contemn the sentiments you have expressed, even those I find disagreeable, but I am saddened to think that their expression, and the place and manner thereof, contributes to making participation at Wikiquote unappealing to bookish, gentle spirits.

At a time when the global community is focusing attention on "community health",[3] I am trying to think about ways Wikiquote can become more welcoming to those who are not particularly thick-skinned, and I am actively reflecting on how I can modify my own practices to improve recruitment and retention of serious contributors. I encourage you to do the same. ~ Ningauble 20:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My response to the questioner was quite brief and to the point. My response to you was more detailed, but I probably won't have time to respond fully to some of your further remarks today, beyond asserting that I have no hostility or disdain for those who choose to seem or be "bookish, gentle spirits" — nor any appetite for insisting that all people should seem or be such — I have often SEEMED merely such to many — and been willing to primarily seem such, but when avenues of expression and candor are overly restrained by those who would prefer all people should fit some preconceived molds of others, one should not be surprised that there are occasional explosions of emotional force that might intimidate many, especially the most timid or aloof, and impel them to consider even the most just and appropriate responses far more harsh in some ways than they would desire. I am not a person seeking vengeance or to impose punishments on anyone when I speak of some injustices of the past or present — but I am intent on preventing the likelihood of many deliberate and oblivious forms of injustice being manifested in the lives of many, by clear and definite exposure of some past and present incidents of them for what they are — and that cannot always be a simply gentle and entirely appealing thing, and I am not inclined to pretend it can be. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not mean to stifle your aspirations for rectifying the very real problems you describe. Rather, I encourage you to give more thought to choosing the place and manner of expressing your concerns, in order to be more effectively persuasive in pursuing those aspirations and to avoid defeating the objective of openness by driving people away.

Let me offer one small example from last month to illustrate what I am referring to. In this exchange, a newcomer timidly (or at least tentatively) used an article talk page to suggest adding a quote. Your response was ostensibly encouraging the newcomer to be bold, but raising the specter of horrible mistreatment seems more conducive to just the opposite effect. I would not now expect that potential contributor to return unless s/he is looking for a fight. I will not belabor the point with further examples, except to note that in mentioning "bookish" persons I was remembering Antiquary, whose departure from the project was a great loss.

For myself, I am pondering the challenge of simultaneously pursuing the goals of quality and openness, which often to come into conflict. At a time when participation in Wikimedia projects seems to be declining generally, and when it is my impression that Wikiquote has seen a sharp drop in the number of contributors of high quality content, I think it behooves us as a community, and each of us as individuals, to strive for improvement. ~ Ningauble 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that you are drawing out and dredging up more of the growing need for me to directly address the conditions of far more foulness and confusion than you have clearly begun to realize — and I shall consider carefully before I respond to your comments further. I am currently suppressing many which immediately sprung to mind, and might suppress many of them entirely, but some of the observations I might eventually make will probably prove quite startling to many of those who are presumptuous that those devoted to progress and advancement of virtue and integrity should always deal gently with weaknesses, timidity or cowardice — or with many of the more comfortably accepted forms of terror and tyranny which develop from them at various levels of human social, unsocial and anti-social interaction.
I have quite a few other things I wish to attend to at present, and in the next few weeks, as I intend to address many of those issues you bring up far more thoroughly in the months to come, when I expect I will be far more able to deal with far more things openly and without constraints that currently exist — and some things of much lesser concern require my immediate attention to their completion. I do not believe that immediately addressing many of these greater issues do, and that it could perhaps actually be detrimental to many others were I to address them too thoroughly at this point in time. ~ Kalki 19:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the original topic of this thread: Wikipedia's QOTDBot currently appears to be pulling quotes from the wrong dates and the bot operator bot has retired so, unfortunately, w:{{QOTD}} is not as useful as it once was.
Regarding the upshot of our digressions: mu. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help edit

I am a new user on Wikis. And I was wanting help on getting started here. Since you seem to be pretty expierienced, may you please help me sir? Thanks. Ring of Fire 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Response posted originally to the user's talk page, with standard {{welcome}} templlate]: The above links should provide some help, and you are welcome to ask me any questions that may arise on specific subjects. Wiki editing is really quite easy once you learn a few of general guidelines which have been established and the habits of those most involved on a project. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! And just wondering is there a huge difference between Wikiquote and Wikipedia or are they basically very similar? That is something that kinda confuses me. Ring of Fire 06:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editing process is pretty much the same here, but the objectives are different. This project exists to provide notable quotes of famous people and works, and the layouts have been developed to present these in relatively standard ways across pages. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sporadic presence edit

I had expected to have had time to be much more busier on this project this week than I have thus far had — as many diverse concerns are diverting much of my attention to other matters. I still expect to have more time available to do things here in the weeks ahead, but as usual, my opportunities will probably be sporadic for a while yet. I have much "real world" work to do for a few weeks and I also have to do some major reviewing, consolidation and processing of many of the files on my hard drives some time in coming months, and this might actually consume most of my computer time. Even though I might often browse the internet and check in here, most of my attention will probably be focused on other concerns, and I might take an hour or so at a time to do some relatively relaxed work here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Painting edit

I just added a page on Painting, and thought you might like to make a selection of images for it. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might add some to it within a few days — for I certainly do seek to help encourage greater appreciation for many diverse forms of art. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I finally got around to adding a few images to that — I might work on it a bit more eventually, but it seems visually and intellectually interesting enough for now. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, fantastic job! BD2412 T 02:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Vandalism" edit

You have recently reverted at least one of my contributions under the guise of fixing "vandalism". I would just like to point out that the quotes I added were listed under the subjects "unsourced" category. As such they were no less verifiable than any other quote listed therein. I would suggest that as long as an unsourced category of quotes is included that the burden of proof should be on editors to prove that they were not said by the subject, otherwise anyone could just swoop in and delete quotes that "do not sound like something the subject would say".

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
Unsourced quotes are no longer accepted as additions to the pages, and even when they were, where they were challenged sources were required for their continued inclusion. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Hello, yeah, sorry about that Einstein fucking thing, I'm drunk now and I said this really funny thing to my friend so we edited it. It was really funny, you should have been there. I won't vandalize any more things, I promise -

- Drunk vandalist
—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Re: Date links edit

Oh, I see. Thanks for the notice. - Artoasis 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karl Marx page edit

The page really needed that Kalki. I didn't want to start with the images or formatting because it is one of the "hottest" pages and subjects on Wikipedia and Wikiquote. But what a fascinating character and subject...--Oracleofottawa 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation. I had noticed for a while it needed much work, and might do more on it eventually — but there are many other pages in need of much more attention, and I am currently more inclined to use some of the time I have avaliable here to simply fill in my User:Kalki/index page with a few more listings and quotes on notable ideas and themes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh, put it in the PIZZA. edit

One ever IS what one perceives of the ALL. Thus Justice abides eternally within all and beyond the ken of all.

I love that you're like, the only dude who patrols Wikiquote. I actually really respect it. What's it like to be practically the only dude reverting vandals? 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can be frustrating, and I would appreciate it if presumptive vandals, trolls and various very clear abusers of privileges and rights would find more significant and useful things to do with their lives than being a bother to others, and their worthy projects — whether they can appreciate the worth of them or not. An end to your trolling and vandalism of Wikimedia projects would be a very worthy show of genuine respect. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha, unlikely to happen, faggot. 14:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is truly pathetic that you remain so ignorant and confused as to wish to say such things, of anyone, to anyone. To a far greater degree than many have mindfulness enough to suppose, one ever IS precisely what one perceives of the ALL — and much more besides in ways eternally mysterious to the dull. Thus Justice abides eternally within all and beyond the ken of all. This is just one of my little jokes, indulging a quite unusual sense of humour, which usually keeps me from going quite as mad as many do at the frustrations of dealing with many forms of idiocy. I doubt you will understand much of this anytime soon — and certainly seem quite incapable of understanding the whole of it. Those who love the Whole of Reality best make no pretenses of loving any portion of it any more than they do — or any less — they simply let their love flow in ways which seem most appropriate — and their disdain show towards those portions of all which seem most deserving of disdain. I'll just let a bit more garnishing come into play, and proceed to work and play elsewhere: "When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie — That's amore" — but NOT of you, unknown twerp — but of a far higher and greater humour, which I perceive always and everywhere, in ALL forms of Awareness, Life, and Love. May it one day bless you with more than a burning desire to disrupt and distress others — and guide you to where workings and will of lasting significance can most arise. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: Conspiracy edit

You are a nice guy, Kalki, but you allow yourself to serve bad people's interests. It's the masons and their jesuit friends who have corrupted the entire world, who have kept us out of e.t. presence and technology, who are responsible for hardship, poverty and death everywhere and who kidnap, torture, rape, disfigure and murder children.

I am very amused in some ways and sorrowed in others, that you presume such things. I have not time for a thorough response at this time, but will probably respond more fully later. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello edit

I often come to Wikis to observe people. And I just have spent the past half hour looking at your November 2009 controversies. I must say you are a fascinating character. Let me say that I wish you were still an admin. This Wiki would be better off. There was a time when I was once an evil distress, but as I have matured I am now just an observant. I know you will respect me now because I respect you. I often don't know what to make of you. But at least you keep things colorful. Cheers. The World's Lurker 17:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad you are able to profess admiration, but when people have been so ignorant and confused as to deliberately vandalize or troll, as I take it you might have done, their professions of sincerity are often difficult to accept with enthusiasm. I hope that your behavior is moderated by some of the truths which I seek to assert, as I believe you might have clearly surmised that some behavior of honored administrators sincerely intent on good, or what they sincerely believe to be good, can be at times far more harmful than than those intent on destruction or harm. I know that there are presently some who would assert such assertions clearly apply to me, and I do not deny that it might clearly seem to, to an extent, based upon much of the information presently evident to most — but I expect that when further information becomes available and far more evident, that many opinions will change. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I trolled and vandalized many wikis for several years. The difference between me and most others like me is that I have been on both sides of the fence. You yourself encountered me in my late 2009-Early 2010 spree on here. I definitely am no saint. But I know deep down I have good things to say. I don't have the patience to be a Wiki editor, but I enjoy the social aspect of Wikis. I think because of the fact that I have been disliked on Wikis and because I know and have accepted that I will never have respect on a Wiki I am rather sympathetic to your ordeals. I understand your caution, and take it in stride. I definitely believe you are the heart and soul of Wikiquote. In the past I did many terrible things on Wikis. I don't deny it. Overall, I know I am much more intelligent then to be a troll, which is why I stopped. I am here today to apologize for any past angst I may have caused you and many wikis. I hope you regain your powers, Kalki. I am pulling for you. Thank you! The World's Lurker 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dup posting edit

The post to Village Pump is simply a notice about the main thread at WQ:AN. Please, do not cross-post dup threads to both locations, as that is disruptive. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You posted messages to several pages — I responded with one long response on one page and several BRIEF responses that were ENTIRELY appropriate, linking to the larger response. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, your post to Village Pump disruptively broke up my initial posting into multiple different parts, commenting in-between my text as opposed to below it. This is also disruptive and unnecessary, as it is more conducive to discussion flow, to post below another user's entire post. -- Cirt (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That post was a post you made on ANOTHER page — I would NOT have presumed to interject comments on that page in that manner — but as you have locked it to PREVENT any of my commentary from even APPEARING on it at ALL — the commentary on each point you presented I believe is ENTIRELY appropriate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then post the response on your own user talk page, here. -- Cirt (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The commentary I made was an entirely appropriate and informative analysis, which is very close to what I would have ADDED to the page YOU created in MY name space which is currently locked, With ONLY your presentation, HAD I been ABLE to do so. It is SO typical of you to wish to CONFINE others access to ONLY such information about circumstances and views BY others as are conducive to your own rather narrow and extremely hostile perspectives. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of IP block exempt edit

