User talk:Kalki/2015

Add topic
Active discussions

This is an archive of past discussions on my user talk page for 2015.

Some IP users are not only trying to mess with me on Wikiquote...Edit

But it is also doing so on Wikipedia, on an account I abandoned. IP users: ( ( ( ( ( ( ( I request that all these and all other IPs it uses be blocked indefinitely, and all pages it vandalized and my talk page should be protected indefinitely (or at least for a year).

What I want to know is who is using these IPs, and why is it continuing to unfaithfully undo my good-faith edits without first consulting me? Plus, I want my dormant DawgDeputy page on Wikipedia protected indefinitely from these IPs. WikiLubber (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I, of course, can do little about such matters as concern you, at present, and thus I confess I have not scrutinized much of the situation. I can only hope things are well resolved as favorably as can be for all who are well intentioned. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Busy, and busier, and busier — again...Edit

As I actually expected I might be, I am beginning to take on many more tasks, elsewhere, on other projects, some of them on the internet, at the early part of this year, though somewhat differently than I expected, I did not have quite so much time to attend to some matters here as I would have liked, before doing so. I continue to expect to be here nearly daily, and will continue to do what I can among many other concerns. I actually expect that very soon a few other sites will probably receive far more of my time and attention than this one, until perhaps the spring or early summer (of the northern hemsiphere), when I might have more time to do more here once again. I am NOT promising that, but am hoping for it. SOME of the things I do on at least one or two other sites I intend to become more active on will probably eventually be useful for some of the tasks I believe necessary to address here, but they will probably need much work apart from anything directly helpful here for some time yet.

I might eventually link to at least one or two sites where I do work under other names by the end of the year, so that broader perspectives on my activities here and elsewhere can be appreciated — but I am not promising that either. I remain a person very reticent about providing much personal information needlessly to anyone on the internet, and encourage others to be so also, for I am very aware that many are the forms of truth which can EASILY be distorted or otherwise misused by the unscrupulous in various ways, as an abundance of activities familiar to many can easily illustrate.

Just within the past few days, I have been very significantly reminded by a few coincidences or synchronicities, to the profound aptness of some of the observations of poets, philosophers and story-tellers of the ages, and just within the last hour or so, prompted to significantly note the remarks of Immanuel Kant: So act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.

Right now, I must again prepare to leave, but expect to be back here and do a few necessary things, within a few hours, but must attend to a few other matters first. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Hi. I was wondering about this revert of me. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere there's a bright-line rule of a maximum of 250-words per quote. Mind you, I'm extremely new to Wikiquote, but I'd still like to know what's up. Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 01:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiquote. I have been about to leave for some time, and you caught me just in time as I was about to actually do so — but I will note before my departure that whatever limits may have been suggested and accepted by a few people interesting in impressing "hard limits" on others in various ways, has been a VERY small minority of people, and I, for one have always favored very loose guidelines that permit and acknowledge the FACT that fair usage of quotes is NOT something that has been established in such terms, and many of the suggestions on limits should be merely that, unless they clearly are reaching genuine copyright violation regions. I believe that many of these efforts at being over-bearing with rigid rules by a few have driven many others away from here, and even some of the people who are more inclined to creating rigid rules have acknowledged some of the limits that have been presented thus far are a bit more stringent than necessary. I probably will seek to address and clarify such issues further within a couple of months, and perhaps address them a bit within the next few weeks. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
If I may, I would also point out that the so-called limits remain part of a proposed guideline and as yet are not official policy. That being said, we try to keep things within reason. In this particular case, I agree with Kalki that the given quotes (even if the policy were officially in place) rise to the level of at least discussion related to an exception. In the end, I tried to enact a compromise by cutting portions of the quote and splitting it into smaller bits. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The future must not belong to slanderers.Edit

On seeing him active for the first time since 19 December 2014, I posted this greeting to DTom's talk page, as I do generally appreciate many of his contributions, and his general frankness of opinion, even though I do believe him to be generally far more belligerent towards others than is either properly respectful of individuals, or of some forms of prudence in dealing with them:

Glad to see you back.
Happy New Year! I had been a bit worried at your lack of activity lately. Welcome back. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 03:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That was followed the next day by the following post here, which I repositioned so as to focus on truths of potentials for Humanist Unity in Ethical resolves, rather than what I regarded as clearly bigoted distortions of truths:
DanielTom chose to start this section of my talk page, with the title "Quote Of The Day" and images and quotes I believe clearly designed to inflame, promote and encourage various forms of religious and political bigotry, and little qualm in using and manipulating some distortions of truth promoted by adherents to both racial and religious bigotries. I have renamed it, and added more context to the quote of President Obama's speech opposing ALL forms of religious bigotry — something MANY blind and arrogant bigots do not wish to even perceive, let alone openly acknowledge.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.
~ Barack Hussein Obama ~

The following is DanielTom's effort to denigrate and desecrate Truth by making Fairness SEEM Foul, and his foul efforts fair:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
~ Barack Hussein Obama ~


(Actually for yesterday.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The future must not belong to slanderers. PERIOD. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There was MUCH of an angry and outraged response I typed out to the above atrociously arrogant and bigoted distortions of diverse and divergent matters, which DanielTom had posted earlier, but I was too busy to refine it and take some aspects of the anger out earlier, before posting it, and did not wish anger to be a final word on my part, before attending to other things.

Clearly a tragic crime against rational ethical and mystical integrity of Humanity was committed by some arrogant oppressive terrorists, whose levels of mystical ethical and rational competence does not match that of a healthy and sane four your old child. Far less tragic but similarly pathetic crimes are doubtless committed by trolls worldwide, eager to use such examples of the brutal obnoxious bigotry of others to justify and magnify the powers of their own forms of brutal obnoxious bigotry.

MANY are the crimes against Justice, Unity, Liberty, and Love of Humanity and Humanist Hopes of Happiness which have been committed by the extremely ignorant and confused who in their brutalities declare themselves to be acting in the "name" of YHWH, in the name of Allah, in any of the far more than nine billion names of God, and some even in the name Mercy or Truth, Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love of Humanity.

What words or excuses or justifications those DRIVEN by HATREDS and FEARS of other human beings into acts of profound villainy, depravity, or cowardly support or promotion of such acts MUST be disregarded as rather incidental — it is ever their BIGOTRY and EVIL which MUST be opposed. Those who seek to fight against Extremist BIGOTRY by promoting forms of their own SERVE and ARE ENSLAVED ENSLAVERS to the process of fear-mongering and hate-mongering bigotry. MANY are the cowards and villains who would like to silence or ignore the abilities of any others to make any comparisons of the tactics of hate-mongering and fear-mongering which THEY make to those who are the most extremely depraved examples of such impulses as terrorists and many types of psychopathic and sociopathic killers provide. Such people want to go on promoting hate and ENCOURAGING new forms of terrorism, even if they do not involve themselves directly in such risky endeavors, and should be EXPOSED for doing so, vigorously, and may the wise be ever able to forgive them, and try to find ways to help them come to ranges of sanity and greater levels of human Awareness, Life and Love.

APPARENTLY, because I do not vilify nor seek to vilify all muslims and all of Islam because of the ACTS of some EXTREMELY DELUDED nihilistic terrorists who might actually believe themselves to be "good Muslims" (as are many who view themselves "good" Christians, or "good" Jews or "good" ANYTHING to the EXCLUSION of others), DanielTom seems to think I should be abused and mocked and insulted because I do not and CANNOT agree with him that there is "goodness" or even "greatness" in his particular blanket bigotry and hatred of MANY of the diverse cultures of Islam.

The following was just one portion of a much larger declaration of anger that I did not choose to post, in response to DanielTom's presumptions:

I DO hope you SOON can and DO get over your sick forms of bigotry, even as I hope the world gets over the affliction of MANY forms of it, SUCH people as YOU and the supporters of ANY form of tyranny or terrorism indulge in. Truth is ever a blessing, and I am providing you true indications of my opinions, to counter what apparently are your delusions about them. ONLY by the honing away of BRUTAL BIGOTRIES through confrontations with ALL-embracing Truths can human minds and souls be HEALED from the ways of foulest hatred and indifference towards their fellow human beings. I am a Humanist, just as much as I am a Universalist Mystic, and I am NOT inclined to either punish others needlessly, NOR let them punish me or others needlessly. YOUR ignorant efforts to anger me succeeded. If you actually think that GENUINE anger at your acts OR those of any terrorist idiots will make me renounce my VERY broad humanistic tolerance of WIDE ranges of scientific and mystical symbolism and expressions, which are NOT idolatrous, and INCLUDES those found to varying extents in MANY and even most forms of atheism, paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and MANY other traditions, you are mistaken. You have, however succeeded in disrupting me from attending to many things PROBABLY more important than VENTING my anger, so if you want to feel "proud" of that waste of my time and yours, go ahead.

I have stated many times, that though I certainly am NOT an advocate of initiating any unjust form of violence against ANYONE, I am also NOT what some might regard as a "pacifist", inclined to placidly submit to it, or advise others to do so, especially if this serves the most aggressive oppressors more than it serves prudence — but close my comments with a posting of what had actually been the QOTD layout on the date of this disgraceful incitation to bigotry, which is a reminder that there are MANY grave dangers in this world — ALL of them involving BIGOTRY and CALLOUS DISREGARD of Human life and human rights — and not all of them motivated by quasi-mystical excuses so much as selfish and social IGNORANCE and CONFUSION. There are ALSO opportunities for progress, greater understanding and truly honorable Peace, and Serenity and these are such things as the wise ever strive to help all Humanity attain. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks



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

~ A. J. Muste ~


File:First peace badge.jpg

further contentions…Edit

After the above postings there was no response here, but then I posted to his talk page some of my responses to seeing more postings of quotes of anti-Islamic bigotry, which have become something of a typical theme for him, at times, though thankfully not an exclusive ones, and he still provides much of FAR better worth:

I will not rescind my greetings of good will, but you truly have seemed to become little more than a derisive and denigrative troll since you have returned to activity. I hope you eventually can see beyond the darkness of your own soul as well as that of terrorists and tyrants and other ignorant and confused fools who practice and promote such bigotry and unjust intolerance as you can recognize. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
It is not "bigotry" to oppose the eating of dogs. I've been a vegetarian for 7 years now (and I'm not that old), so I actually object to the eating of any animal corpses, in general. Which other quote are you objecting to, exactly? If you look at the book's page history, you will see that I've been adding such quotes from way back, and not only "since [I] have returned to activity". In any case, thanks for your greetings, much appreciated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
For starters, after the polite greeting I gave you after your first edit since last month, was responded to with the extremely insulting posting clearly meant to arouse and incite bigotry against Muslims, and Obama, on my talk page, with a quote which I expanded for context, in my response to it, also renaming the section "The future must not belong to slanderers." This has been followed by what has become a rather strongly evident focus on posting all manner of quotes of those who insist Islam is innately evil, which of course it is your legitimate right to do, if that is your inclination, and those you quote have their right to speak what they wish — and I have the right to call such things bigoted and extremist reactions to the bigoted extremists who might think of themselves as "good muslims" but whose actions are an insult not only to all of Islam but to all of Humanity, as are any bigoted oppressions or assaults upon human beings. As you have done with others in the past, a feigned ignorance as to "whatever I could possibly be talking about", and making it seem the observation is simply of something illusory as the examples you provide to cite your innocence of any such intentions. I am not greatly disturbed by anything which is true and generally beneficial to humanity, but do get irritated and angry at those things which foster detrimental hatreds of human beings, of ANY traditions which are not innately and entirely brutal as any absolute endorsements of bigotry are. Being an absurdist universalist mystic, I do recognize that MOST people, MOST of the time, actually are better than the doctrines they often idolize, as they focus on the best within these — it is always tragic and repellent to the wise when they focus on the worst things in themselves and in others and PROJECT many assumptions of that vileness out onto others. I see that you have begun to make a few more general edits now, and certainly welcome such activity. Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The above section was then removed from his talk page with the comment: "let's keep your slanderous accusations all in the same place – your talk page, section "The future must not belong to slanderers." (ironically named)"
I see that in removing my comments, stating quite clearly the TRUTH of a few matters, and of my opinions, you behave in a way quite typically of many of the small minded and belligerent, in seeking to censor the truth that does not flatter your dishonest statements and distortions. It is your right to remove this statement of honest opinion from your talk page as well — but it does show your level of cowardice in not being able to accept truth that is not flattering to YOU. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I will respond on your talk page, in the appropriate section. Feel free to re-post anything you want there. But do stop insulting me (even though, I confess, being called a "coward" by anonymous users is always slightly amusing). ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You continue to seek to incite anger, and I too am amused by the cowardly ways that people caught in various forms of dishonesty seek to change the subjects ENTIRELY, but you in your irrationality and intent to insult me, call me "cowardly" because I use a pseudonym here, as is my right, and is EVERYONE's right who does not abuse the privileges which are provided by the Wikimedia projects. To call me "cowardly" for exercising a right to PRUDENT anonymity in relation to MOST people on the internet, which is properly available to ALL of us here, is something you perhaps would have me deliberately remove — which would be of clear BENEFIT to those fanatics who don't like such truths as I am willing to speak. I have and I SHALL speak very boldly against ALL forms of bigotry — NOT merely the bigotry of some against some factions of humanity I might honestly and fairly favor, but even against my adversaries and those who would wish to do me various forms of harm — and NOT merely here, and at other sites where I have retained OTHER pseudonymous identities, as is my RIGHT to do. It is ALSO my right and perhaps my DUTY to elsewhere in times and places of MY choosing OR of MY decisions to INTERVENE to confront various forms of injustice, FACE to FACE with bigots and aggressors of various kinds, to and openly and publicly oppose their bigotry, with whatever means are REQUIRED, as I actually HAVE DONE in the past, and expect to be doing again in coming months; and if I survive the belligerence CHARACTERISTIC of many forms of bigotries I intend to face, throughout many of the coming years.
Thus to call me a "coward" because I do not let you or others know "all about me" and my personal identity makes me laugh at the SHALLOWNESS of your thought and aims, and your lack of sensibilities in accomplishing those of lasting merit. In my statement here have just revealed SOME assertions of what I have EXPERIENCED, and what I intend to do in coming months and years, and to the extent you learn of these, and still have any inclination to call me "cowardly", I do pity you, as to do so in the full extent of what shall be revealed would require that you have become either literally an imbecile, or a blatant liar, or both.
I do NOT demand others be so bold as I, nor so discrete as I, in regard to ANY thing, but I will be adamantly honest, adamantly secretive, and adamantly indifferent to the IDIOCY and arrogance of those who think I or ANY person should have their honesty or discretion be something entirely limited to THEIR terms of what it should be.
Those who would actually demand of ANY or ALL people such behavior as THEY might feel comfortable with, but others do not, ARE to that extent oppressors, and it shows the degree of their own pettiness of mind to attempt to denigrating people for their LEGITIMATE rights to SPEAK as they wish, as OPENLY as they wish, or as DISCRETELY and as safe from zealous bigots as they wish, when that right to be PRUDENT is deemed cowardice, and their right to vilify all who can be associated with those actually guilty of crimes — or even merely unpopular, and to censor and silent their objections or defenses is deemed "courage". In this world, at this time, MANY Bigotries are rampant and oppressors motivated by their hatred or callous disdain of the proper rights of others can exist as individual operatives, or those of collective means of oppression, as many people are well aware.
Unlike some, who I believe are relatively imprudent in many ways, I certainly assert and encourage the RIGHT of people to MAINTAIN many forms of PRIVACY and where they CAN to attain and use pseudonymous identities on the internet, especially when there are dangers from all forms of predators and frauds who could misuse personal information, or cowardly and vicious fanatics espousing all manner of bigotries who would be eager to assault or silence those who declare truths that EXPOSE the lies, delusions and deliberate distortions of truth they regularly make.
I have been inspired that there remain so many people who can make very lucid responses to acts of bigotry, rather than descending into it themselves, as J. K. Rowling did in her courageous responses to bigotry, outlined in "JK Rowling attacks Murdoch for tweet blaming all Muslims for Charlie Hebdo deaths" in The Guardian (11 January 2015), and the broad declarations of hundreds of thousands indicated in "The Paris unity march shows we must protect freedom of expression, not curtail it further" by Julie Posetti in The Guardian (12 January 2015), where the author declared:
I was just one Australian face in a human sea of more than one and half million Parisians yesterday. I was trying to comprehend what I was a part of when the placard thrust in front of my eyes made it clear: “La liberte d’expression n’a pas de religion” – freedom of expression has no religion. This was a rally to defend the essential global human right to free expression. A right that should not be bound by religious, cultural or political strictures.
We were marching to remember the victims of the Charlie Hebdo newsroom massacre and the Kosher grocery store siege. We were marching in sympathy with those in mourning who joined us. We were marching in defiance, determined to rise above the fear and chaos the terrorists inflicted on our city. But, overwhelmingly, we marched to defend our right to freely express our views.
But again, as you did the other day, what I perceive to be your noticeable support of bigotries, has prompted me to consume MUCH of the time I had intended to use adding new material on the POSITIVE and GOOD aspects of Humanity such as those exhibited by the great and wise Quaker Rufus Jones, whose page I finally got around to creating today. I seek to add MORE pages on Quakers and other mystics of MANY traditions in the coming year, and I also have no intentions of even seeming to approve ANY form malicious or callous distortions of truth, such as is OFTEN used to improperly justify or excuse the oppressions of MANY people, even many of the most innocent, the most heroic and the most saintly, through means of quite FALSE association of some attributes of nihilists and authoritarians and all manner of absolutist bigots, with other attributes which MANY of the most innocent and even most Saintly of people can also have.
I will probably do a few more things here, but expect to be leaving soon, and I do recognize that you, and MOST people, MOST of the time, whatever the cultures they belong to, or support, do generally mean well. I believe ALL of Life would go along better IF people could rise above the bigotries by which they seek to justify their will to scorn, their will to hate, and their will to punish others — or themselves, with needless oppressions. So it goes... Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Just a correction: you called me a coward; I merely pointed out how amusing that was coming from an anonymous user. Of course you have the right to be anonymous, and I can assure you from personal experience that that is a very wise choice (namely to avoid defamation and violent threats). Peace ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I did indeed state "it does show your level of cowardice" to have removed my quite lucid and honest responses on our matters of dispute. I actually prefer to avoid using terms like "coward" or "villain" to refer to specific people, but sometimes in recent years have done so, to break through some forms of indifference to milder declarations. I think we can both agree that people should have the right to declare honest criticism of others, and that people should not be coerced into either silence or dishonesty, or even to honest speech upon matters, to those with clear intentions to be unjustly oppressive in various ways. I believe it would be better for all that people if more people focused MOSTLY on the best of humanity and the Universe, but I acknowledge and accept the right of anyone to honestly declare the worst which they can, of ANYTHING, but I don't believe that such things should be the primary, or even a major focus of most people. I believe that many forms of Peace and Serenity can and shall grow, with MANY forms of Awareness, Life and Love — and this shall occur all the more abundantly when people are more free of any prejudices against many creeds and ideas, and more free to choose. And I actually do recognize that there are many ignorant and confused people who would call themselves "good" members of MANY faiths, who would seek to reduce such rights. The good and bad of humanity is NOT usually easily or reliably demarcated by the LABELS they choose for each other or themselves. I believe we can both accept that assertion. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

resumption of commentary on the first postings which had been labeled "Quote of the Day"Edit

I had made a response in the above section, and DanielTom posted this just above that section, which would appear to falsify some of the statements subsequent to it, so I moved it here, to preserve more of the actual chronology of our dialogue.

The "Quote Of The Day" I posted above quite literally was the quote of the day, being widely quoted by the media, and several world-renowned newspapers, that same day, in the exact same context in which I presented it. Kalki's libelous response to it could just as well have been directed at others, notably conservative commentators, such as Matt Walsh and Michael Savage (pay close attention at how the latter started his show).

Kalki's abusive response is so full of distortions, vitriol, and anger, that is beneath responding to. Yet, one may ask why he had such a reaction, to the mere posting of a notable and pertinent quote. Bertrand Russell, I think, gives us the answer:

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants." —B.R. An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1943)

It can not all be about Islam, nor the Islamization of Europe, which as I discussed with Kalki before is inevitable due to the decline in Western birth rates, and consequent need for mass immigration. It is, rather, more about Kalki's blind and irrational worship of President Obama, who (in Kalki's mind) cannot be criticized, or even quoted, lest his own words, by themselves, should indict him in the eyes of all reasonable people. In any case, if Kalki thinks he is being "abused and mocked and insulted" by the mere posting of a quote on his talk page (because it makes him feel cognitive dissonance), he should simply remove it—I certainly would not re-post it.