I have removed the special user right of IP block exempt from this account. Kalki has refused to disclose all sock accounts, in violation of User:Kalki/Restrictions. -- Cirt (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is HARDLY a surprise — I had SURMISED you were SCHEMING to pull something of this sort. YOU CIRT, are someone I consider to be CERTAINLY DESPICABLE. May you someday awaken to greater grace and stop trying to harm and defame anyone who has more to say about things than your narrow little mind wants to hear. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you reflect on your actions, Kalki, and realize that violating User:Kalki/Restrictions is inappropriate and has repercussions. -- Cirt (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please link to the discussion in which a requirement for disclosure was enacted. Although I vaguely recall that disclosure of past activities was requested by one or more persons, I do not remember this having been adopted as a community sanction. I may have missed it because there was a lot of DL;DR intermingled in the discussions. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 12:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly believe that I WAS NEVER INFORMED OF SUCH. If they exist ANYWHERE beyond this recent CREATION of Cirt in the last day, it is NEWS to me. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I received a response to my inquiry above, about a purported requirement for disclosure, on my talk page and I have replied there. ~ Ningauble 15:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your inquiry, which has resulted in a restoration of my editing options. Unfortunately, I have MANY issues to attend to other than those here at present, and I might not have so much time as I might wish to attend to matters here for a few days. Your help in removing the block on my account has been enormously important, and provides me with an opportunity to reflect further on the MANY options yet available for me to address MANY issues I perceive at work here and elsewhere lately, and clarifies a few things at least, in a positive way. Thanks MUCH again. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not appear that your user account setting has actually been restored. You evidently have recently logged in via internet address(es) that happen not to be blocked. ~ Ningauble 14:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

remarks in response to Cirt's continued outrages edit

I hope you reflect on your actions, Kalki, and realize that violating User:Kalki/Restrictions is inappropriate and has repercussions. -- Cirt (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Violating the INDECENT MOCKERY of anything close to proper rules and agreements which YOU and you ALONE have suddenly MADE UP in the last DAY? I have witnessed in the past Cirt making sudden CHANGES to regulations WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION and based ENTIRELY on Cirt's Opinion and will, and made NOTE of it, but I truly am astounded that a person so SHAMELESSLY and boldly dictatorial is being so flagrantly in violation of any thing that can pass as resembling truly human decency as to AGAIN attempt to silence me completely, based SOLELY upon Cirt's will that I be silenced and shunned. Cirt has blocked me from editing based upon the page of HIGHLY CONTRIVED and FALSE summations of what had been agreed to in the past — which Cirt just made within the last day, "User:Kalki/Restrictions", and asserting it not merely SHOULD BE, but IS policy based upon Cirt's will for it to be so.

Just minutes before BLOCKING ME FROM FURTHER EDITING on anything but THIS user page, TO SILENCE ME and REMOVE my statements from pages — Cirt has the GALL to declare: "When Kalki uses wording right in his nomination statement, describing other admins as "immorally imposed by a clique with a large faction of would be-fascists" - one must realize he is an unfit candidate to be an administrator on any WMF project or website."

I CALL UPON other admins to examine Cirt's present and past conduct, and examine the atrocious and EXTREME attempts to SILENCE and defame me in the past and in the present — to REMOVE my testimony on MATTERS of EXTREME importance to me AND others from the VIllage pump — TO PREVENT ME FROM EDITING ON THIS WIKI, and indeed NOTHING OTHER than the RAW FASCISM, of a "Might makes Right" mentality EXPOSED for what it truly is.

PLEASE examine the comments in which I appealed to the community of editors here at the Village Pump — and which Cirt has arrogantly REMOVED to LIMIT access to MY opinions and to PREVENT them form being heard.

I HAVE complied with the agreement I made months ago — and NOW Cirt suddenly decides THAT wasn't restrictive enough — and is using the DICTATORIAL PRESUMPTIONS, SELF-CREATED within the last day, to excuse and justify ONCE AGAIN a sudden BLOCKING of my account.

I call upon measures to be taken to IMMEDIATELY restore my editing rights, and despite truly believing Cirt has acted in ways sincerely or insanely presumed to be for the best for all, rather than simply conniving and deceitful, I am MUCH inclined to request that Cirt to be Desysopped as having acted more than once in CLEAR malice and bad faith against me and against the principles upon which the Wikimedia wikis were founded.

I OFTEN assert my opinions and beliefs strongly and vigorously with CANDOR — but I have NEVER attempted to IMPOSE unfair and unjust regulations on others, or to expel them completely for behavior NOT clearly in defiance of PROPERLY developed community policies, and this is PRECISELY what I believe Cirt has on many occasions attempted, and to some extent has succeeded in doing. I have NOT in the past attempted to fully expose the duplicity and deceit I perceive to be at work in many of Cirt's actions, but I neither have I ever denied my contempt for it.

I do NOT hate Cirt — I do not KNOW Cirt, and I cannot say that I ever wish to meet Cirt or know anything about him or her beyond what I already do. But I KNOW ATROCIOUS and VILE attitudes and actions have been exhibited by this person AGAINST the fair rights and proper liberties of others, and this DISGUSTS me.

I will probably have MUCH more to say upon these matters, here and elsewhere, but I appeal to everyone with a shred of human decency to STOP the dictatorial USURPATION of my proper rights which Cirt is attempting — again insisting on TOTALLY removing my capacities to even edit here, where I believe I am BY FAR the single most active and prolific CONTRIBUTOR to this Wiki.

To my mind, Cirt's abuses and duplicity have exceeded even those of Poetlister/Quillercouch — who claimed to be something he was not — by FAR. Cirt's malice and duplicity extend to CONTRIVING rules that have NOT been agreed to — and BEHAVING as if they MUST BE — or CIrt will use whatever admin abilities possessed or PRETENDED to be possessed, to JUDGE, SILENCE and EXPEL others. ANYONE who agrees with this ABUSE is complicit in an act of sheer TYRANNICAL FACISM. There is no milder way I am inclined to put it at present.

I have used many account names here in the past, and continue to do so elsewhere, but I have NEVER stated anything anywhere which I did not believe to be TRUE and PROPER. I believe Cirt does have enough intellectual capacity to be capable of recognizing MUCH of the clearly unethical nature of what is being done, and I am appalled that a person can consider such base scheming as anything other than vile and EVIL. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New suspicions as to the extent of Cirt's duplicity and scheming edit

Recent blocks and edits by Cirt have certainly inspired my ire — but the most recent block of an account Smb1971‎ (talk · contributions) which I KNOW to be no such name as I have ever used, as one suspected of being me — AND the REMOVAL of my notice of that FACT to Cirt's talk page, make me suspicious that Cirt might be actually involved in scheming far fouler than I had initially supposed. I am NOT so presumptive as to say this IS the case — but it CERTAINLY makes me suspicious that this FALSE identification of an account NOTHING CLOSE to a name I have ever used occurs on the day Cirt decides to attempt to BLOCK me entirely from this site once more. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked the edits of that account with SUL tools, and it is ONLY registered here with ZERO edits, so that alleviates some of my suspicions somewhat, but I still have no idea why Cirt would be prone to assume that account was one of mine. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orwellian editing and removal of material at Village Pump by Cirt edit

The following material was posted to the VIllage Pump and removed in quite Orwellian fashion with the LAME excuse that the material should not be there. It was a clear EXPOSITION of material of SIGNIFICANCE, and though I have archived it, I am currently BLOCKED by Cirt from editing anything but my user TALK page, I shall also repost it HERE, until such time as I can perhaps restore it to the appropriate place I HAD PLACED IT, which Cirt apparently decided it was TOO PROMINENT and plain a revelation of too many facts and opinions not to Cirt's liking. IF it was not considered a proper response to Cirt's desire to post only such things as Cirt wishes — it should yet have been permitted a place as MY assertions upon issues raised by Cirt's DISTORTIONS of FACT.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we are both doing what we think right. But what we think right is so damned different that there can be nothing between us in the way of concession. ~ G. K. Chesterton in The Man Who Was Thursday
Always be comic in a tragedy. What the deuce else can you do? ~ G. K. Chesterton
Moderate strength is shown in violence, supreme strength is shown in levity. ~ G. K. Chesterton
I made an AGREEMENT to use ONLY the Kalki account to edit here. I HAVE abided by it. ~ Kalki

In response to recent activity where Cirt suddenly resumed what seems to be an obsessive compulsion to deface and denigrate all traces of my presence on this or any other wikimedia wiki, I posted a brief statement at the bottom of my Kalki page, which I recently slightly revised for clarity:

 Before agreeing to defer to an IMPOSITION to restrict editing here ONLY to the Kalki account, until such a time as the issues involved could be more thoroughly addressed and decided upon, in order to lift a PLAINLY IMPROPER and POLICY VIOLATING BLOCK by Cirt (talk · contributions), this user had additionally made well over 11,444 contributive edits using many other names, for a present count of well over 74, 444 edits in all. MANY of these names and associated restored userpage messages have been salvaged from defacement at Restorations. MANY of the thousands of articles either created or significantly worked upon by this user are listed at Kalki/index.

In addition to the notices by Cirt here and elsewhere, the following notice appeared in my user namespace, while I was away from home. Upon returning, I noticed it, and have prepared this brief exposition of facts, for the benefit of those who might otherwise not be inclined follow links and discussions enough to delve into matters more than in the ways provided by a summation by Cirt here and at User:Kalki/Restrictions which I consider quite deficient and deceitful in many ways. Cirt's summary assessment is presented here, with some interjections of my own, as I cannot presently respond to it, on that LOCKED page in my user space:

1. October 2007 - Jeffq (talk · contributions) notices a sock account of Kalki that created multiple other sock accounts.
K: Cirt here links to only the first polite statements of suspicion in what was a quite civil and somewhat humorous discussion between me and Jeffq, in which I defended the right of all users to use multiple accounts, either openly or discretely, so long as improper activities were not engaged in, which I believe ended quite amicably, and neither he nor I pursued the matter further at that point. Much to my dismay, subsequent discussions eventually occurred in what I believe to have been the following year after some misidentification of some of my accounts elsewhere with a vandal's accounts. Despite my extreme irritation at loosing some account names I had wished to eventually use for educational purposes, I did not contend about the blocks, once I found out a bit more about the severe obnoxiousness of the vandal with whom I was falsely presumed to be associated, and simply let the loss of those accounts go by — wanting no further improper assessments or judgments to occur. I may eventually reveal far more of discussions which occurred by email on the matter to further indicate the general tenor and progress of them. There is MUCH missing from this assessment by Cirt which I might eventually fill in, in accounts of the history of my activity at Wikiquote and at other wikis which I intend to present here and elsewhere in coming months. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. November 2009 - Investigation by FloNight (talk · contributions) into socking and sockfarms maintained by Kalki.
K: I deliberately declined to bring up all the issues involved with my acquiring of these accounts, and some of their activities, as retaining admin status, though I felt it to be desirable was not worthy he complications of making some things clear to others I considered severely lacking in some forms of both rational and ethical integrity at that point. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. December 2009 - Kalki was desysopped, after an investigation which revealed socking including a massive sockfarm of over 200 sock accounts.
K: It is certainly true that I was desysopped — I lost the admin status which I had honorably used for many years, since the very first MONTHS of this wiki, after having been suggested as an appropriate person by Angela (talk · contributions). During the consideration period of that vote I had in fact declared my RESIGNATION of bureaucrat status, something I had LONG considered doing in protest of increasingly dictatorial encroachments on editorial rights for some time. Clearly facts were presented in a very deliberately damaging way, which I concede were very effective at casting my past activity here in dark shades which cast many justifiable suspicions upon me. I declined to defend myself as effectively as I might possibly have done, were my ethical concerns LESS than they were, and WAS desysopped, and I ACCEPTED this. The votes taken were clearly NOT upon the appropriateness of multiple accounts themselves — and I simply continued to use these, in constructive ways, despite some of their utility and worth being diminished by exposure as those of one person. I believe it is EVERY user's right to use multiple accounts. Months later Aphaia (talk · contributions), a person who herself HAS admittedly used multiple accounts, suddenly began blocking some of these accounts I was using AS IF that vote to desysop me had been a vote to limit accounts available to me — which it CLEARLY had NOT been.To state otherwise is a foul fiction of deceitfulness or delusion. Had it actually been the case, that the proposal were to limit the accounts available to me — or in ANY ways penalize me beyond desysopping for any of my past activities, I CERTAINLY would have made a far more vigorous and extensive defense of them and EXPOSED far more FACTS for consideration than I then chose to do — including those involving the truth that ANY newly proposed absolute restrictions upon the number of accounts available to editors wikimedia wide should probably be created by a Wikimedia wide debate and referendum on the matter — NOT by the fiat of a few admins at any individual wiki or among the cliques of like minded people interested in restricting editing rights they see little or no use for. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. October 2010 - Kalki was blocked for one week, for socking and disruption. When asked, Kalki openly refused to stop socking.
K: I, as well as others, asserted that this block was entirely INAPPROPRIATE one, which arose after a simple EDITING dispute with Cirt. It was followed by a massive defacement and block of my accounts here, and what I considered to be a very malicious cross-wiki spree of assaults upon my accounts and reputation elsewhere — a sudden and severe rampage of defamation and blocks upon my IPs and MANY of my account names. Cirt effectively silenced and has thus far effectively prevented me from contributing to other wikimedia projects where I have NEVER used ANY of these accounts in a manner I consider in the least bit controversial or improper. Many of these blocks even NOW remain in place as I have not yet bothered to present the strongest possible case against Cirt's harassment and defamation to others.
The link Cirt provides above is to my refusal I openly refused to comply with presumptive and hostile demands of Cirt to submit to Cirt's will and dictates which clearly were NOT in conformity with ANY properly established policy about which I was aware, and I assert this to have been an act of and CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE and open defiance to demands I considered to be in MANY ways, both against established policies and simple human ETHICAL principles. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
K: I will again note that Apahia, despite perhaps being more generally good-willed towards others than Cirt often appears to be, was actively hostile in blocking my accounts WITHOUT clear warrant even before Cirt was: Specifically first blocking my Achilles (talk · contributions) — under which she had once ASKED me to become an admin. I had vigorously DECLINED the request, even though at that time there were NO rules or regulations against multiple admin accounts here or anywhere else, to my knowledge. Despite my will to accumulate many optional identities for pragmatic reasons, I simply have never been a power-hungry status-seeking title. Later, as I continued to oppose BEHAVIOR I considered nothing less than dictatorial usurpation of rights and CONTRARY to any PROPERLY established policies of which I was aware the account Taliesin which I was using to OPENLY declare and mark many accounts as mine ~ Kalki
  • Aphaia declined the unblock review of the block on Kalki. diff
K: This was hardly surprising to me, as Aphaia was the person who WITHOUT community authorization had actually BEGUN blocking my accounts, whenever she noticed me using them, some months before. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. November 2010 - Kalki is restricted to one account. This is as per result of community imposed restriction proposal, from Village Pump. diff
K: In deference to what seemed to be community opinion, and in order to remove what I and others still consider to have been an improper blocking of my IP addresses and primary account, I AGREED to use only one account to edit here: the Kalki (talk · contributions) and I have rigorously ABIDED by that agreement. I have NEVER at any time agreed to disclose all of my accounts to such nosy and presumptive people as are most inclined to imply that they have to be aware of EVERYTHING done and reasons for it — or it should not be permitted. I decline to abjectly bow down to such arrogance as it manifests in ANYONE, and have no intentions to do so. Even were it demanded of me, after proper establishment of policies by proper voting on matters by Wikimedia editors, it would probably take me weeks to compile a nearly thorough list of my account names here, as I have never yet made a compact listing of all of them, and there might be a few I have never set down in a list, but which I would remember were I inclined to use them. In agreeing to restrict myself to the Kalki account I accepted such restrictions as were burdensome to me and others in ways I have not yet been inclined to reveal, but probably shall begin to in the coming months. Sufficient number of people insisted upon this measure as appropriate, or refused to be inclined to intervene in what I continue to assert was CLEARLY a hostile action by Cirt, AGAINST any policy mandates of proper use of blocking of which I am aware, which in addition to other things of more pressing personal concern, PREVENTED me from being able to respond in a timely and thorough manner to these assaults upon my dignity and reputations, and unethical DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT by Cirt.
  • The adopted restriction is:
    • Kalki be allowed to edit only with the account User:Kalki.
    • Any violations of the above can result in a 3 month block.
    • Further transgressions, result in blocks of increasing severity (perhaps 6 months, 1 year, indefinite).
K: This is again an attempt to imply that there is a past MANDATE imposed entirely as PUNISHMENT upon me, and though it is to some extent a punishment, I hold it an UNJUST one. I made an AGREEMENT to use ONLY the Kalki account to edit here. I HAVE abided by it. These further statements, so far as I can see, are NEW dictatorial presumptions on the part of Cirt — who is apparently attempting to currently IMPLY or insist that simply by not disclosing accounts which had previously escaped notice, that I violated my agreement, and in some way deserve immediate and long term blocks. Cirt has attempted to impose these in the past here, and HAS thus far successfully imposed them elsewhere, because I have chosen to not yet contest them, so ably as I can. Frankly, I find Cirt's assertions to largely be distortions of fact far fouler than any reeking hogwash, and which prompt me to such observations and exclamations as I will decline to make at this time. I will state frankly that they display to me a further will to have WORDS set down which distort facts enough to permit those in whom the will to CONSTRAIN and Constrict the rights of others and indeed to PUNISH and DO HARM to those who oppose their will is very strong and even in many ways a ruling passion — and Cirt's continued strategy of PREVENTING me from editing or commenting such foully distorted assertions as he makes upon the Userpages of my accounts displays a marked will to END discussion at such points as Cirt chooses, by FORCE and ABUSE of admin powers rather than resolved more clearly and fully by discussion and reason.

The above mentioned page was created within my user-namespace by an admin who I believe has repeatedly demonstrated an obvious will to harass, defame, and attempt to prevent me from exercising my proper rights as a human being with sincere will for truth to be heard, from MANY perspectives, and not merely RESTRICTED to such facts and DISTORTIONS of facts as are most serviceable to malicious lies and delusions about the actual activities of other human beings.

I will sincerely state my opinion in saying that I truly believe that the repeated harassments of this admin are in many ways far more contemptible than that of MOST trolls and vandals, and I sincerely believe in some ways ranks as far more damaging to the welfare of others and this wiki and wikimedia projects than even the most noxious and obnoxious of deliberate vandals. I hold the dictatorial stances promoted to be an innate insult to the very spirit which founded the very worthy projects now administered by the WIkimedia Foundation.

Even now, I am probably NOT going to immediately respond so fully as I might to all issues here, as there are many other things which concern me I must attend to, and I wish to examine and expose many of the deficiencies and flaws in this analysis at my leisure. I will probably make a far more thorough assessment of this and other matters within the next month or two. I truly hope that Cirt and others will grow more enlightened and their lives be enriched by such truths as come to prominence in coming weeks and months, as discussion on these and other important issues proceed in the proper spirit for an honorable Wikimedia wiki — and NOT one of a Kangaroo court. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin nomination comments edit

Because of what I consider to be ANOTHER entirely inappropriate BLOCK by Cirt (talk · contributions), I am NOT presently able to edit anything but my talk page, and thus I post some comments by others opposed to my nomination here, so that I can present some responses, even though it is not at the location where I actually should be able to respond to them.

  • Oppose. To this date, Kalki has neglected to self-disclose all of this massive socking. He most recently was exposed as maintaining an additional twelve, yes, (12), sock accounts. He did not reveal or confirm these publicly as socks, until after the sock accounts were exposed as socks of the sockmaster account Kalki, and blocked. Here are the diffs: Alpha, Abraxas, Elven Angel, The Keeper, Nomen, Shanti, Sat, Sun Horse, Tao Jones, Uroborus, Wyrm, Herla. This is an extremely inappropriate candidacy for adminship. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Update: Please also see User:Kalki/Restrictions, for a brief chronology and summary of existing restrictions in effect against Kalki with regards to the socking. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You certainly have every right to cast your vote and express your opinions — what I find obnoxious about you is what appears to me to be adamant presumptions which seem to imply that other's right to do so should be severely restricted in accordance with YOUR particular tastes, will and fallacious assumptions. Further commentary on this matter can also be found at the Village pump, and in the permanent archives among my user pages: 2011 Contentions ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The contentions which have existed between me and Cirt, and forms of contempt indicated for each other's behavior and opinions on many matters, are quite familiar to many of you. I truly have always wished to serve this project, and have never done anything to deliberately harm it or abuse whatever powers I have had. I will only state here that much of the material on my account pages which I contend Cirt has maliciously defaced, including the most recent spate of blocks which seem to be meant to imply I had broken my past agreements, which I have NOT, is preserved for scrutiny at Restorations. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When Kalki uses wording right in his nomination statement, describing other admins as "immorally imposed by a clique with a large faction of would be-fascists" - one must realize he is an unfit candidate to be an administrator on any WMF project or website. -- Cirt (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My response to this, is simple repetition of what I declared soon after I was blocked for mandates Cirt suddenly came up with out of thin air as far as I am aware, and thus a bit passionately expressed with some all-caps assertions:
I CALL UPON other admins to examine Cirt's present and past conduct, and examine the atrocious and EXTREME attempts to SILENCE and defame me in the past and in the present — to REMOVE my testimony on MATTERS of EXTREME importance to me AND others from the VIllage pump — TO PREVENT ME FROM EDITING ON THIS WIKI, and indeed NOTHING OTHER than the RAW FASCISM, of a "Might makes Right" mentality EXPOSED for what it truly is.
So it goes… ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose for excessive problems on sockpuppets here and being blocked on English Wikipedia and Wikinews till infinity, both for abusing multiple accounts.[4]--Jusjih 13:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repeat though I have had multiple accounts, I have NEVER deliberately abused multiple account ANYWHERE. That Cirt on his rampage of defamation after an edit dispute with him ACCUSED me of doing so at those places is something that resulted in those blocks — NOT any ACTIVITY which ever occurred there. IF there is any ACTIVITY in any of those places by ANY of my own actual accounts which even remotely resembles abuse I am certainly NOT aware of it. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Kalki's constant histrionics when he/she/it is challenged demonstrate that Kalki is insufficiently mature for adminship. 121a0012 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also have every right to your opinions, and your choices, but I hold that my "histrionics" when PRINCIPLES I believe in are mocked, disregarded or ignored are far more truly considerate of EVERYONE's right and DUTY to express themselves honestly and fairly, to my mind than the placating platitudes of people lacking enough passion to care about or even recognize extreme injustice when it arises, or to placidly and sedately conform with what are the most popular or powerful factions. I would much rather be unpopular at times in asserting the worth of honest and fair sentiments with candor, than popular in deference to extreme distortions or lies about the worth of the passions and wills of others.
  • Support. Despite the fact that there remain aspects of Kalki's past behavior that I disagree with, I firmly believe that Kalki can provide more benefit (and I believe the benefit is significant) to the project than harm should admin capabilities be returned. As further discussion develops, I may add to my reasons for supporting, but for now, suffice it to say that I believe that, even in ways that most have not agreed with (including myself), Kalki acts with the best interests of the project in mind. I can say for certain that much of the recent spate of vandalism would have been handled in a much quicker fashion if Kalki were able to address it with the admin tools. For this and other reasons I support Kalki returning to admin status. ~ UDScott 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose. While I still believe that Kalki could have provided a good deal of benefit to the project, Kalki's continued negative behavior is not in keeping with what I would expect of someone acting as an administrator and ambassador of the project. If there had been some measure of an appearance of a willingness to discuss matters in a calm and rational manner and a willingness to work with others without denigrating their work or motives (which was my hope when I first cast my support vote), then I would have gladly left my original vote. Sadly, this is not the case, and I do not feel I can continue to support Kalki as an admin. ~ UDScott 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though it seems there is not any strong likelihood of this nomination succeeding at this point, your defection as a fellow earnest WORKER here, saddens me more than the comments of those who often have done little more here than judge and dictate their opinions and views. I am not sure to what you are referring to as negative behavior. IF you are referring to my obvious ire at being suddenly blocked a few hours ago, of that I am definitely guilty. But if there is anything available to an admin more NEGATIVE to Justice respectful of Liberty, Unity based on Truth, and Liberty respectful of Justice than removing the right to edit of someone who disagrees with you and points out facts and honest opinions, I do NOT know what it is — and that is certainly NOT such behavior as I have ever indulged in. I do NOT consider those who DO as fellow allies to any worthy endeavor in any reliable or trustworthy way. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate that this probably came as a surprise to you, but please do not misunderstand my comments. I still support your continued work on this site (and as I stated, I believe much of your work has been extremely beneficial to the project), but I just could not reconcile many of your comments with the position of admin. It's more a sense of image for how I believe an admin should behave. I realize that you have been under attack and are reacting to that, but I have tried on numerous occasions to have constructive dialogue with you on a number of topics and have been frustrated in this effort. I believe that I have not acted in the past in any manner that would harm you, but have merely attempted to engage in various discussions. As to the behavior of others, I will not at this point comment on it, as the scope of this discussion is limited to possibility of you regaining adminship. ~ UDScott 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish EVERY one well — even the most irritating of my adversaries. edit

I must be leaving soon, and perhaps will have time to calm down after suddenly being stripped of my editing privileges for NO GOOD OR VALID REASON which I can perceive. May this situation soon change. I send best wishes to all — even the most irritating of my adversaries. That is one thing that it is hard to convey over the internet and with type — that whatever the words I honestly use to express emotions and opinions about facts and ideas and circumstances, I believe MOST people are MOSTLY good — and I can be EXTREMELY irate at circumstances and express that when any rights or abilities are taken away from people in what I truly believe to be an unjust manner. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI edit

MUCH of this originally at User talk:Thenub314 I was preparing to leave, but noticed some other pages which I cannot currently edit, and am placing more material here and leaving a few comments before going. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Thenub314, I hope you are doing well. ;) I have preserved an easy-to-access subpage, as a record of the standing restrictions against Kalki (talk · contributions), which came out of your initial proposal. See User:Kalki/Restrictions. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had made no attempt to contact anyone on their user pages in a campaign for votes for my adminship, but as Cirt seems to have contacted you to persuade you to accept what I consider to be foul and fallacious presumptions against me, I will provide a relative brief comment in my own defense, and state that further commentary on this matter can also be found at the current discussions of the Village pump, and in the permanent archives among my user pages: 2011 Contentions. Cirt's attempts and present successes at defamation have definitely been an irritation and a burden to me, and I truly believe he takes a rather absurd delight in indulging an absurd malice against me, the events reaching an atrocious level in what I refer to as outrages of Autumn 2010. I truly have always wished to serve this project, and have never done anything to deliberately harm it or abuse whatever powers I have had. I will only state here that much of the material on my account pages which I contend Cirt has maliciously defaced, including the most recent spate of blocks which seem to be meant to imply I had broken my past agreements, which I have NOT, is preserved for scrutiny at Restorations. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. It is not disputed fact that Kalki was restricted to one account, by imposition of the community.
  2. Kalki refused to disclose all of his sock accounts.
  3. The only time Kalki admittedly confirmed these as his own sock accounts, publicly, was after they had already been exposed and blocked as socks.

-- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Cirt, I am doing well, except that i have been sucked into editing WP again. Why I could be so foolish I'll never know. Thanks for the FYI.
Hi Kalki, I will make sure to keep an open mind and read everything carefully. Thenub314 15:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your consideration. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to Cirt's comments:

"Kalki refused to disclose all of his sock accounts." & "The only time Kalki admittedly confirmed these as his own sock accounts, publicly, was after they had already been exposed and blocked as socks."

I certainly NEVER claimed that I would disclose all of the alternate accounts I created. After some activity last year I have really had little inclination or interest to continue the tedium of confirming which of those which people had listed as mine actually were — or perhaps were not. That was NOT anything I ever agreed to — I HAD intended to gradually CONFIRM them, but I CERTAINLY lost interest in that after I agreed to not use any account but Kalki account to edit here — and I have NOT. The sudden removal of my editing abilities and insistence on ABJECT surrender to a BIG BROTHER mentality of needing to KNOW all, which Cirt suddenly seems to be projecting is NOT something I consider in ANY way fair or decent behavior for ANY human being. I repeat: I do NOT have a unified list — I often simply REMEMBER passwords by a personal coding system which I generally use which I am OBVIOUSLY not inclined to disclose. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I value comedy and tragedy and drama — and clear dispassionate observation as well — but I certainly do NOT believe the extreme reactions to words of HONESTY warrant such measures of SUPPRESSION of my editing capabilities as Cirt seem quite prone to inflict, when provided any excuse that seems in any ways possible to present in a plausible way. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about use of Multiple Accounts edit

I've caught just the tail end of this entire row, and have no vested interest either way. I simply had 2 questions;

  1. What benefit do you feel you derive from utilizing multiple user names/accounts?
  2. Some of the user names that you have claimed (Achilles, Rumour, Taliesin, & NEO) are common names which are now denied to others; do you not feel this could be detrimental to the project by discouraging new users?

I really don't want to start a big, useless fight and I'm certain that policy will not change because of this nor will it have substantial bearing on Kalki's answer- so I respectfully ask others to let him answer if he's going to. Darker Dreams 06:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your inquiries. I have been taking a break from the frustrations of once again being suddenly and summarily deserving of a block by Cirt, and being able to dealing with matters here ONLY upon my talk page. I have shifted much of my attention to other matters of importance, dealing with activities and potential activities not so corrupted or corruptible by what I sincerely consider to be the very ill will of others.
I will say this much just now: PRIOR to agreeing to use only that account, ONE of the more unusual reasons I used multiple accounts in the early days, when I was the ONLY admin regularly active here, was its effectiveness as vandal fighting measure, as it seemed that some often would wait until I, as Kalki, wasn't active, and then start attacking the site. I regularly could do various edits under other names, sometimes issuing preliminary warnings under other names, and then begin blocking activity as Kalki at continued acts of vandalism.
I also have used some of these names at other sites, as well as here, so that separate issues and contentions could be addressed, and that resentments which might arise towards one identity would not be directed at others elsewhere. I have also used some, or had intended to use some primarily in relation to activities other than those on the internet, but wished to retain options of eventually using them in some ways on it as well.
SOME of your inquiries actual involve VERY complex issues, and I believe I might have to ponder MANY things off and on for a few days before I decide how much information I wish to reveal at this period of time. I assure you I intend to provide a thoroughly honest and considerate response — but it might end up revealing issues of far more importance than you might have supposed it would, and I NEVER promise to reveal to anyone all that I conceivably might wish to — or they might wish me to.
Most people have enough sense to be able to realize that to reveal ALL things is IMPOSSIBLE — some also are able to realize that to reveal ALL aspects of ANYTHING and its relationships with other things is ALSO impossible. Those who MOST accept the limitations of human understanding are LEAST prone to try to JUDGE others or their worth, most prone to ASSESS situations HONESTLY and FAIRLY, and MOST prone to CAREFULLY DECIDE what ONLY they themselves MUST do — and NOT presume to know what others must. Such people are generally gentler and less demanding of most others than most, and often far more demanding on the resources of themselves and of their worst adversaries than they care to reveal. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarifications on a GENERAL use of the term "fascism" edit

File:DR 1941 763 Benito Mussolini und Adolf Hitler.jpg
Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’ ~ George Orwell

George Orwell indicated that the term fascism is often used in ways which roughly equate it with bullying, and in basic agreement, I would accept that in its most generic sense, it could be simply defined as "a policy or strategy of bullying — of denying or disregarding the proper rights and liberties of others."

There are many levels and types of such unjust oppression and suppression of diversity and dissent, which is what I and many people generally mean when we causally use the term "fascism" — and when I use it I am certainly NOT accusing anyone of necessarily embracing the worst of these, or embracing the actual doctrines of any official party of fascists — but neither am I conceding that acts of unjust oppression and suppression shouldn't be called fascism. I can currently think of no more appropriate word for it.

I am not one to concede that so long as the practitioners of such oppressive strategies and tactics of oppression and suppression of opposition views do not call it fascism then it shouldn't be called fascism by others. When I perceive there to be unjust oppression occurring, I am usually much inclined to state that fact — and when I do, one of the means I have to battle such fascism is to call it fascism. I do not mean to imply that those who have embraced it are doomed to always embrace it — and I truly hope that by such honest expression of opinions as I can provide, that some will come to perceive things clearly enough as to be more alert to fascist tendencies in themselves, and diminish them or abandon them. I believe that there are NONE of us who can be free entirely from temptations to fascist tendencies and impulses — especially those who most presume themselves intensely anti-fascist — and are most hostile to anyone being so honest as to actually stating that they are behaving in what they sincerely consider to be an actually fascist manner. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevertheless, "Fascism" is very closely associated in the modern consciousness with Nazism, and therefore with the racist and bigoted policies of that regime. Perhaps authoritarianism or totalitarianism would work to convey your views without raising the specter of concentration camps and gas chambers. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even without such connotations there is a world of difference between fascism, a variety of nationalist totalitarianism, imposing mandates and constraints upon society at large, and a free association of individuals who collaborate on a joint project establishing standards for that project and norms for participants' conduct. Rhetorical hyperbole of the sort characterized by Godwin's Law does absolutely nothing to persuade others to one's point of view and, Godwin's point, it trivializes the gravest forms of mass-insanity. ~ Ningauble 12:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.
I feel my fate in what I cannot fear.
I learn by going where I have to go.

~ Theodore Roethke ~

File:Don't panic.svg


In honor of Towel Day, I decline to throw in the towel regarding personal integrity of myself or anyone else, and attempt to indicate that I am a person who "knows where my towel is" — and knows how to use it. Let any Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal or Vogon minions BEWARE!

If any admin wishes, the upcoming QOTD page could be slightly enhanced in a meaningful manner I was working on BEFORE I was blocked from editing.