I could end here, but it does pain me to see someone go to his tomb in ignorance and delusion, so, as a friend, I will say a few more words. You see, like me, I expect Kalki has no plans to move to an Islamic country, preferring instead to continue to live in a free westernized nation. But, as he wants to feel good about himself, he can not allow himself to think straight, or even start to acknowledge the threat that Islam poses to jews, gays and apostates, so he is left with no alternative but to embrace the sort of mysticism that even children would be embarrassed to hold, descending so low as to quote approvingly "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind", thus suggesting in very poor taste that the recently-murdered cartoonists had what was coming to them. I suppose the Christians that are now being slaughtered in the Middle East and Africa also brought it on, right? Maybe the women and children buried alive by ISIS didn't pay enough attention to Kalki's rules of karma?

Kalki writes: "What words or excuses or justifications those driven by hatreds and fears of other human beings into acts of profound villainy, depravity, or cowardly support or promotion of such acts must be disregarded as rather incidental — it is ever their bigotry and evil which must be opposed". This gets it exactly, and perfectly, wrong. First of all, what to Kalki and me is "evil", could to Islam be "good". I'm sure the cartoonists' killers thought that what they were doing was good (and, according to Islam, it was – Muhammad approves of a man killing the mother of his kids for criticizing Muhammad). So Kalki is simply wrong – we do need to look at what drives people to terrorize and kill others, even if that ends up being contrary to what Kalki would like to believe, to feel good, namely, that all religions are equal and peaceful, when in fact they are not. I see Kalki continues his slanderous attacks against me, below, but I won't dignify them with a response. Peace to all. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Further comments…Edit

The above comment " I see Kalki continues his slanderous attacks against me, below, but I won't dignify them with a response. Peace to all." of course refers to comments ABOVE those, because other than the section of graphically enhanced postings about Obama's quote, I am trying to keep the sequence of dialogue between us as intact as possible, and as I stated earlier, I moved the above section. The rest of it is so complexly IRRATIONAL and INCOHERENT in regard to MANY aspects of the TRUTH as to deserve MUCH ridicule and CONTEMPT, which I do not have the time to fully provide it.

Once again I will even more bluntly note that to label any criticism and attempts at clear exposure of what I believe to be rather OBVIOUS DUPLICITY or the repetition if not the origination of slanders and deceits, to be an act of "slander", is either a somewhat a rather imaginative or very deluded use of the term, which I believe would be regarded as genuinely legitimate by only those of very low intelligence or rationality, or called that only by those of low moral integrity.

With what I discern to be rather obvious "distortions, vitriol, and anger", you state "Kalki's abusive response is so full of distortions, vitriol, and anger, that is beneath responding to" and then go on to respond to what I had previously stated, with a quote you seems to imply has relevance: "If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."

It is certainly NOT assertions of opinions contrary to my own which made actually made me angry — it is the clear and BLATANT DISHONESTY and HYPOCRITICAL DECEITFULNESS with which MANY assertions were being made ABOUT those of Obama, and ARE being made about his views and those of MOST muslims, that I consider not merely contemptible, but I believe ridiculously apparent to anyone of even average intelligence, who examines the full flow of the assertions which have been made. You then go on to emphasize a statement of Russell you would be wise to actually HEED: "whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants." Again I state, you accuse me of slander, prominently, and I believe the evidence clearly does NOT warrant that — I have stated what you have done, and MY OPINIONS of what have been done — and I have not attempted to STIFLE or DELETE any of your statements, as YOU actually HAVE chosen to stifle or delete some of mine — and if I was mistaken in believing that it was YOU who deliberately distorted and butchered Obama's statement of general opposition to ALL forms of religious bigotry and intolerance to make it SEEM a statement in favor or support of BRUTAL TERRORISM by casual readers, or those who actually AGREE with the bigotries of those you have quoted, then I can accept that I was mistaken in that regard. You state you merely presented what was widely quoted by "the media", and several "world-renowned newspapers" — without stating which they were, but whatever they might have been, I do not doubt that there are many ideologues and bigots running "world-renowned newspapers" and outlets of "the media" who have been obsessively defaming and denigrating Obama for years.

You go on to rather STUPIDLY accuse me of blind and irrational worship of President Obama — and that TRULY makes me laugh. I do actually admire the man, generally, but I worship NO man or woman, and just because I react with anger to seeing his HONORABLE statements being distorted in HORRIBLY misleading ways to make them SEEM dishonorable certainly does NOT make me a "worshipper" of him. I am NO abject worshipper of ANY man or woman, and I am NO RESPECTER of PERSONS or POSITION in regard to OPPOSING anyone's ERRORS, DISTORTIONS or LIES.

I worship REALITY and I live to HONOR truth — and I believe you are quite in need of far greater respect and awareness of BOTH.

You then go on to seek to belittle me personally and the broad Grace-affirming faiths of MANY diverse traditions with your quite obviously dull, INFANTILE assessment of what my beliefs, actually are saying that I "embrace the sort of mysticism that even children would be embarrassed to hold, descending so low as to quote approvingly "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind", thus suggesting in very poor taste that the recently-murdered cartoonists had what was coming to them. I suppose the Christians that are now being slaughtered in the Middle East and Africa also brought it on, right? Maybe the women and children buried alive by ISIS didn't pay enough attention to Kalki's rules of karma?"

You then ADD to that statement of vitriolic delusion with an ABYSMALLY STUPID assertion of your beliefs about what I believe: "contrary to what Kalki would like to believe, to feel good, namely, that all religions are equal and peaceful, when in fact they are not. That ANYONE who embraces wide universalist beliefs and sentiments believe "all religions are equal and peaceful" is a common and PATHETIC TROPE of those who seek to justify their bigotries against some particular faiths, or ALL other faiths. Muslim fanatics can use it just as much as atheist fanatics and fanatics of any other faiths, seeking to "justify" their EXCLUSIONS of others. I, like MANY other humanists and rationalists and mystics CAN and DO assert that ALL human beings and all human ideas have SOME good in them, and some forms of Truth can be determined from them — and that is a FAR CRY from the FOUL and outright IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION and simple FALSEHOOD that I therefore believe "all religions are equal and peaceful." I firmly KNOW I have NEVER said anything so STUPID, so I advise you to stop being so STUPID as to repeatedly insist that I ever have or DO. As MANY bigots seem yet to unable to realize, the repetition of STUPID FALSEHOODS do not make them SO — it simply permits the most ignorant and confused of people to BELIEVE them so, and be comfortable believing such things — and I do realize that that is OFTEN all that many of the most manipulative are aiming at any way.

ONCE AGAIN you slip into EXTREME vitriolic delusion and common forms of BIGOTED DISTORTIONS of truth about those who advocate GENUINE Harmony with all who can be harmonized when you even IMPLY, let alone seem to adamantly INSIST that I believe or support justifications of the INSANE murders of ANYONE, and IMPLY that my adding of a QUOTE of of a QUAKER PACIFIST SOCIALIST, which HAD been selected as the ACTUAL quote of the day here PRIOR to this whole EPISODE of INSANITIES, and includes a quote of the CHRISTIAN BIBLE as something to be taken as an ENDORSEMENT of the MURDER of journalists by FANATICAL IDIOTS who might sincerely BELIEVE themselves servants of "the ONLY right forms of Islam", when they defame and disgrace the religion even MORE than the bigots who use their acts of assaults to justify the blanket condemnation of ALL muslims and all of the MANY forms of Islam.

You end saying "Peace to all" — except apparently ANY Muslims, who are not "enlightened" enough to abandon ALL their faiths and traditions, and realize that nearly any religion they could "convert" to would be superior and save them from the damnation of bigots who seem to believe Islam should be the chief object of contempt in the world, rather than a more sane and rational target of contempt, like ANY form of intolerant bigotry.

Finally, for your information, YOU do NOT know MUCH of my history, as I have NOT chosen to reveal much, and you certainly do NOT know my intentions, and you do not know many of my own EXPECTATIONS of what dangers and dooms I will eventually face, but I will assert that I firmly and confidently believe that MANY of your presumptuous accusations, assumptions and assertions will seem not merely ridiculously ignorant and simply WRONG, but truly CONTEMPTIBLE in the courses of Time, and the coming months and years. I hope you can recover from your humiliating disgraceful errors, and learn to be less belligerent towards those who CAN and DO fight against TYRANNY, TERRORISM, and ANY and ALL forms of UNJUST OPPRESSIONS. So it goes.… ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