Over and over, people try to design systems that make tomorrow's work easy. But when tomorrow comes it turns out they didn't quite understand tomorrow's work, and they actually made it harder.

~ Ward Cunningham ~


I am obviously at times a joker, jester, fool, and even sometimes, at least apparently to many, a knave. Yet I am also never merely any of these things and nothing else — and I KNOW that neither is anyone else. I have much more to I strongly wish to say — but am only checking in briefly now, and will be gone for several hours at least, after which I will probably respond more fully to some comments. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good will edit

Circumstances change as they often must — and I might be far too busy with other things to do much I had wished to here for a few days or perhaps a few weeks as I attend to many complex matters. There are many things I wish to respond to as fairly as possible, but realize this will probably take me some time to properly manage with appropriate levels of fairness to all concerned with things here and elsewhere. I will PROBABLY be here daily, and do what I can for perhaps even a few hours most days. I am presently just making a note of thanks to those who have willingly aided the causes of fairness, justice and liberty and such unity as is based on truth and the fundamental rights of all to communicate their opinions of it — and of willingness to forgive those who differ so greatly from the dispositons I most cherish as to seek to suppress the rights and liberties of others. One thing I believe that some people hae yet to discern about me is that I am NOT a person inclined to be extremely harsh to anything but oppressive behavior I consider unjust, and those not engaged in ACTIVE oppressions of others are usually such people as I can forgive and pity — even if it is not within my powers or place to pardon them from facing the consequences of many of their actions and attitudes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kalki. I have been giving a lot of thought to your situation lately. I know that when you were an administrator, you had to deal with vandals who came back time and again under different accounts. You must know that at some point, the number of accounts you have edited under would have come to light, and when that happened, someone would have to go through all of them to make sure that you had not vandalized under any of them. I don't think any editor would escape such scrutiny, no matter how positive their contributions. I'm sure you are not feeling too well disposed toward FloNight at the moment, but she was the one upon whom this task fell, and I think you should consider the workload she had to undertake from her point of view, and hold out the olive branch of making amends for that. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though some might not find this easy to believe, I actually feel no bitterness at all toward FloNight, though I know we have definitely different and opposed opinions about some issues concerning me and my past actions at this point in time. I can be extremely irritated by certain opinions or assertions people make, and react to those vigorously, and yet have no ill will toward them as people at all. I have done very little investigation into her past activities or presence, but from what I have observed, I feel she is generally a person of good will who perhaps has a very poor opinion of me, for various reasons. Even toward Cirt, whose actions and apparent intentions have inspired me to feel actual contempt, disgust and anger, and honest expressions of such, I do not bear actual ill will — and though I honestly do believe extreme abuse of admin tools and status has actually occured in Cirt's case, I recognize it is probably not the best path or aim to seek to have those removed — but to eventually encourage less abuse of them by calm and thorough discussion of some issues.
I feel it extremely unfortunate how things have proceeded here over the last couple of years, and I believe there are several extremely erroneous misperceptions at work, and which continue to grow, in some regards. I do not feel it is yet time for me to attempt to thoroughly indicate what many of these things are, but I feel that when the far-less-than-half-told tale at last comes to be told sufficiently I trust that it will be discerned by most that my activity has NEVER been malicious, and to the extent that it or the responses to it and the suspicions which have been promoted have been inordinately burdensome on anyone is to some degree tragic. I also recognize that there are far greater tragedies and burdens in peoples lives to be concerned with — and which I am concerned with — and I hope that many of these can be more effectively addressed once I am free to reveal much more about what has occurred from many of my perspectives.
I know that once certain things are revealed then further revelations are necessary — and various cascades of further revelation are possible — some of them optimal for progress of awareness and harmony, and some of them far less so — and some detrimental in many ways. I will always seek to favor the critical paths to general human progress which I believe optimal — adjust them as necessary as time goes by and events arise — and find ways to to avoid or eliminate such paths or potentials as I believe most detrimental over all.
The circumstances of my accounts were revealed in a way I definitely consider to have been in many ways detrimental to me and some of my intentions — but far more detrimental in some ways to others — including those most intent on insisting they were innately improper or unjustifiable. I am NOT going to go into a thorough analysis about that as yet… but I have taken sufficient responses to insure that no matter what occurs — and no matter how detrimental things become for me, the ultimate objectives of helping others will be served. I did come to realize that perhaps in some ways things will be able to proceed more swiftly than they otherwise might — although in ways with far less safety and security for many than those I would have favored.
There are MANY things I would MUCH like to reveal soon, which are VERY pertinent to issues which have arisen here — but to reveal them here and now would be to indicate them in ways which are premature relative to matters of somewhat greater significance — where it seems to me best not to reveal them as yet, but to reveal or at least indicate some other significant things first — which do not necessarily have so much pertinence or relevance to matters here. And SUCH are the EXTENT of the disclosures of my alternate identities which have been made, that to reveal some things ANYWHERE, puts them in extreme likelihood of having to SOON be revealed many places where I might be active — and this complicates MANY of my concerns and considerations considerably.
I only begin to HINT here at some of the complications to my activities the actions of some have been. Yet, I do not ask respite from all of life's complications — I assert that such would be a profoundly stupid thing to desire…. and all too many have been unwisely driven toward such aims — but I do seek to keep many things seeming as simple and as separate as possible for a time — KNOWING all the while that many things are immensely complicated and intricately implicated in one another — and that this WILL eventually be revealed. I fully believe that not to my disgrace, but to my credit, much of the effort I have made over many years will be recognized by many for what it has been — the efforts of a person to do what good I could, through what means I could — at every clear opportunity I was provided — and many obscure and dangerous ones. I realize that there are MANY people engaged in such activites — and that sometimes, amidst much confusion, some of these can be for a time my adversaries on some particular matters. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your good intentions. Nonetheless, I ask you to empathise with those who were duty-bound to investigate all of the activities of all of your alternate accounts, and the tremendous amount of tedious and unwanted work that was required of them. BD2412 T 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I acknowledge FloNight and you yourself as people who seem to me to be genuinely interested in DOING good rather than merely SEEMING good — and that is actually about one of the highest compliments I can give most people, from my perspectives. I do not wish to place or seem to place an improper burden upon anyone's happiness or welfare — not even those I cannot greatly admire in any ways, let alone those I can; but neither can I consent to fully agree with everyone, merely out of apparent convenience to myself or others. I remain sincerely concerned about many issues, not all of them I find appropriate to elaborate upon at this point in time. I thank everyone sincerely for what consideration has been shown to what has been their duties... and acknowledge we all have many forms of duty, which sometimes bring about conflicts of opinions and resolves. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not asking you to agree with anyone or anything that has been done; I am asking you to recognize that your actions, in registering and using dozens of alternate accounts, made it necessary for others to undertake a substantial volume of unpleasant work just to make sure nothing nefarious was going on. BD2412 T 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kalki, I really would like to engage with you on this point. I recognize some of the rationales that you have expressed for having multiple accounts, but I would like you to acknowledge some understanding of the fact that having hundreds of accounts was bound to lead to trouble eventually, and was bound to lead to a lot of tedious work for a CheckUser to deal with. BD2412 T 22:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem acknowledging that having so many accounts HAVE caused problems — which HAVE tragically burdened far more people far more than I would ever have wished or clearly could have anticipated. That so many accounts which I believe were never deliberately misused in ANY way were BOUND to cause such immense problems or work for others, or such burdens upon myself, had things been handled in more properly attenttive manners early on — in regards to the actions or attitudes of others as well as myself — are things I must have significantly different perspectives upon, and which I do intend to eventually present. I have NO wish to be of needless burden to others, and to the extent I may have been so, or seemed to have been so, without being able to present such reasons as could justify my actions and intentions, is clearly irritating to others and myself, and to that extent tragic — but there are other tragedies of far more complex and significant nature that I am generally more concerned with, and have been attending to regularly in various ways. I actually believe I did write up some responses to earlier comments that I never posted, perhaps partly because I decided they got into too many details about a few things at this point in time. I remain of generaly good will towards most people — and do not wish anyone to suffer unjustly — but I know that people's awareness of what is most expedient or prudent can differ greatly on MANY matters, for MANY reasons. I continue to wish everyone well, even those who are most inclined to wish me ill, and hope that further resolutions and accords based on more comprehensive awareness of many things can be arrived at in coming weeks. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think that it might be helpful to apologize to FloNight for the work with which she was burdened, even if it was unintended and unforeseen? BD2412 T 00:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I acknowledge and have acknowledged that this could be helpful in many ways, and acknowledge your good will in seeking that there be such apologies made — but I don't wish for a moment to seem to be a mere flattering sycophant as many often are to appease and please others. I HONESTLY do wish her well and I DO apologize and seek to apologize in many ways for many things that have been burdensome to her and others — I repeat I have no wish to be an unnecessary burden or tormentor of anyone. This being so, I especially seek to apologize for persisting in rigorously determined honesty and good will when many others would much rather have me turn out to be as much a shallow sycophantic deceiver, malicious liar or malevolent fraud as they more often deal with, and which many tend to expect others to be. Often such expectations are prompted by hopes that they might indulge more shamelessly in their will to punish and constrain other human beings, often with the support and applause of others duped by general complacency and apathy in regard to the need for thorough examinations of one's OWN assessments as well as others actions, and the words used to describe or disguise many aspects of many things. I am continually making VERY complex assessments of things, and recognize it can be burdensome upon others of far more restricted and constrained intellectual capacities and I have usually not sought to press upon them too much with such information as they are unfamiliar and will find hard to understand, and which I myself often find VERY hard to express in the LIMITED words available to me in any particular language or dialect of human communion. I will even bow down VERY respectfully to others and their particular rules and other idols when it is truly proper to avoid bringing them into states of needless distress — yet when I am asked to bow down in WORSHIP of them or their rules or other idols and praise them as if theirs are the greatest idols and rules that there are to bow down to — then I must honestly and sincerely balk and decline to be so foul and cowardly and foolish an idolator. People fashion idols of angels and gods and devils and demons not only out of material forms but mental forms and the words and symbols they use to denote these — the wisest look upon such forms as at times usefully indicative of MANY things, but not ultimately definitive of ANY thing. Such truth is taught in MANY a profound mystical and practical philosophies within the scope of MOST major religions and sciences of human beings.

I intend to make MANY expositions of many things at many places in coming weeks and months — but among all my sincere indications of truth I will always seek to make clear that I COULD BE WRONG on MANY THINGS — and SO COULD many others in many ways. I am willing to consider any actually unfamiliar information that would be strong enough to change my opinions — but usually not the merely wild and ignorant claims of people who are NOT willing to concede that THEY might be wrong or deficient in their assessments — and who most insist they MUST be entirely RIGHT and adequate in the ways they wish to control and command others — and that if there are to be any apologies made by anyone apologies should be made to THEM.

I believe far too many people have far too great a fixation on simplistic interpretations of words and what they can mean or imply — and far too shallow a perception of many aspects of Reality and many matters of others perceptions and will. Yet I know that all the words and best intentions and helpful actions I might attempt to provide cannot help all so much as I might wish. I have a strong will to remain HONEST and PROPERLY COMPASSIONATE with ALL and PROPERLY PASSIONATE as well — and I honestly have a great deal of honest disdain for the expectations, presumptions and demands of others who think others should simply conform to their expectations and comply with their will. I much prefer the true natural civility of HONESTY with friends and foes alike to that of flattery of ANYONE — and I find far too many people are far too presumptive of the need for flattery and even the apparent convenience and prestige that some believe can be derived from demanding it. There are complex matters that most people do not seem to clearly discern, and I know that I cannot easily make clear to them. I generally aim to help people with revelation of vitally important truths, rather than flatter anyone with such words or declarations as they often find most appealing or welcome. Elsewhere I believe I have mentioned to some here, that in the past one of those who knows of me and my various activities best has asserted: "You're so honest it SCARES people — they're not used to it." I am well aware that I myself and other people can be deceived in many ways... and I have often let others go on deceiving themselves and others about many things, when I feel it would be more dangerous or clearly harmful to point out errors than to let them continue in then — and I am quite confident that many people can feel the same about many of my actions and statements. There are yet further revelations to be made about many things on many levels. I am never averse to recognizing my activities can be burdensome on others — even when they are entirely oblivious or unconcerned about the far more extensive burdens and harms their activities have been upon me and those I most care for — it allows me to be forgiving and neither expect nor demand apologies from them. Those who most insist on receiving apologies from others in granting forgiveness generally have very shallow notions of what proper forgiveness actually is — I forgive them for such deficiencies, but I do not beg their pardon for recognizing them and mentioning them. Neither am I inclined to be begging anyone's pardon for being honest about my views — even when they are quite good willed in seeking to find some ways to bring about greater harmony between me and those who are most inclined to insist that I conform to some rather paltry and petty expectations of how I and other people should behave.

Once I begin speaking on matters that can seem simple to most, I recognize that many people MUCH prefer that I not go into such complex details or associated matters as make some of their stances seem less sound or certain, and though I might indicate many things they had not thought to be related at all, there are usually FAR more things even more intricately related which I leave unstated. There are no doubt many who would immensely prefer me to simply keep things upon such simple terms as they wish to frame them, or "SHUT UP AND LEAVE THEIR PRESENCE FOREVER." Barring my death or theirs that is not likely to happen — and many might be astounded to find that even then they might not escape the reach of such ideas as I promote for the edification of human minds. For ALL Eternity WE are ALL in this KOSMOS together — in various levels and forms of Awareness, Life, and Love — and I bid others be far more considerate of many things, and less dismissive of the proper rights and liberties of others, ESPECIALLY of those who use them in ways they cannot initially or easily understand, so long as there are not clear and present dangers of massive distress or permanent destruction. The wise have long known that very often those most inclined to PRESUME such, actually precipitate such. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]

I don't think it's sycophantic to apologize when you mean it. If you could just post that second sentence above to FloNight, I'm sure it would be well taken, and in the spirit intended. BD2412 T 13:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A slight modification of them has now been posted to her page, and as I stated in my edit summary, they are fair words fairly meant. I just happened to check in here briefly, and must leave for about an hour or so — but probably will be back within a few hours and stay around most of the day — there are a few things I seek to do work on here within a few days, as I now expect to be much more busy with many other things in coming weeks. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Kalki. You're a good egg. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doctor Who work edit

I intend to gradually do extensive work on the Doctor Who pages in coming months — adding airdates and links, and doing minor cleanup work. I don't plan to actually add many quotes to the articles initally, but eventually might do so, as I review past episodes of the series in the coming year. I encourage anyone interested in developing the Doctor Who pages more extensively to register a user account here, so as to have more effective influence on policy decisions which need to be confronted in coming months regarding existing guidelines and limitations that have been promoted regarding quotes from TV shows and films, including those of Doctor Who. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I saw you edit to the Eleventh Doctor's wikiquote and am informing you that it was been undone. The quotes you put are good but the article needs to conform to the limits on quotations. This is wikiquote's way of avoiding copyright violations and deletion of the page for these violations. If you think that the quotes should still be on the page, please remove quotes that is already there. The limit for Eleventh Doctor episodes is 5, so be sure to conform to that to avoid removal of the quotes. The Eleventh Hour, The Big Bang and A Christmas Carol can have up to 7 quotes due to the increased episode length. Teyrn of Highever 11:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, there are no copyright violations involved at all, but I recognize that there are contentions over how many quotes should be recommended, and what responses should be made when recommendations are exceeded. As there are no actual legal mandates, I recommend permitting interested editors striking a proper balance — which worked quite well here for years, on nearly all pages, with very few exceptions which were handled in acceptable ways by admin intervention, rather than setting mandatory numerical limits — which I believe is to a great extent a farce — especially when it is implied that exceeding such overly stringent limits as are currently set here on a policy page actually violate copyright restrictions — they do not. I am not intent on restoring the quotes to that page at this time, as I have little interest in presenting all arguments I believe relevant at this time, but I do believe there is a need for debates on the issue in coming months. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I can't say anything about copyright laws, this is a wikiquote policy and unless there is something definitive from someone familiar with copyright laws, I'd prefer to keep on the safe side. I know you used to be an administrator, but it would be better to have a second opinion, preferably a specific example or some document. Anyone can say that there are no copyright violations. Teyrn of Highever 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other point, there was a discussion on the ninth doctor's page about quote limitations. The consensus appeared to be that the limitations, while flawed, were useful. They kept people from quoting entire scenes and forced editors to stick to the significant rather than the adding every joke in the episode. Teyrn of Highever 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not complaining about your actions, I have complaints about the existing policy, and I do not seek to blame you personally for participating in enforcing current strictures. I hope to see the issue reconsidered more thoroughly by more people, and more resilient directives arrived at — rather than rules based primarily on numerical restrictions. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that you need to add the air dates to any of the pages. I can't find any other wikiquote that has the air dates. Some of the other doctors have air dates, but since you are the one who put them, that seems to prove my point. Is this a personal preference or something that I am unaware of in the wikiquote guidelines? Teyrn of Highever 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is perhaps no "need" for the airdates — and I generally oppose codifying or mandating things that don't need to be codified or mandated — but I believe that adding them provides very useful information for anyone quoting from the episodes — which is helpful in comparison of eras on a program which has existed since 1963. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SOME significant removals from Doctor Who pages edit

These are quotes which have been removed from Doctor Who pages, the inclusion of which in no way actually exceeded fair use provisions, are presented here to provide samplings of the problem of editorial stifling of additions to the Wikiquote project on some program pages. Doctor Who merely is one of the few I am actually much interested in — but I believe the restrictions recommended actually are excessive and should be revised. ~ Kalki

Eleventh Doctor edit

Leaving the appropriateness of the established limits aside, I find it hard to believe there are 5 other better quotes (or 7 for the longer episodes) than these listed below for each episode. For me, when I try to remain within the limits, but want to add quotes of obvious import, such as these, I would remove something already there and replace it, rather than just removing the last added quotes. The exercise should be to judge the quality of the quotes and retain the best, not just stick with what has been there, especially if inferior.

And to revisit the topic of the limits themselves, I am certainly not opposed to reopening this discussion, as I have written before. For myself, I just try to act to enforce what has been agreed upon. If different standards are later agreed, I am happy to expand what is allowed. Perhaps we should reopen discussion on the established limits and hold a vote. ~ UDScott 15:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do think that is desirable, but would rather wait until more editors of program pages have had time to get the word of such being contemplated within a month or two before initiating one. I am personally for higher recommendations, rather than "limits" and no absolutely set cutoff points — so as to allow room for reasonable adjustment among concerned editors, rather than people trimming things to fit numerical limits far below anything actually legally mandated. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While a discussion should occur, the problem is many editors just unilaterally declare that the limits should be discarded. I know that there are things like "Ignore all rules", but the limits have a two-fold purpose. One, they prevent copyright issues. Because Doctor Who is British, there might be different rules that need to be observed, but this should be noted in talk pages rather that having editors scream "Free Use!" Second, the limits are quality control. On the Ninth Doctor's page, before trimming, one episode had 15 quotes, some one which were entire scenes. If the purpose of wikiquote was to quote the entire episode, it wouldn't be a website of quotes; it would be a website of transcripts. There was a discussion on the Ninth Doctor's page similar to this, that I know you were part of Kalki. If we are to have a discussion, it would need to have others be a part of it because there may be other aspects, legal or otherwise, that we are not seeing. Teyrn of Highever 17:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More recent removals added to the listings below (2011·08·31)
The Eleventh Hour [5.1] edit

Amy Pond: I thought... well, I started to think you were just a madman with a box.
The Doctor: Amy Pond, there's something you better understand about me, 'cause it's important and one day your life may depend on it. … I am definitely a madman with a box.

I can defend this one on something other than wikiquote's rules. This line is a caption of a picture. Though, I'm not sure about the pictures either, it just seems like a way for people to to skirt around the rules on quote limitations. Teyrn of Highever 17:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really think you are taking even the numerical rules a bit too literally if you count a caption that uses a quote as a reason for removing that quote from the article based on numerical limits. Captions are used on many pages to draw attention to significant quotes and make the pages more interesting — having a caption that uses a duplicate of quote or portion of a quote should in no way be thought of as exceeding or seeking to exceed the limits suggested. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am restoring this particular quote, as the rationale for removal seems entirely flawed. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was using the "it is already listed on the page" rule rather than LoQ. I wasn't counting the captions as part of any particular episode. My issues with captions is an separate thing from why the quote was removed. Teyrn of Highever 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you restored it and removed :

The Doctor: Just had a fall. All the way down there, right to the library. Hell of a climb back up.
Amelia: You're soaking wet.
The Doctor: I was in the swimming pool.
Amelia: You said you were in the library.
The Doctor: So was the swimming pool.
I personally prefer the "madman with a box" quote, but still think the need of cutting out the above quote to add it to comply with the current limitation settings illustrates the absurdity of them. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not doubting that there are issues with the limitations, it's just that when it comes to things like copyright laws, we can't decide to ignore them because they are inconvenient or annoying. On the topic of removal, it was either this one or the next one for the episode. And while I agree that this quote is good, of the seven listed, I felt this one to be least important. This one says a bit about the story, the others all say something about the characters. Teyrn of Highever 18:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is one of the current problems with some of the current restrictions — they are too easily misunderstood as mandated by copyright laws — when they actually are not, and are simply established by assumptions which are inconvenient and annoying. I again I wish to emphasize that the target of my criticism is the existing mandates — not your attempts to comply with them. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Impossible Astronaut [6.1] edit
The Doctor: Shout if you get into trouble.
River Song: Don't worry, I'm quite the screamer. Now there's a spoiler for you.
Day of the Moon [6.2] edit
The Doctor [on how long the Silents have been on Earth]: As long as there's been something in the corner of your eye, or creaking in your house, or breathing under your bed, or voices through a wall — they've been running your lives for a very long time now. So keep this straight in your head: we are not fighting an alien invasion — we're leading a revolution. And today the battle begins.
The Curse of the Black Spot [6.3] edit
Captain Avery: I'm confused.
The Doctor: Yeah, well, it's a big club. We should get T-shirts.
The Doctor's Wife [6.4] edit
Amy: You want to be forgiven.
The Doctor: Don't we all?

The Doctor [to constructed agents of the House of Nothing]: You gave me hope, and then you took it away. That's enough to make anyone dangerous. God knows what it will do to me.
Basically — RUN!
The Doctor: Uh, Amy, this is, well, she's my TARDIS. Except she's a woman. She's a woman and she's the TARDIS.
Amy: She's the TARDIS?
The Doctor: And she's a woman. She's a woman and she's the TARDIS.
Amy: Did you wish really hard?
The Doctor: Shut up — its not like that.
Idris: Hello. I'm... Sexy.
The Doctor: Oh, still shut up.

Doctor [To House, as Idris dies and releases the TARDIS essence]: I think you should be very, very careful about what you let back into this control room. You took her from her home. But now she’s back in the box again and she’s free! Oh, look at my girl, look at her go! Bigger on the inside! You see, House? That’s your problem. Size of a planet, but inside you’re just so small! Finish him off, girl.