I am so DISGUSTED at the waste of my time responding extensively to what is plainly an incoherently anti-Islamic, anti-Humanist, anti-mystical rant of bigotries, that though I certainly do not wish to prevent you from completing whatever responses you wish to make, here, I would REQUEST that after this dialogue ends, you never again post ANY anti-Islamic or ANY form of anti-religious or ANTI-ANYONE compositions or statements to my page. I generally DO prefer to focus MOSTLY on the GOOD in humanity rather than the IDIOCIES, do NOT NEED many more reminders of that than those I actually WITNESS every day, and simply do NOT wish to ever again waste so much of my time addressing what I perceive to be vain repetitions of quite FALSE and MISLEADING absolutist statements, about the absolute worthlessness of others, or of some creed. In this matter, you have succeeded in being very MUCH of a time-consuming troll, and as I have stated, I have MUCH better things I would RATHER be doing, such as providing quotes of mystical, ethical and rational lore and ideas, from MANY diverse traditions, and advocates of MANY diverse beliefs and sciences — NONE of which I believe are absolutely "equal" to any other, though ALL are worthy of various forms of unique consideration, respect and criticism. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You have GOT to be kidding me. YOU responded to a simple quote by Obama with a wall of text attacking ME personally for no reason, and didn't even wait for my response before starting attacking me AGAIN, wasting even more of MY time, and just now you posted yet ANOTHER wall of text, and have the nerve to complain about "waste of time". I TOLD you, you could simply revert anything you didn't like, instead of viciously attacking me just to feel good about yourself. And if you had just WAITED a few minutes, I would have been able to post my original response in the appropriate section (as promised) BEFORE your new tiresome sea of text with further countless distortions and wrongful accusations. Now you moved the text around so much that it looks like I never responded to your original "bigotry" charges, which makes this whole page absolutely ridiculous, really. I will say this for the last time: it is not "bigotry" to not want the countries of Europe to become Islamic—in fact, the opposite is true, for with Islam comes great problems, sometimes wars and mountains of bodies; get this through your thick skull: even if Islam were to dominate the West through demographics, peacefully, without civil war, at the very least we would have to see once again in Europe intolerance towards gays, subjugation of women, and obviously very great danger to Jews and apostates. So it is actually people like you, in the long run, who are the real bigots, only you're too stupid and shortsighted to realize it now. Many, many people died in European countries, not just in Portugal and Spain, to keep the continent unislamic, and free, but you would give that away just to feel good in the present (for however many decades you've got left), and screw everyone else in the future. No. F*ck you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
My "wall of text" is simply an extensive addressing of repetitions of either extremely irrational delusions or blatant lies, or combinations of BOTH. AGAIN you seem to have a VERY delicate sensibility — when to CRITICIZE your BLATANT repetitions of DISTORTING bigotries amounts to "attacking ME personally for no reason".
Also, I will point out that unlike MANY far less respectful of TRUTH, I do NOT simply ERASE from my mind or the easily accessible records anything I don’t like — I respond to MANY things with tolerance, but I respond to MANY distortions of TRUTH which I perceive with the CONTEMPT they DESERVE. You state that "Now you moved the text around so much that it looks like I never responded to your original "bigotry" charges, which makes this whole page absolutely ridiculous, really." You have only just begun responding to my assertions of those opinions TODAY, after further dialogue had occurred, so I placed them in the sequence of our dialogue — otherwise some of those things which I had noted would easily SEEM ridiculous, taken out of sequence. The mentions made of the above assertion can and are still as relevant or as irrelevant and incoherent posted in these sections as they would be in those above them. And you keep saying that for me to assert my sincere beliefs and opinions about general humanity and REJECT your characterizing of Islam as simply and innately EVIL, is done "just to feel good." You seem to be the one who seems to most NEED to assert things which have little or no rational cohesion or relevance "just to feel good." I am quite aware that to assert Truth sometimes is QUITE discomforting in MANY ways — especially to those who have long embraced many forms of FALSEHOODS. I actually DO have MANY criticisms I can and DO and AM willing make about those who CLAIM to be "Islamic" while practicing BARBARITIES or promoting bigotries, as I have of ANYONE of ANY faiths who do so, which is what I am doing that NOW — millions of muslims DO reject and oppose the fanatical intolerance of ISIS/ISIL and other terrorist AGGRESSORS, RAPISTS, ENSLAVERS, MURDERERS and other IMBECILES — and I myself INTEND to OPENLY say very HARSH things about these NIHILISTIC IDIOTS — that conceivably could get ME killed, and just MIGHT. You seem aggravated that I don’t accept your willingness to accept YOUR prejudices, presumptions and hostilities as FAIR AND BALANCED and only theirs as FOUL and BIGOTED. I say that there IS a plague of BRUTAL INTOLERANCE among MANY people, with MANY claiming Righteousness in their hatreds and oppression — and NOT just those who are or believe themselves Muslims. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

I do not usually give such notices to others, but I would recommend that all who can make some efforts to go out and SEEK and FIND Comet Lovejoy in coming days! It is a VERY fortuitous event, to be ABLE to see it NOW, and it should be visible to many for much of the rest of the month, especially if you have binoculars available, and as nights become darker as the moon wanes toward the new moon on the 20th, those of you in cities where lights obscure the sky might wish to go outside of them with binoculars around this time, if possible. There is a synchronicity of various EVENTS which have just recently occurred and are occurring even now, and which I expect to occur in coming days and months, not "caused" by that, and not "causing" it, in any physical ways at all, but which have generated MUCH Love and much JOY in my heart of hearts, and I can barely contain or stifle my joys much longer, and my faith and hope and charitable love of ALL! Absurdist Universalist Mystics and advocates of Humanist Unity within and beyond all sectarian or secular forms of faith are often prone to much sorrow at the ignorance and confusion of many people about many things, but that permits and impels them to take much joy in other things not discernble to most others, and SUCH are such things as ARE occurring NOW. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 08:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

You're still shimmering and leading me on…

Firefly that's what you are
Burning for me in my darkest hour
"Light breaks where no sun shines"
So shine for me tonight — firefly.

~ Greta Gaines & Dylan Thomas ~
~ Full song at YouTube · Live Performance ~

Fireflies, stars, comets and meteors all provide illuminating events in their own peculiar ways, and have often fascinated me since childhood. Of course with the naked eye or even with binoculars Lovejoy won't look as impressive as in some of the many photographs available, nor be as bright as some other comets which have been around in recent years, but still it is relatively easy to locate and see with binoculars. These are two of the better articles I have found on locating it and viewing it in the coming days:

update 2015·01·14Edit

I was out earlier in the night, star-gazing from a relatively remote and isolated hilltop very dear to me in the forests of Maine, which I hiked to on this very cold night, over snow and frozen creek beds, and up a steep hillside, simply because it is one of my favorite places to be, as a spot in which an odd set of circumstances occurred which clearly endangered my life, and definitely would have killed MOST people (though honestly, most people never would have gotten into such a dangerous situation as I let myself get into), but my life was saved by a VERY fortuitous and "coincidental" confluences of will and grace, karma and duty, and a quite important synchronicity of events, and I will remain somewhat mysterious and mystifying about it for a while, and for now simply say that had I not laughed out loud, heartily and long, at remembrances of certain dreams, and my own quite instant fears and hesitations in suddenly recalling them, by nearly all rational calculations which could be made related to the situation, I definitely would have died, MANY years ago. That is a good presentation of words in which to frame a very profound and paradoxical puzzle of events in my life which relatively few people as yet know about, but I do intend to publicly elaborate upon very extensively, along with many other things, some time by the early spring and summer of this year.

But moving my thoughts back from that digression to the reason I actually began typing:

Though Orion is often mentioned as a very familiar and easy to find constellation with which to locate the general regions of the heavens which Comet Lovejoy is in, as it moves slowly through them, currently the relatively bright star Aldebaran and the cluster of the Pleiades are far more convenient sky marks to help anyone do the final locating of it, as it currently forms a large triangle in the sky with those two other visible forms.

Most people who have clear weather and are outside of the ranges of such bright lighting as usually exists in and around cities should be able to see Lovejoy as a rather small dim light even with the naked eye, and with even small binoculars it shows up clearly as a fuzzy gray patch, which tonight was VERY close to 2 dim stars with which it formed a triangle which would be evident within the field of view of any binoculars or small telescope.

I know it is not all that impressive a sight, to those might hope for the bright green glow of some of the photos available, but I still believe it is notable enough to take some interest in, and hope that some people might be provided with an interesting curiosity before it leaves our regions of space, for another 8000 years or so. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 10:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

update 2015·01·21Edit

With the new moon having just occurred, the skies are at their darkest of the month, and this was the clearest night I have had in my locale in many days, but even so, I would say the visibility of the comet is diminishing. It is relatively close to the Pleiades now, and Orion is quite some distance to the other side of them, relative to the comet. Unless something dramatic occurs, as is always conceivable with a comet, it is unlikely to remain relatively easy to find without professional equipment much longer. I will also note, in passing, that in this first month of the Gregorian calendar we are now entering, in the Chinese calendar, the final, 13th month of the long 384 day Wooden Horse "Leap Year" which began 31 January 2014 and ends 18 February 2015. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 05:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

General Apologies and Growing AwarenessEdit

In the past few minutes I just awoke from a much needed nap, having slept a very short while, but am well rested and must be leaving soon, but prior to sleeping I had realized a great many things with a clarity which I recognized I should comment upon soon, and as I awoke I was aware of several more very significant aspects of many things, and even in the past few minutes of contemplation of many things there have been more aspects of many things clarified in my mind which I hope to be able to note and help clarify to others in coming days and months, here, and elsewhere, and certainly do not have the time to fully clarify now.

ALL of my life, so far as I remember it (and I remember MUCH more of it than most might imagine likely or even possible, even from a VERY early age), I have held MUCH back from presentation to others, for MANY reasons, some of which I intend to SOON start explaining elsewhere, in the days and years ahead, in ways I could NOT easily do here, and some of which I hope to SOON begin to start explaining here, in the weeks and months ahead, which I believe will be helpful to others, in their understandings of many things, and of SOME of my perspectives on things. I am also usually quite interested in learning MANY of theirs, and that is one thing MANY people have usually found quite fascinating about me, that I am almost always EXTRAORDINARILY interested and alert to many things — often many things others CANNOT be anywhere near as alert to — and quite humorously, sometimes, quite ignorant or nearly oblivious to others which are very plain to some. Something of an "absent-minded genius" in many ways, and yet something of an intensely present and alert and imaginative genius in many others. I thought I would note some of this before preparing to leave, and hope to be back soon, as I know I have MANY things here and elsewhere to address — and limited time to do it. MAY ALL have a more JOYOUS and APPRECIATIVE TIME in coming days. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

I might disappoint you and others in actually saying so, but I am not actually a vegetarian…
Like most human beings I quite naturally tend to be far less concerned about the destruction or consumption of the living substances of plants, or of microbes, than of the larger and more visibly active animals whose feelings we can more easily perceive and sympathize with in many ways.
A few months ago, a Fisher (usually referred to as a "fisher cat" here in Maine where I have usually lived in recent years), is what I probably heard kill my last pet, a stray cat which I had adopted many years ago. Though I did have sorrow at the fate of the cat, and do miss it, unlike some might, I do not have anger, hatred or resentment towards fisher-cats for being rather swift, callous and efficient predators (as are cats, though usually far more appealing ones, to most humans, including myself).