Idris: [as the TARDIS] Doctor. Are you there? It's so very dark in here.
The Doctor: I'm here.
Idris: I've been looking for a word. A big, complicated word but so sad. I've found it now.
The Doctor: What word?
Idris: "Alive." I'm alive.
The Doctor: Alive isn't sad.
Idris: It's sad when it's over. I'll always be here. But this is when we talked. And now, even that has come to an end. There's something I didn't get to say to you.
The Doctor: Goodbye.
Idris: No. I just wanted to say... hello. Hello, Doctor. [Starts to cry] It's so very, very nice to meet you.
The Doctor: [crying] Please... I don't want you to.
Idris: [Fades away in a ball of light and whispers] I love you.

Amy: Look at you pair. It's always you and her, isn't it, long after the rest of us are gone. A boy and his box, off to see the universe.
The Doctor: You say that as if it's a bad thing, but honestly, it's the best thing there is.

The House: Fear me. I have killed hundreds of Timelords.
The Doctor: Fear me. I've killed all of them.
The Rebel Flesh [6.5] edit
The Doctor: There are people coming. Well, almost.
Amy: Almost coming?
The Doctor: Almost people.
The Almost People [6.6] edit

Jen (Ganger): You've tricked him into an act of weakness, Doctor.
The Doctor: No, I've helped him into an act of humanity. Anyone else like the sound of that: act of humanity?

Amy [having discovered that the Doctor and the Ganger had deceived them all]: I never thought it possible.
The Doctor (Ganger): What?
Amy: You're twice the man I thought you were.


A Good Man Goes to War [6.7] edit
The following passage has actually been restored now. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Amy: I wish I could tell you that you'll be loved. That you'll be safe and cared for and protected. But this isn't the time for lies. What you are going to be, Melody, is very, very brave.
Madam Kovarian: Two minutes.
Amy: But not as brave that they'll have to be. Because there's someone coming. I don't know where he is, or what he's doing, but trust me, he's on his way.
[Shot of a hand with a sonic screwdriver, on a Cybermen control ship]
Cyber Leader: Intruder: Level Nine. Seal Level Nine.
Amy: There's a man who will never let us down. And not even an army can get in the way. [Madame Kavorian goes to take Melody] Leave her. Just you leave her. Leave her. [sobs]
Cyber Leader: Intruder: Level Eleven. Seal Levels Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen. [explosion] Intruder: Level Fifteen.
Amy: He's the last of his kind. He looks young but he's lived for hundreds and hundreds for years. And wherever they take you, Melody, however scared you are, I promise you, you'll never be alone. [Amy kisses Melody's forehead] Because this man is your father.
Cyber Leader: Prepare to engage.
Amy: He has a name but the people of our world know him better... [door slides open on the Cyberman control ship, revealing Rory] the Last Centurion.
Rory: I have a message and a question: a message from the Doctor and a question from me. Where is my wife? [The Cybermen do not respond] Oh, don't give me those blank looks. The Twelfth Cyber Legion monitors this entire quadrant. You hear everything. So you tell me what I need to know, you tell me now, and I'll be on my way.
Cyber Leader: What is the Doctor's message?
[The entire fleet explodes behind Rory]
Rory: Would you like me to repeat the question?

Dorium Maldovar: [seeing the TARDIS and the Doctor standing in front of him] No! Not me! You don't want me! I'm old! I'm fat! I'm blue! [suddenly furious] You CAN'T need me!!

The Doctor: Hello everyone! Guess who? Please, point a gun at me if it helps you relax.
Let's Kill Hitler [6.8] edit
Mels: [pointing a gun at the Doctor]: I need out of here. NOW!
The Doctor: Anywhere in particular?
Mels: Let's see — you've got a time machine, I've got a gun. What the hell — let's kill Hitler.

Amelia: Why are you always in trouble? You're the most in trouble in the whole school, except for boys.
Mels: And you?
Amelia: I count as a boy
Rory: Am I getting warm?
Amelia: Yes, Rory.

Mels: I took a bus.
Rory: You stole a bus.
Amy: Who steals a bus?

Amy: [throwing arm around Rory] He's gorgeous, he's my favorite guy, but you know, he's gay.
Rory: A friend. [looks at Amy] I'm not gay.

The Doctor: You've shot it! You shot my Tardis! You shot the console!
Mels: It's your fault!
The Doctor: How is it my fault?
Mels: You said guns didn't work in this place! You said we we're in a state of temporal grace!
The Doctor: That was a clever lie, you idiot! Anyone could tell that was a clever lie!

Teselecta antibodies [programmed response]: Welcome. You are unauthorized. Your death will now be implemented. Welcome. You will experience a tingling sensation and then death. Remain calm while your life is extracted.

Adolf Hitler: This box... what is it?
The Doctor: It's a police telephone box from England. That's right, Adolf. The British are coming.

Mels: Penny in the air. [she begins regenerating with Time Lord energies] The penny drops.
Rory: What the hell is going on?
The Doctor: Back! Back! Get back!
Mels: The last time I did this I ended up a toddler — in the middle of New York.
Amy: Okay, Doctor, explain what is happening — please.
The Doctor [having realized the threads of destinies]: "Mels"… short for…
Mels [nods in affirmation]: Melody.
Amy: Yeah. I named my daughter after her.
The Doctor: You named your daughter — after your daughter.

Rory Williams: Is anybody else finding this day just a bit difficult? I'm getting a sort of banging in my head.
Amy Pond: Yeah, I think that's Hitler in the cupboard.
Rory Williams: Not helping.

The Doctor: If you were in a hurry you could have killed me in the cornfield!
Melody: We'd only just met! I'm a psychopath — I'm not rude. [Attempts to shoot the Doctor, but he has stolen the clip from her gun]
Amy: You're not a psychopath! [to the Doctor] Why would she be a psychopath?
Melody: Oh, Mummy, Mummy — pay attention. I was trained and conditioned for one purpose: I was born to kill the Doctor.

Amy: I don't understand, one moment she's going to marry you, then she's gonna kill you?
The Doctor: Well, she's been brainwashed, it all makes sense to her... plus, she's a woman... [beat] oh, shut up, I'm dying!

The Doctor: I need an interface... Voice Interface, come on! Emergency!
[a hologram of the Doctor appears]
Voice Interface: Voice Interface enabled.
The Doctor: Oh, no, no, give me someone I like!
[hologram changes into Rose Tyler]
The Doctor: [sarcastically] Thanks! Give me guilt! [hologram changes to Martha Jones] Also guilt! [hologram changes to Donna Noble] More guilt! Come on, there must be someone else left in the universe I haven't screwed up yet! [hologram changes to 8-year-old Amelia Pond]
Voice Interface: Voice Interface enabled.
The Doctor: Ah... ah! Amelia Pond! Before I got it all wrong... my sweet little Amelia.
Interface Program: I am not Amelia Pond. I am a voice interface.
The Doctor: Ah, let's run away and have adventures! Come along, Pond!
Voice Interface: I am not Amelia Pond. I am a voice interface.
The Doctor: You are SO Scottish... how am I doing?
Voice Interface: Your system has been contaminated by the poison of the Judas tree. You will be dead in 32 minutes.
The Doctor: So, basically, better regenerate, that's what you're saying?
Voice Interface: Regeneration disabled. You will be dead in 32 minutes.
The Doctor: Unless I'm cured, yeah?
Voice Interface: There is no cure. You will be dead in 32 minutes.
The Doctor: Why do you keep saying that?!
Voice Interface: Because you will be dead in 32 minutes.
The Doctor: See, there you go again, skipping 31 whole minutes when I'm absolutely FINE. Scottish, that's all I'm saying.
Voice Interface: You will be fine for 31 minutes. You will be dead in 32 minutes.

Teselecta replicator [in the guise of Amy]: You killed the Doctor on the orders of the movement known as the Silence — an Academy of the Question. You accept and know this to be true?
Melody: Quite honestly, I don't really remember. It was all a bit of jumble. [in pain as the replicator suddenly emits a tormenting beam out of it's mouth]: Get off me!
The Doctor [showing up in white tie and top hat]: Sorry? Did you say she killed the Doctor? The Doctor? Doctor who?

The Doctor [to the replicator tormenting Melody]: Don't you touch her! Do not harm her in any way!
Teselecta leader: Why would you care? She's the woman who kills you.
The Doctor: I'm not dead.
Teselecta leader: You're dying.
The Doctor: Well, at least I'm not a time-traveling shape-shifting robot operated by cross people — which I have got to admit, I didn't see coming. What do you want with her?
Teselecta leader: She's Melody Pond, according to our records, the woman who kills the Doctor.
The Doctor:And I'm the Doctor — so what's it got to do with you?
Teselecta leader: Throughout history many criminals have gone unpunished in their life-times. Time travel has — responsibilities.
The Doctor: Ha, ha ha! What? You got yourselves time travel so you decided to punish dead people?
Teselecta leader: We don't kill them, we extract them near the end of their established time lines.
The Doctor: And then what?
Teselecta leader: Give them hell.
The Doctor: I'd ask you who you think you are, but the answer is pretty obvious. So who do you think I am? "The woman who killed the Doctor." It sounds like you've got my biography in there — I'd love a peek.

Melody: Just tell me. The Doctor. Is he worth it?
Amy: Yes. Yes. He is.
[Melody's hands glow. She kneels down and takes the Doctor's head in her hands]
The Doctor: River? No! What are you doing?
River: Hello, sweetie.
[She kisses him, using her regeneration energy to restore him]

Amy: You're safe now. Apparently you used all your remaining regenerations in one go. You shouldn't have done that.
River: Mother, I had to try.
Amy: I know.
River : He said no one could save him — but he must have known I could.
The Doctor: Rule one: The Doctor lies.
Nurse: She just needs to rest. She'll be absolutely fine.
The Doctor: No, she won't. She will be amazing.

The Doctor: Oh, she'll come looking for us.
Amy: Yeah, but how? How do people even look for you?
The Doctor: Oh, Pond — haven't you figured that one out yet?
[scene shift to Luna University in 5123]
Professor Candy: So then tell me — why do you want to study archeology?
River: Well, to be perfectly honest, Professor, I'm looking for a good man.

The followng are 2 which I removed so as to not trigger numerical based objections as I restored 2 of the above which I consider more significant to the episode and to the series in general:

[Melody interrupting an important social lunch.]
Melody: Ladies and gentlemen. I don't have a thing to wear! [points guns] Take off your clothes!

Rory: Okay, okay, I am trapped inside a giant robot replica of my wife. I'm really trying not to see this as a metaphor.
Closing Time [6.12] edit
The Doctor: A silver rat with glowing red eyes?
Shopkeeper: Yes. Then it zizzed off. I wanted to get one for my nephew. But Stock Room say there's no such item.
The Doctor: I bet they do.

The Doctor [explaining his appearances are not what has caused aliens to appear]: It's a coincidence! It happens! It's what the universe does for[sees Amy and Rory shopping in the store, and Amy being asked by a young girl for her autograph]fun. [suprised to see the child who asked for an autograph pointing towards him — turns around and sees poster featuring Amy modeling for "Petrichor" perfume: "For the girl who's tired of waiting."]