a vegetarian? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I expect that he would long ago have been listed on the Wikipedia page if he were; a quick glance at that and a google search does not lead me to believe it likely. Though many of my favorite people of the past and present actually were or ARE vegetarians, being a vegetarian and a fan of Virgil, you are likely to be far more familiar with many details of both subjects than am I. I might disappoint you and others in actually saying so, but I am not actually a vegetarian, and do not intend to become one, though reducing meat consumption by myself or others is probably desirable in many ways. I had considered becoming a vegetarian when younger, but though for health and ecological reasons I can and do recommend that people generally eat a higher percentage of high protein vegetable foods such as nuts, beans and lentils (which I actually do love as a major part of my own diet), rather than meats, I have little revulsion towards meat, or other animal products, or the eating of them, though I do have revulsion at many aspects of the ways most animals tend to be treated in the current food industry, and do recommend the growth of more humane consideration of those animals people do generally choose to consume, and better protection of many species of land and sea from endangerment, as well as all animals from needless forms of abuse. I actually do agree with some of the more zealous activists on animal rights issues that many common food industry practices actually ARE abuses, and I don’t pretend to believe that these are likely to be eliminated any time soon, but I do believe measures should be taken to diminish them.
Unlike many whom I do actually admire, and sympathize with, I do not believe raising or harvesting animals for human consumption of meats or animal products is innately abusive of species, and technically can be advantageous for some species, in some ways, though of course it is usually somewhat harsh on the individual animals consumed or harvested, or otherwise used, and sometimes very much so — as it also can be for plants as well, though less overtly to our human senses and sensibilities. Personally, I am noted for caring for and saving plants as well as animals from harm or death to the extent I sometimes can, though like most human beings I quite naturally tend to be far less concerned about the destruction or consumption of the living substances of plants, or of microbes, than of the larger and more visibly active animals whose feelings we can more easily perceive and sympathize with in many ways. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
The issue is that Virgil is in that Wikipedia "List of vegetarians". As an aside, I'm not actually a "fan" of Virgil, I only like his first six books of the Aeneid, but knowing how much other great poets have imitated and copied from him, using the flowers of his imagination to adorn their own poems, I do not doubt that the fault lies in me and my ignorance, and not in the Roman poet. (Incidentally, some of the best poets in the English language—Alexander Pope, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Byron—have [also?] been vegetarians—although of course I'm not suggesting cause and effect.)
I know of no better text expressing "revulsion towards meat" than Plutarch's De Esu Carnium—and I would recommend that you read it if I knew of any good English translation (I think the original is in Greek, I read it in Portuguese many years ago). But I personally am just like you—my favorite meal used to be the McChicken menu, and I ate meat at almost all meals, and loved its flavor. Believe it or not, when I eventually decided I should become vegan I lost close to 10 Kg (20 pounds) in just two weeks, and had to go to the doctor (I was already thin as a meat-eater). I hate veggies. The right reason to be a vegetarian, I think, is the avoidance of unnecessary suffering, although as you pointed out ecological (and the more selfish "health") concerns also often play a part. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Fishers are notorious for their very swift and effective attacks on their prey — including cats.
I am a skilled at using many weapons, as well as an EXTRAORDINARY shot with a pistol — FAR better than anyone who has ever contested with me.

I know that some of my stances on some issues can puzzle others, for various reasons, and to help clarify some things, since I am now increasingly more inclined to actually indicate many things about myself to others than I have been in many years, I will give some indications on some of my perspectives on human and humane or inhumane interactions with other animals, and a few of the details of how they developed in my life.

Though for most of my life I have usually had some form of "pet", or quite often several, I do not presently have any, nor do I wish any, for I expect I will likely now and henceforth be far too busy to properly care for one, for at least some months, or perhaps years. The most recent one, a stray cat I had adopted and had fed and cared for for many years, itself fell prey very suddenly one night, months ago, to what I believe was probably a very swift Fisher cat attack in the woods just outside my home, which I happened to hear but not actually see, in which there was only a very brief scuffle and fighting of a few seconds at most, before the very sudden silencing of my cat's muffled growl, as his neck was probably broken by the fisher's teeth. I was not actually sure what had happened, but by the sounds of things surmised that the cat had probably been killed. It never returned home, and in the months after that it seems at least one neighbor has lost a cat to what was probably a similar attack.

I have had many pets in my life, and I do accept that I myself, and most pets I have had in the past, which have included cats, dogs, birds and some species far less usually domesticated than these, are carnivores or omnivores and have MUCH preferred or even required meat or prey of various sorts. Though I actually do NOT like to hunt, and have not done so in years, I believe that I am far less "squeamish" about some things than even many hunters, though I certainly do not wish to harm or kill any animals needlessly. When I did hunt, MANY years ago, I was considered extraordinarily skillful at it by long experienced hunters, excellent at tracking, moving silently and slowly through the woods and positioning myself well on animal trails for the ambushing of prey. My father, considered by many others the best hunter and best rifle-shot of the many people he had hunted with, considered me the best hunter he had ever hunted with.

I am a skilled at using many weapons, as well as an EXTRAORDINARY shot with a pistol — FAR better than anyone who has ever contested with me. Though I am sure there are better shots in the world than I, in my adulthood I have NEVER lost a pistol shooting contest with others, and most have been astonished at the accuracy with which I have succeeded in placing a tight pattern of shots into targets they had a much larger scatter of shots into. On one significant occasion I hit with every shot I fired a target which others could not even hit at all with ANY of theirs, despite being rather good shots, generally, compared to most others.

Though I did do some hunting when I was MUCH younger, mostly to please my father, I do NOT actually enjoy harming ANY living thing needlessly, and have not hunted at all in MANY years. It was quite disappointing to my father when I abandoned hunting with him, and decided to tell him that though I certainly could and would do it if I ever actually needed to, I was actually not interested in doing it for "sport". He is still alive, but though one of my brothers continued to hunt with him for many years, he has now become too limited by his age and his health and I don’t believe he has himself actively hunted in many years now. I don’t actually know when he stopped doing so, but it has been at least a few years.

There are some experiences I did have while hunting that were very notable for many reasons, but I have many other things to attend to in coming days, and am not likely to reveal these for some months yet, and will probably do it elsewhere when I do, though I might by then have revealed here at least one other site I have either regularly or sporadically worked on, where I am more likely to indicate my experiences in some ways. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

One of the very FEW "hunting" feats of which I am actually somewhat "proud" involved a doomed deer badly wounded by a hunter in another hunting party a day or two before my killing of it, which MANY other hunters had been attempting to track down through a very dense marshland thicket, and had failed to catch or find. It surely would have had, at most, only another very painful day or two of life, when my shots put an end to its torments.
I don't wish to give the impression that I actually did MUCH hunting, or that my hunting career was all that long, despite note which was made by others of my skillfulness at various things. Of "big game" animals I have only shot 2 deer — the first was VERY notable for many reasons which I will eventually reveal, but not so much in regard to a "hunting" event which was not all that impressive a feat in itself, in terms of being a relatively "lucky and/or unlucky" encounter between myself and the surprised deer, which did not actually involve all that many "hunting" skills on my part, nor any lack of evasive skill of the deer — it actually showed good skill at that, in eluding another hunter who had passed it by. It is memorable more for some observations I have to make regarding my general antipathy towards hunting or harming things, and how the event came about, and details of my impressions prior to it, and during it, and afterwards. The second was actually one of the very FEW "kills" of anything which I am actually somewhat "proud" of, because it involved tracking down a very clearly doomed deer, on the last day of a hunting season, which had been wounded a day or two before, with a severe "belly wound" by someone in an entirely different "hunting party" than our own, which ALL the other hunters who had attempted tracking it down had given up on finding, and ending a life which surely would not have lasted much longer, despite the ability of the deer to have skillfully eluded many other hunters in a VERY thick section of marshland woods (mostly mixed hemlock, pines and brushwoods) over a couple of days of intense pursuits and tracking by other hunters. That was the one feat of my hunting skills which most impressed my father, for even he had given up on finding it, convinced that it must have somehow slipped away elsewhere, when I actually had been able to very knowledgeably and skillfully follow a very criss-crossed trail through the swamps and thickets right up to where I quickly ended the deer's very painful last couple days of life, which surely would not have lasted much longer. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 03:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

On trolls and other twerps… and Thanks to all who fight against them...Edit

In recent weeks our site and other wikimedia projects have clearly been afflicted by at least one rather obsessive vandal, who apparently, after a long hiatus, has recently resumed operations here. My own surmisal, based on the intensity of the obsession, after such a long apparent absence was that this person had probably been in prison, and unable to afflict us for a long time. I of course do not KNOW this, but it seemed a reasonable assessment based on the limited facts available, beyond the fact that such people are pathetic nuisances. Whether it is correct or not, in a literal sense, it is clearly indicative of this person's fate emotionally, because he clearly remains in such a small cramped prison of his own compulsive need to afflict the lives of others with insults and derision, that I have no doubt this person is far more miserable than most of us could easily be made by such a pathetic twerp's actions. It still remains a frustrating and time-consuming tedium for us to clean up the ugly messes that such people make, to the various extents we can, and I would like to THANK everyone who has been engaged in doing this, in recent weeks, and continues to do it. We do have a worthy project that continues to develop in many ways here, and those who seek to deliberately afflict it, or any of us, clearly have very pathetic lives, being so obsessed with waisting so much of their own time afflicting the lives of others. Many of us proceed to grow more appreciative of the Awareness, Life and Love which is the greatest beauty of ALL, and those who afflict us clearly remain ignorant and confused as they continue their decline to even worse forms of confusion. May we abide in the hope that they eventually come to a greater sense of genuine appreciation of the beauty of life, and can actually sorrow that they have wasted so much of their own and that of other people's in pathetic pursuits of VERY petty and pathetic aims. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As this vandal is overtly repudiating my surmisal, I will acknowledge once again that it is only that. I have little KNOWLEDGE of the circumstances of his conditions, beyond that he exhibits a regular will to afflict others, and that there was long far less affliction here than in recent weeks, by what is obviously this single person, using various IPs and usernames. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


I don't like the wording here, but can't think of anything better. Can you? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Either way seems acceptable to me. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Is this okay? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I usually now use the "main" template myself for ease and uniformity, but sometimes prefer to resort to the older more adaptable form of making such links to other pages manually; and usually provide from about 2 to 4 "sample quotes." Some of the pages which much have more than that should probably be trimmed a bit. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it worth it to identify the speaker? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It probably is not necessary, but I have no objections to such information, and used to provide it regularly. I haven't had as much time to create pages lately — and right now, I just am checking in after being busy doing other things, and noticed your query, but once again, must be leaving soon. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I was following this suggestion, but I fear such information is, at best, a bit distracting... So, should I remove the names? (At least when they are not so important? It's often obvious who the speaker is...) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't find such basic info in the comment line all that distracting, and can often clarify things considerably in some passages; I believe it probably is generally preferable to have them, but not actually necessary; and that thus, where it develops, it should probably be retained, though where it doesn't it probably shouldn't be a high priority to add it. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't Martin Luther King Jr. a plagiarist? Even putting aside his connections to the Communist party, doesn't the fact that he was an adulterer make people at least question the appropriateness of such a holiday? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually considered several profoundly revelatory responses to this bit of trolling, but was so busy with so many other things I decided to basically let it rest as the clearly disgraceful trolling it is. You are sometimes becoming almost as much a nuisance in some ways as the troll who posted the message below this one. I am running a bit late for something now, but will probably be back soon, before probably going off on another excursion, later. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Jesus said, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone", but then did not cast the stone himself, thus admitting that even he was not without sin (of course this story was made up, coming from John, and is not even in the original Gospel manuscripts). Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man—and he had, like most other men, great flaws. Didn't you say you "worship NO man"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Worship is a word used and misused by many in various ways, as are MANY words. I am familiar with many ranges of meaning which can be referred to by it, ranging from some forms of proper respect of individuals to abject deference to various notions or assertions of individuals, or groups of them, allied in political or religious factions. I repeat the FACT that I do NOT abjectly worship any man or woman, nor ANY groups of them, NOR any WORDS, nor ANY idols that can be made of the APPEARANCES of any of these entities within Reality. Yet I very much RESPECT every HUMAN being AS a human being and RECOGNIZE that MOST human beings CAN be aware and appreciative of MANY aspects of Ultimate Reality and the SIGNS which OCCUR within it in unique, familiarly popular, unpopular, and nearly universal ways which should be honored by the wise. I have long believed that the wisest of people are VERY respectful of the FACT that everyone can be ignorant and confused about MANY things, and strive to do what they can to help diminish the extremely detrimental forms of ignorance and confusion, rather than INCREASE them, which is OFTEN the case with those most PRONE to emphasize the WORST aspects of what they KNOW or believe about others, and DISREGARD, DISRESPECT or DISMISS that which is BEST about them, or casually or very deliberately speak in such ways as ENCOURAGE others to do so.
You seem to make a somewhat unwarranted inferences in the anecdote you cite. When I was but a very young child I perceived it as a remarkable example of a single person of great courage and wisdom standing up against unjust and excessive laws of punishments, which were presumed absolutely holy and proper and mandatory, in defense of Humanity and Mercy. He implicitly derides the will and aims of those who are sinful in their desire to punish or impel others to punish in accord with the religious and civil statutory laws of the era into which he was born to "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and then, when no one is so bold as to make such an assertion of himself, he who clearly least exhibited any traces of the sin of scornfulness and the WILL to PUNISH, or fear of the scornfulness of MOST, exhibits no will to do such a deed. This was an extremely wise and courageous act.
The wisest of people certainly have no desire or intention of casting any stones at others, or doing ANY form of HARM needlessly, even if the shallow and absolutist interpretations of literalists and legalists are prone to INSIST upon it, to the extent they CAN, and often severely MISINTERPRET the lack of desire of the most charitable to NOT do so. Even as a very young child I could perceive that.
I assert that there are MANY generally GOOD traditions available to MANY, and NO traditions that are absolutely definable or describable that are ABSOLUTELY best for ALL people, but I do also believe that MANY which are generally GOOD for MOST people can be recognized as such by those not severely demented or depraved, and ALL of the BEST include some form of progress towards, or devotions to Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love, by whatever NAMES or NOTIONS people can PERCEIVE some of the most beautiful aspects of these.
I am actually a bit tired now, and will probably need to rest soon, having been more busy on various things earlier in the day than I expected to be, and unable to take care of some things I had wished to get done. There are MANY aspects of things I believe you do not discern very clearly, but I certainly have more things to do than attempt to fully elucidate many of them any time soon, and seem a bit too weary to attempt to do much more right now. There are a few more things I will attempt to do here, and then I will probably sleep for a while. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

troll droppings and a brief responseEdit

seriously. I was not in prison, idiot. Time-wasting idiots and troll impersonators r dead 2 me —This unsigned comment is by DoggoneBurd740149‎ (talkcontribs) . (a pathetically habitual troll-vandal, currently using that now permanently blocked name).

Seriously. I will respond to this current infantile trolling with a brief response. I certainly can believe that it is not the case that you were in prison, physically, and would NOT insist others believe it probable, as I actually have done, but I do not doubt your psychological problems are in clear need of medical attention, and might warrant some form of incarceration for the safety of others. I was just about to leave when I checked in and noticed this note and the current spate of infantile vandalism you have indulged in. Perhaps it is unfortunate you are not in prison now, and I do not doubt some might wish you were. I actually do have to be leaving now, once again, and hope that you gradually get over yourself and out of many of your quite apparent delusions that you are impressive as anything but a rather pathetically infantile person, as yet. There are many forms of hope for everyone — but not any great hope for any great happiness for anyone who continues to behave as you have been doing, lately. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Help with vandalEdit

Hello there. This article has been vandalized several times recently. I'd like your help in reverting the vandalized portions of it. I've reverted some of it as best as I can, but the vandal seems to have done some extensive damage. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, I had to leave earlier, but now am back — but I am still busy with a few other things, as I was before I left, and probably won't be able to give this site my constant attention immediately. I will probably do a few things here within an hour or so, but then might not have time for much more than that. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 07:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at your RfAEdit

Kalki, I respect your honesty and forthrightness; they are of high value in some contexts. In others, it's way too much. Social reality. Your extensive responses in your RfA look worse than anything anyone is throwing at you. This has nothing to do with whether or not you were right.

There are only two serious negatives at this point, and had you not responded at all, you would not have been harmed. Consider that, please. Maybe hat (collapse) your responses if you can. (You can't properly remove a response that someone has responded to, but you can shove it down from in-your-face visibility. You could strike and remove bolding and/or hat.)

Been there, done that.

I did ask you a question at the bottom of the Oppose section. A good answer would be "Yes" or "No." A long explanation, not a great idea in that context. I set up a ball for you to hit, if you like. You can knock it out of the park with a couple of words. And I do expect you to answer with complete sincerity. --Abd (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Kalki, you did respond to my question, but not succinctly, and your response, to me, appears evasive. I was disappointed. You haven't learned. There is a similarity in your position with that of JWSchmidt on Wikiversity. He was one of the founders, but when things went south, and he was desysopped and blocked, he never recovered. He turned every occasion into a tirade, with copious links as proof, and very difficult to read. I understand it. It is a dysfunctional response to rejection. One wants to explain, to prove that one was right. And the very effort demolishes communication. One can go on for years, living in that rejection, and believing in one's rightness. However "right" and "wrong" are illusions, inventions, fantasies. What's real?
There is a function of language, apparently, that you have missed. The most powerful usage of language is in creation of the future. It is not merely a pile of associations and interpretations. It is not "honest," in this function, i.e., as a full and complete representation of present reality. "I will..." or "I will not ..." is not a fact, ever. How could it be? It can be honest in another way, as an expression or declaration of intention.
I'm reviewing the history of this affair. Your extensive responses are discouraging me from speaking up. They can and will attract negative response. You are facing a rather vicious example of the assertion of a position that is less viciously asserted by many others, and you set it up.
Had you remained silent, or with minimal and non-combative response, I'd be confident that your RfA would have been approved. As it is, it might still be approved. And then if you don't show development in certain areas, you could lose the bit all over again. To be an admin is to be a constant target. It's essential to develop detachment. You are eminently trollable, a user pushes your buttons and you explode with a torrent of words that he then points to with "See what I mean?" I'm sure it worked in the past.
It's not that you are wrong. It's that you are presenting your thinking, knee-jerk, in a context not designed for that.
Okay, I could go over your response in detail, explaining how it was a setup for the response, and then for a few heads or more to nod, and how it completely ignored the advice I gave above. But that's quite a bit of work, and I'm not going to waste the time if you don't want it. Your choice, let me know. --Abd (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate your comments, and believe we both could learn much from each other, eventually, but I believe my addressing of the situation was fair, and I actually do not know how you consider it evasive. It was to a certain extent digressive, but that was because there were actually MANY comments that had been posted to the page in my absence that I believed it was appropriate to make some response to. I believe some of the things you have sometimes pointed out have "missed the mark" somewhat also, but I realize mine sometimes do as well. I truly hope we can have more extensive dialogue in the future, here and elsewhere. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to take that as a weak "Yes" to the question about going over your response.
The question asked was one that could have been answered Yes or No. I'm not convinced that you have understood the issue. There had been a :Weak Oppose - Is a great editor but as i have seen many times when i come here to fix vandalism, he has a bad habit of intimidating vandals by taunting them. Admins should hold a higher standard and taunting trolls and calling them names is a very low one.
It may be possible to turn this oppose to support, if you show that you understand the objection to your behavior. Do you understand why it's considered a problem to taunt or call vandals and trolls names?
I asked you about your future intentions. I did not accuse you of anything. Now, the user has an experience. Denying the user's experience is not good communication practice. "Bad habit" is a "story." However the user did see something. You actually acknowledge what the user said, but then excuse it, and the way I read that is that you were justifying it by your years of experience dealing with vandals. When an admin becomes unable to maintain civility, out of that kind of frustration, they have burned out. The vandal who shows up today is not the same person who showed up all those other times.
Worse, if you taunt or insult the person, it increases their motivation to repeat the behavior. I was hoping that you would understand all this and just say something like:
Yes, I've been frustrated at times. I will be careful about that for the future.
And you'd be done with it. Instead:
  • You were patronizing toward the user. Look at CentralAuth, this is a user who has obviously done a fair amount of cross-wiki antivandalism patrol.[1] The user has over 21,000 edits on Commons, is rollbacker on, which usually means a user who does vandalism patrol there. The user is a sysop on meta. I saw privileges in excess of what I'd expect for edit count, so I looked, and, yes.[2] The user has been highly privileged in the past.
  • Then you appealed to mob opinion that vandals are "pathetic." In fact, some vandals are precocious children, not pathetic at all. There is one, I'm sure you know him, who was "vandalizing" at seven years old. I realized what was going on and made a space for him on Wikversity, which is, after all, for "learning by doing." It stopped the vandalism. He's still quite young, and developing. Many vandals are simply adolescents who are doing what adolescents do. Calling them "pathetic" will have no effect at all, though it might give you some satisfaction. w:WP:RBI, you know it. So get it!
  • Then you made the claim that you would be less likely to be insulting if you were an administrator. While that's possible, it's not likely an argument that will impress.
  • You use all caps and many boldings. Visually, these create forbidding walls of text for readers. Occasional usage may be effective, but the real problem is the length.
  • You wander. These are musings, not responses to a question or clear response to a condition.
  • And then, as part of this same response, you went into the issue of the "single person." Remember, this is all indented as a reponse to Stemoc and me.
  • And then you go into your whole friggin' wiki history.
Hence, I have a suggestion, you can take it or leave it. Collapse that entire section. I made an off-topic musing, and "archived it to history"? Have you noticed that? Because Cirt has responded, you cannot just delete your response. If you are like me, you hate to delete what you wrote, but personally, I'm fine with it being filed differently. Archive it to history with a link. See how I did it: I place a section header, save it, then delete that whole section, then the link can pull up the specific comment.
Then apologize for going off on a tangent. Answer the question: will you continue to taunt vandals or not? If Yes, well, say so. But I think you can say No to that. Stop trying to explain everything. It will never happen, you will never succeed in explaining yourself unless people really want to know and ask you, and even then it's not easy.
Your replaced response can acknowledge the problem. I.e., "Yes, my response was inconsiderately long, I apologize, Cirt was right about that. I intend to pay more attention to brevity in the future."
Or am I suggesting something that is completely outside the bounds of possibility for you? Can you be focused in a particular context?
Okay, my own aside. I've registered on Quora. I do not restrain myself in commenting, I go on at length, using all my skills as a writer, and my extensive experience. In a few months, I have over 100,000 page views, many upvotes, and many users who have explicitly thanked me for transforming their understanding of a situation and connecting that with how their entire life works.
I'm actually trained to do that. My general opinion has been that it's very difficult to do with text (the training is in-person or sometimes voice is a good enough connection.) On wikis, it's horrible, typically.
It's quite a change from WMF wikis, where if you care enough to research and write deeply, it's tl;dr as if tl;dr was a bannable offense. It was, for me, on en.wikipedia. Even where what I wrote was absolutely necessary, and was successful, i.e., consensus was found, on my request. (In fact it usually was found, most of what I attempted was successful, including a desysopping. Cirt does not know yet what he touched by bringing that up). But then that request was used on a noticeboard as proof of "walls of text." Wikipedia. That's the way it is. I'm now much more careful. I still probably write too much.
So, I'd love to see you successful with the RfA. Will you consider just stopping, except for very brief and very necessary responses to questions? Could you just let Cirt display himself without having to be the one to point out that he is the way he is?
If you try it, you might discover something very useful, about yourself and about life and other people. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Stuff is happening. I highly recommend you be uncharacteristically silent. Under these conditions, taking a day or more to respond to anything is a standard wiki survival technique. We think we must respond immediately or ... or ... the sky will fall or something. --Abd (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed some of the things you are mentioning. I have been occupied with the TEDIOUS process of responding to an earlier request effectively which will take MUCH more time, to do so THOROUGHLY and a few other things other than those here, as well as a rather hasty selection for QOTD. I hope to respond to some of your assessments and assertions soon, but I am actually busy with a few other things than those here, and probably will soon be leaving things alone here, simply because I am too busy elsewhere. Thanks for some of your efforts on clarifying some issues, but I believe you realize that there is much people have preferred to obscure or deny, for various reasons, and there are sometimes many people willing to band together in doing so. I am too busy to study all of your statements, or all of those of others here, right now. Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Great. If you are too busy, good. How about this: don't respond unless you are asked to respond, specifically, and then conserve your time by being brief and trusting that if more is needed, you can respond later. Easy peasy. Meanwhile, everyone is too busy to read. Thanks for the blessings. --Abd (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I did finally get around to reading your advice. I believe I am tempering myself a bit more, and have always myself recognized the copious accusations should not always be responded to, but whatever comes of the current endeavors, I can abide in general good will to most people, and devotion to serving this project. There was actually a few more significant things I considered adding, but will keep my comment brief, and proceed to other things. Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kalki, I would ask you to listen to Abd, if I thought it would make any difference. But while I agree that you are falling into traps too easily, and repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot, some things are very unpredictable—like a "Strong oppose"(!) coming from a user with 4 edits, after you've restored an image, or a "weak oppose" from another (with 2 article edits) whom you've welcomed and treated well. It's ridiculous. That said, I'll take the opportunity to point out something I only noticed today: did you know that Aldous Huxley, C. S. Lewis and JFK all died in the same day (22 November 1963)? This reminds me of another magical year: 1776, date of the publication of The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, of the invention of the steam engine (that made the Industrial Revolution possible), and of the American Revolution. (Mickle's translation of the Lusiads, which I like very much, was also first published that year.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am trying ratchet back the tone of things a bit, and perhaps diminish some of the contentions to more acceptable levels. It perhaps helps that I am feeling tired, and hope to finish up just a few other things, and perhaps do a few things here, before I probably drop off to sleep for a couple hours, and perhaps avoid getting too involved here for a while. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 03:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comment in RfA/Illegitimate BarristerEdit