Tenth Doctor edit

Last of the Time Lords [3.13] edit
Martha: Do you wanna know what I was doing, travelling the world?
The Master: [exasperated] Tell me.
Martha: I was telling a story, that's all. No weapons, just words. I did just what The Doctor said. I went across the continents, all on my own, and everywhere I went I found the people and I told them my story... I told them about the Doctor... And I told them to pass it on. To spread the word so that every one would know about the Doctor.
The Master: Faith and hope? Is that all?!
Martha: No! Because I gave them an instruction. Just as the Doctor said...
The Doctor: [in flashback] Use the countdown.
Martha: I told them that if every one thinks of one word, at one specific time—
The Master: Nothing will happen! Is that your weapon? Prayer?!
{The following portion was NOT removed from the page, but more context is indicated by the preceding portions of this dialogue.}
Martha: —Right across the world! One word, just one thought, at one moment! But with fifteen satellites!
The Master: [slowly] What?
Captain Jack: The Archangel Network.
Martha: A telepathic field, binding the whole human race together. All of them, every single person on Earth, thinking the same thing at the same time! And that word, is Doctor!
The Master: Stop it! No, no, no, no you don't!
[The world begins chanting the Doctor's name, he begins rejuvenating]
The Master: Stop this right now! STOP IT!
The Doctor: I've had a whole year to tune myself into the psychic network and integrate with its matrices.
The Master: Stop! I order you to stop!
The Doctor: The one thing you can't do... is stop them thinking. [He begins rising upwards angelically] Tell me the human race is degenerate now... when they can do this.
The Master: [with a look of horror, fury and disbelief] NO!!
[He shoots at the Doctor, but the laser energy is absorbed by a forcefield]
The Doctor: I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.
The Master: Then I'll kill them!
[The Master aims his laser screwdriver at Martha and her family, but the Doctor simply raises his hand and it flies out of the Master's grasp. The Master turns back to face the Doctor]
The Master: You can't do this! You can't do... IT'S NOT FAIR!
The Doctor: And you know what happens now!
The Master: No!
[The Doctor advances towards the terrified Master, who scrambles back, clawing at the walls like an animal]
The Doctor: You wouldn't listen. Because you know what I'm going to say...
[The Master huddles in a corner, hiding his face. The Doctor descends to the ground and puts his arms around the Master soothingly]
The Doctor: I forgive you.

Ninth Doctor edit

Rose [1.1] edit
Rose: So what you’re saying is, the whole world revolves around you?
The Doctor: Sort of, yeah.
Rose: You’re full of it.
The Doctor: Sort of, yeah.

marxism=religion? edit

I just got done talking to a marxist friend and when he got done laughing he suggested that instead of being a jerk I simply give you some links showing that you're wrong.

—This unsigned comment is by Pumpee (talkcontribs) .

Of course fanatics who believe advocates of relgions MUST believe in God or gods, and that all religions are deplorable would NEVER call their form of fanaticism a religion — I have never assumed such NONSENSE. But words are often used to disguise as much as they reveal — and some people DO use the term "religion" for various social convictions, whether they have any declared beliefs about metaphysical matters or not — especially the fanatically held faiths of any group which believes that THEIR way of defining people, places, things, and WORDS is the ONLY way they can or should be defined — and these are indeed often such absolutist faiths as exceed the bounds of even those who DO call their particular forms of faith "religions". I do not OFTEN do so — but sometimes choose to when I feel it is proper to begin to shock people enough that they might begin to wake up from their lazy lethargies of false assumptions — where they assume that so long as they have a gang of fellows who agree with them, they are PROVEN right — especially if they have one large enough to make others suffer for disagreeing with them, or cower in fear of doing so. Truth is NOT dependent primarily upon OPINION — and Reality is not dependent upon it at all. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]

This is not a place for "truth".

—This unsigned comment is by Pumpee (talkcontribs) .
EVERYPLACE is a PLACE for TRUTH — even lies and stupidity are to some extent involved with truths — in ways beyond the reckoning of most. Verifyability is not always easy — even when one sticks to truth, but it certainly is in THIS regard. Pardon my overestimation of others familiarity with the diverse varieties of facts and fictions of human poetry and prose, both which are involved in forming any humanly adequate sense of Reality, and with religion and faiths that declare themselves anti-religious — and their common elements of duplicity and artificial distinctions to justify persecuting each other, or other political or religious faiths, or "deviants" within their own ranks who commit the sins of dissent and must be "purged" as "heretics" to cleanse the group of the "pollution" of any variety of non-standardized ideas. I am sometimes amazed that there seem to be so many people still so naïve and ignorant as to be unaware of the prolific comparisons — but even a quick search brings up this:
Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski, author of the massive and influential Main Currents of Marxism, also regarded Marxism as a religion, especially in its eschatology. The idea of Marxism as religion is not confined to its critics. Marxist Antonio Gramsci wrote that Marxism "is precisely the religion that has to kill off Christianity. It is a religion in the sense that it is also a faith with its own mysteries and practices, and because in our consciences it has replaced the transcendental God of Catholicism with faith in Man and his best energies as the only spiritual reality."
This has only been a brief comment, and there are several other comparisons on the pages I drew this quote from, but I must be leaving soon — I have delayed adressing some things I must before leaving for a while... ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joseph Stalin edit

If you tink stalin was good leader or greatest leader isn't important what's important is that he an icon of atheism world wide. You ask man on street who this Douglas Adams is and most have never heard of him. You say the name Stalin and they know who you're talking about. --Pumpee 05:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be increasingly behaving as simply a troll — by making contentious edits, accusations, assessments and removing properly placed, formatted and source information from the page you are contending about. For most people, Stalin is hardly considered an "icon" of athiesm, so much as one of totalitarian dictatorship. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian anarchism edit

No problem. Thanks for looking over my edits. Just a small thing - Is there any way I can unify my Wikipedia user page across accounts (such as Wikiquote) without just copying and pasting? If I change something on my main account, I do not want to have to duplicate the amendment on all accounts. I am already running the unified login. Nirvana2013 10:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 I think that there might be something like that in the works somewhere, but I haven't personally looked into it, and don't know that much about it, if it is being developed, or has been. I am just checking in before leaving for a bit, but thanks again for creating Christian anarchism. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feminism edit

Believing you to be an experienced editor based on your policy violations in both edit summaries and abuse of talk pages I was content to allow you some latitude in displaying poor behavior. Looking at your userpage though it seems you have something of a sordid history of sockpuppetry and other violations. As a former admin I should not have to tell you about proper netiguite in Wikimedia projects.--Cybermud 00:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sure your sordidly insulting remarks which attempt to make my past attempts at doing genuinely good work and promoting general good will seem entirely sordid, and your transparent attempts to intimidate me might work with a far less experienced and intelligent idiot than I happen to be. I honestly must laugh at most attempts to intimidate or threaten me, for many reasons which I might eventually disclose. I have been threatened with death on more than one occasion in very genuine and immediate ways, and I have always been surprisingly and indeed astonishingly resolute in my defiance of improper demands upon me or others, and acceptance of the likelihood or apparent certainty of facing death because of my decisions or actions. Some who know of some of my actions consider it miraculous that I have survived some of my acts of peculiar determination.
I am not easily dissuaded or persuaded by anything but honest and frank observations which seem valid and correct — any assertions or efforts I consider to be unjust or hypocritical to any degree persuade me to nothing but contempt for the low rational and ethical perceptions of the people who insist upon making them. I honor ALL people to the extent I trust them to be capable of reasonable responses to reasonable assessments, even when they must for various reasons disagree with those I happen to hold. I will confess that I am not greatly inclined to greatly honor people of so little integrity that they take great exception to honest expressions of opinion, even those I myself must oppose. Some of your comments or actions have actually contained some reasonable and perhaps valid assessments, but frankly I find most of them insultingly presumptive — and in response to brusque behavior in removing material others had added and I and others considered sufficiently appropriate for inclusion to that article, I responded with brusque remarks in restoring the material. They were an honest declaration of my observations and perceptions, and perhaps someone who was less irritated and indignant about many forms of human hypocrisy and presumption might have been more mildly discreet or even cloyingly hypocritical and flattering in their remarks. I plainly am not one of those people. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]

Hi! And Eno! edit

Ѽ helo thar! About two hours ago, I added a quote to the Brian Eno page, which had been untouched for a while, and like two minutes later you came by and spiffed up the page. First off, thank you! (My superpowers do not include spiffing.) Second off: Assuming it wasn't coincidence, how'd you do that? Namely: is the Eno page on your watchlist?; or is there a realtime scroll/crawl/tickertape somewhere of all page-saves, and Eno caught your eye there? I'm always learning (and forgetting, and relearning) basic stuff about Wikimedia stuff, and I occasionally work up some curiosity. (By the way, you might like this thing I added: Peter Schmidt (artist)#Ten_Freedoms. And yes, that's a sorely unspiffed new page there. Rearrangement and wisdom welcome.) — Sburke 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the navigation section of most pages one can find a link to the Recent changes page. I have a bookmark set in most of my browsers by which to view the last couple hundred changes here, and one can tweak one's preferences to have the page default to different levels of display. One can also place pages on one's watch list, which produces a bold rendition of the page names in this list of changes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks edit

...for your excellent work improving Harvest - Cheers! BD2412 T 03:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm always eager to do what good I can, where I can, when I can — and I hope to be able to do more elsewhere soon. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi edit

Thanks for your welcome. How do I SUL my account ? I tried Special:MergeAccount, and I've got linked Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiversity accounts now. I'm not currently active on any other Wikimedia projects - I had a Wikipedia account a long time ago, but found things there too stressful. I was just reading this site today, and really enjoying it, so I thought I'd help out. --A Divine 20:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit rusty, as I haven't registered any new accounts in quite a while (despite it being a rather recreational and inspirational hobby of mine in the past), but there should be a link which shows up in your Preferences "Manage your global account" which will permit you to take whatever actions are necessary. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

to User Kalki, signed User Buster Keaton edit

hi, I wrote a message for you on my User Talk ; yours, Buster Keaton 16:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm always happy to help others to find a bit more happiness — and much like Meher Baba's assertion: "Don't worry — Be Happy." ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for welcome and help edit

TisTRU (talk · contributions)

Thanks edit

Hi, thank you very much for welcoming me. Hopefully I will contribute somehow. I see that you have expanded The Urantia Book article. That's excellent. It's no wonder that English Wikipedia (and it's sister projects) is way better than other Wikipedias, if en-users act so rapidly and lavishly. Have a nice day!--Maksymilian Sielicki 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virginia Woolf edit

Don't worry, I'm done with that section. Although I'd like to know why you think that quotation I removed is important. :-) Nemo 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe I added it to the page originally, and would temper it with other observations to the extent I myself might ever quote it, but I do like it:
I like the copious, shapeless, warm, not so very clever, but extremely easy and rather coarse aspect of things; the talk of men in clubs and public-houses; of miners half naked in drawers — the forthright, perfectly unassuming, and without end in view except dinner, love, money and getting along tolerably; that which is without great hopes, ideals, or anything of that kind; what is unassuming except to make a tolerably, good job of it. I like all that.
I simply like the honest simplicity of the statement — though I myself would usually qualify such a statement in various ways.... ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Sorry, I don't know en.quote policies and guidelines very well, I mainly edit it.quote, so I have to ask you: is "I like it" a valid reason to keep a quotation here? Thanks, Nemo 19:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some would disagree, and seek to set up much more artificial and convoluted rules for inclusion, adapted to their own particular inclinations, which could then be imposed on others with less chance of successful objections, but I think someone "liking" something is generally a good enough reason, if there are not any significant and compelling reasons against it. I am much more a "preservationist" and an "inclusionist" than most in many matters — and I know and accept others have different inclinations. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC) + tweakReply[reply]


Return to the user page of "Kalki/2011".