[3], "The above vote, is of course that of the vandal running amok lately, and has little significance save to show how infantile a mentality this person has, for anyone to see." The comment about that user was entirely gratuitous, such votes are handled swiftly and easily without anything more than bare information (as was done). "Infantile mentality" was entirely gratuitous, w:WP:DNFTT. Please stop that. You do not need to acknowledge this, I don't want to waste your valuable time. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe I probably CAN and WILL moderate my language a bit more in the future — but you do realize you are talking about a vandal who in his comments HABITUALLY threatens to RAPE and KILL people for interfering with his rampages, so despite the low credibility of such threats, obviously the assertion that I should have more concern for his delicate sensibilities is something I find somewhat ironic. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

relatively brief?Edit

[4]. Look, instead of letting go, instead of acknowledging that Cirt was "willing to agree" to stop participating in the RfA, you poked him some more, and at length, this was not brief as your edit summary stated. "Relatively brief," perhaps, compared to dropping a huge tome on someone. Kalki, this is not looking good. Stop! Remove that comment, quickly, before anyone responds to it! --Abd (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to a request that he made into a DEMAND, and then swiftly made into an ACCUSATION that I deserved to be BLOCKED for not IMMEDIATELY complying with his quite STILTED demands. I know I put more efforts to clarify many aspects of things with words in such ways as I can than might be flattering to me or others, but I can agree that the disputes between us are NOT such a thing as would be advantageous for either of us to become much more occupied with, and am willing to let many unresolved things go unresolved at this point, and actually will probably need to physically rest soon. Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

of courseEdit

Do you read "of course" as "ove course" or "off course"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe most people would generally read it with the V. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-discloseEdit

[This is not an accusation, of course. This is a copy of a notice placed by Cirt on user talk pages. He apparently overlooked you, probably because you had not "voted." I corrected the page link. If you choose, you may respond here, it is not necessary to respond on the page mentioned. Your response, if any, will be noted there.]

Billinghurst has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a   Confirmed sock connected to accounts Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose their involvement in the socking.

You are one of the accounts that voted before 12:09, 25 January 2015.

I ask that if you are behind the socking of   Confirmed socks Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) and Gene96 (talk · contributions) to self-disclose please at Wikiquote talk:Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request)#Asking_socks_to_self-disclose.

(signed, Cirt)

This notice placed by --Abd (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I definitely did not cast any vote in my own Requests for adminship, beyond my initial nomination of myself, as Kalki (talk · contributions). I have NOT USED alternate accounts on ANY Wikimedia project in YEARS. I do actually consider this procedure of mass-interrogation a somewhat insulting Witch hunt as one person who voted AGAINST me called it, and if it is the kind of thing that goes on regularly now in Wikimedia projects whenever there is any suspicion of ANYONE having done something improper, I believe I have a much clearer idea of the reasons people are being driven away from them in droves. MASS PARANOIA, promoted as the NORM. It truly is disgusting. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Kalki. I believe you and, mirable Dieux, Cirt believes you. Your statement about not using alternate accounts on any Wikimedia project in years is enough, actually, it covers the matter. There is no harm in reconfirmation.
However, we have strong evidence that someone may have vote-stacked, or made comments in a process, or was otherwise disruptive, pretending to be more than one user. You were only pinged on this because everyone who commented was pinged. Nobody will be pilloried or burned at the stake over this, at least not by me or as supported by me. However, we need to move forward toward community and cooperation, and, as far as I'm concerned, this is an opportunity to acknowledge the past (even just yesterday) and move forward.
It's unfortunately that it got all mixed up with your RfA, but I did not cause that, nor did you. I have acted to minimize the damage, moving the sock discussion off the RfA page proper. I hope you can appreciate that.
At this point there is much more than mere suspicion. Whether or not this approach was optimal, I cannot be certain. But it had started and it was not unreasonable. That socking would be revealed was inevitable from the checkuser request, which nobody here opposed. So let's notice and build on the unanimity we have, instead of driving wedges into the cracks. Okay?--Abd (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I am back from an excursion, just a short while ago, and I am probably only going to do a few things here before making further preparations for a winter storm due to get nasty in a few hours where I live. I actually expect that it is more likely than not to knock out the power for a day or more where I am, and I will also be busy after it is over, so I might not have much time or ability to check in here beyond tonight. I have quite a few things to review before I respond to some of them, and other things to attend to as well. I hope to have done a bit of some of my routine work here, for a few days ahead, in case the power does go out, within a few hours, but I am busy with quite a few things, other than the internet. I am getting to work on a few things here and there, right now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Olive branch from CirtEdit

Olive branch from Cirt

Kalki, I'd like to extend an Olive branch to you. :)

I've said I'll stop responding to you at your Request for Adminship.

I can respectfully defer to the community for their own further responses, as to the outcome there.

It looks like hopefully you've stayed away from socking for a bit of a while now -- and I'm quite proud of you for keeping to that over time.

However, I do feel bad for you that apparently someone else is socking there and that's unfortunate, so hopefully we'll get to the bottom of that.

If you become an admin again, I look forward to working with you together to improve the quality of Wikiquote.

Good luck,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about edit warring and IP editingEdit

It's unfortunate that this comes up at this time, but it has. On my talk page, a user complained about my involvement in this matter, etc., and then suggested I look at his/her history. So I did. What I saw may not be what s/he had in mind. However, it revealed a situation that should be addressed. I am raising this with you and the other editor, though the concerns are different. Nevertheless, both of you edit warred, minor or major.

This is on Ian Fleming (History). You reverted the other user twice. However, then, an IP immediately began reverting the user as well.

Your editing around this time:

  • Kalki contributions
  • At 18:23 you told the user why you were reverting him or her, on his talk page, saying that you had "are more likely than not an incarnation of the current troll-vandal," which you then hedged.
  • At 18:25, you reverted.
  • At 18:34, the IP began reverting, continuing 18:36, 18:43: 18:57, 19:11, 19:16.
  • At 18:49, you responded to the user in your RfA.
  • At 18:58, you again responded there, saying "I also have to laugh, because in the brief time it took me to type the above statements, you have gotten into an edit war with what might be the troll currently afflicting the site...
  • at 19:17, you made the content argument in your RfA.
  • at 19:51, Misczatomic soft-blocked the IP.

You must know what this could look like. I am not accusing you of being the IP, because, at this point, it would be useless, since I can see no way that you could have, say, accidentally logged out (which is what I first had thought possible). If it was you, it was willful, and you were deceptive about it. That does not seem like you.

I cannot ever completely rule these out, however, so I will ask you: would you mind if the IP were hard-blocked? Would you object to checkuser? Those are questions, not demands.

However, I'm concerned about something else. The user is new to Wikiquote. From global contributions, this is no ordinary troll. He or she may have, as you have noticed, some difficulty with civility and revert warring. I will be warning him or her about that. However, you saw an IP revert warring with a regular user, and the regular user was making what appears to be a good-faith removal of the image. Instead of assisting the new user, you effectively taunted him or her in your RfA response.

Can you see the problem? The IP took your position. I'm fully aware that could be a sophisticated troll. However, you allowed it to happen.

If this is as you suspected, we need to stop the behavior, and to do that, we need to be united. Have you considered that you could have reverted the IP and taken the question to the article talk page? This is much more what I'd expect an administrator to do.

You could have supported the user, and if you are an admin, or are training for the position, that's what I'd expect. If you disagree with the user, you would then initiate process to resolve the dispute, so that consensus resolves it, not Kalki.

I'm aware that, so far, you have not returned to the article. I'm planning on investigating what you have said. If it is accurate, I may restore that image myself. But first things first. Site process is crucial, particularly for administrators. Do you agree? --Abd (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would hope that there are clear enough records of the events to permit the checkusers to substantiate it definitely was NOT me. I really don’t know what you are saying about me "allowing it to happen." I had been putting up with trolls and vandals relatively DEFENSELESSLY for a few years now, had been struggling off and on with the most recent bout of INTENSE vandalism for a few weeks, and especially around that time period, and a person I merely suspected MIGHT be the vandal had decided after 2 edits here that I was absolutely not fit to be an admin because I had an edit dispute with him and he somehow took my rather qualified expressions of suspicions as an unforgivable "insult." I have NO problem with ANYONE blocking that IP at all. I know it was NOT me. I did NOT concern myself with the matter much, because there were MANY other things I was trying to attend to, and there sure as hell wasn't a whole lot I could do about it anyway, was WEARY of putting up with vandals and other twerps, and I genuinely DID laugh when the over-reaction this user gave to my expressions of suspicions as something making me a disgrace to the human race became a ridiculously apt example of a rather VOID argument where HE or SHE made automatic ASSUMPTIONS and ACCUSATIONS as if that troll was CERTAINLY me, with what I believe was FAR LESS reason to assume that. I didn't even notice the circumstances until I typed up the note to that effect, where I noted my amusement at it, but I really was a bit tired of the whole LOAD of farces and hypocrisies I have been encountering. I really don’t remember precisely what else I was doing at that time, but I definitely remember being very tired and weary around then, and the circumstance really did strike me as a something of a bit of "comic relief" and perhaps "just deserts" to a rather tragic circumstance. I do not actually KNOW it was the particular troll that has been plaguing us regularly lately, but it certainly seemed his type of activity. What exactly was I supposed to do intervene, ask this troll to suddenly have respect for me or anyone else here and expect sincere contrition? I am going to get busy on a few things I want to get done before the power goes out where I am at. I am hoping it WON'T, but I am not counting on it, and I want to have the next few days of QOTD layouts done before it does, among various other things I am trying to also get done. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Relax, no emergency here. One step at a time.
I don't believe in "supposed to." There was this possibility, try it on for size. You restored the image, and presented an argument for keeping it. SchroCat reverted anyway. See this history to satisfy yourself that I know that side what happened. Then the IP started reverting SchroCat. You revert the IP, and go to Talk on the image issue. Or just revert with edit summary, "Please do not revert war," and come back to it when you have more time.
My guess is that SchroCat's jaw would have dropped. The IP troll, if that's what it was, would be frustrated, defeated, failing to cause a fight. Had you done this, you just might have turned a vote around. If not, it would have been far easier than all the words you spilled on your RfA.
If you are overwhelmed, some of it is because of work you make for yourself. Wiki process can be and should be easy, "quick." Right?
You were uncivil back to SchroCat. That is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Please show that you can stop doing this. Okay?
I am suggesting an attitude shift that could make you a lot happier, much less stressed and "weary." --Abd (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I certainly hope to have further dialogue with you on attitudes of various kinds in the future, and many other things I believe to be of some merit for all of us. After having attended to a few things here and elsewhere, I have just arisen from a much needed sleep, and still have power, and have hoping that continues. I plan to do a few things here now, but continue to have many other things to attend to, of some urgency, and hope that my power and cable connections remain undamaged by quite a storm were having in the Northeast of the US. It is not unusual for me to lose power in winter storms where I live in Maine, so I've been lucky, thus far. I'm hoping that holds out — but if no one hears much from me for a day or two, that would probably be the reason why. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No, Kalki, if we DEMAND your response, and you don't respond IMMEDIATELY, we will assume you don't care about the community and TAKE ACTION to sanction this IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR.
Seriously, I've seen almost exactly that, on Commons, recently, where there was no emergency at all. Just users who thought a bureaucrat had DONE WRONG, even though the situation was completely over and now moot, and who then waxed eloquent at how ARROGANT the fellow was, because he was busy for a few days.
I live in Massachusetts and went out and bought a show shovel, even though normally I don't need one, my landlord handles snow removal. But I wanted to be able to dig my car out if needed. Keep warm. Do please address the substance when you can get to it. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought perhaps you might be very busy right now, but then I thought, perhaps a distraction is entirely what is in order..... I have started an article to fill the surprising gap at free will, and thought to seek your advisement and inestimable aid on progressing. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the page. I have been busy with other things, and just getting back to do a few things here, before I probably will have to catch some sleep. I did some minor formatting tweaks to the page, and am familiar with quotes of various figures which I could probably add in coming days. I have a page I began working on yesterday I would like to finish up on and post my work on, but doing some QOTD work in case I lose power is probably my top priority here, until I get a good "safety cushion" of a few more days established. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you get a new RFA from scratchEdit


I feel badly for you that there's been socking at your RFA.

I've suggested here that you get a new RFA from scratch, either on a brand new page or reset/restart on the existing page.

It can be indefinitely semi-protected by admins so that at the least there's some protection against harassment and disruption during your ongoing RFA.

What do you think of this suggestion?

I hope you're doing well with the winter storm,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest not, unless it comes to appear that the RfA was irretrievably damaged. We were mostly missed by the storm, only about a foot of snow. Keep warm. --Abd (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll defer to whatever you wish to do, Kalki. I wish you health and the best of luck, -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Need your expertise, related to "Zarbon" ?Edit

Kalki, I think you've in the past had dealings with the "Zarbon" sockmaster?

I've added some evidence at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal), specifically a deleted contrib (you can't see it but this is the edit summary):

"whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it. My password is zarbon, ok guys?! AAAHHH!!!"

Kalki, I need your expertise.

Does this sound familiar to you?

Is this related to the "Zarbon" sockmaster? DIFF

Can you link me to some other "Zarbon" related sock accounts?

Thank you for your help,

-- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is related, in that the first victim of the troll-vandal who still afflicts this site was user Zarbon. The vandal came from a forum created by Zarbon about Dragon Ball, and started harassing Zarbon by vandalizing Wikiquote's Dragon Ball articles (but also at Wikipedia and other wikis), and attempting to impersonate him. Kalki eventually blocked him, so now the vandal harasses Kalki, and other admins as well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Slanderous accusation with zero evidence. First, it is completely implausible. Second, checkuser didn't connect the accounts. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kalki: Evidence = threatening an admin (not himself, not Miszatomic, but admin UDScott) with death: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!" and Edit summary: "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it. My password is zarbon, ok guys?! AAAHHH!!!" DIFF and IP user talk page: created page with "faggot" DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair use on WikiquoteEdit

Wikiquote:Village_pump#Fair_Use_on_Wikiquote. Has this been discussed before? Of the various-language Wikiquotes, 12 allow non-free images (called "fair use" in the U.S.) and 12 don't, and the rest are ambiguous. Fair use can be difficult to manage. It requires some kind of assessment of purpose. However, almost all the Wikipedias do allow it. I looked and could not find a place where this had been discussed.

One solution to the management problem is to only allow administrators to upload files. On Wikiversity, any user may upload files for fair use. Files without a fair use rationale are typically proposed for deletion and are deleted after a time.

That painting of Ian Fleming could be a good candidate for a fair use file. It does dramatically improve the sense of "Fleming" for the page. We could use the file used on Wikipedia, but that is a direct infringement, and the painting is only indirect. Because Commons insists on every detail being perfect, the painting is probably going to be deleted as a derivative work.

Basically, the painting would be closer to the intention of free files. What is important about non-free files is that they be machine readably tagged, so that a re-user of content can readily find all the non-free files and remove them. Now this is the kicker. Any nonprofit site can freely host just about any file as long as the copyright holder doesn't complain (in which case they simply take it down, no violation of law, no penalty, as long as they respond). It is only commercial sites that are at risk. And if there is a commercial site publishing a complendium of quotations, they may *also* be able to claim fair use. It gets complicated. In any case, the painting is free licensed. The photo it was derived from is copyrighted.

I hope you are keeping warm. --Abd (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am open to such an idea, and will probably encourage further discussion of it in the weeks ahead, but have quite a few other matters keeping me busy right now. I believe such a policy as you indicate might be a good idea, but I am not familiar with some of the strategies and possible complications which might be involved, and will probably check with you soon. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


I have protected your page against edits by new accounts for a limited time, based on the current pattern of vandalism. BD2412 T 16:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fortunately, I never lost my power, but I have been extremely busy elsewhere. I just returned from one excursion a few minutes ago, and am considering whether to go on another soon, but decided to make a brief note of some situations before perhaps leaving again. I have been much occupied with other matters since first going out into the storm a couple days ago, and was away from home much of the time, with only a few relatively brief opportunities to check in here and become aware of the complex developments of recent days. I realized I did not have time to do a thorough review and assessment of many things, and decided to hold back from commenting at all, as there clearly was much confusion and confusing information involved. I wanted to wait a while, as things continued to take their various courses, and relevant truths gradually emerged. I will probably try to make a relatively brief summary of my perspectives on some situations soon, and am hoping to be able to be much more active and involved in many considerations in the months ahead. I expect to continue to be extremely busy for most of the next few days elsewhere, but will probably be able to do a few things here later tonight. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
Glad to hear you were okay. Keep warm. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I actually have been out in the cold quite a while lately, but I am usually well dressed and prepared for such things, and am usually comfortable. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed to Support at your RFAEdit

I've changed to support at your RFA, Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request).

Struck my Oppose, DIFF. Changed to Support, DIFF.

I'm sorry that your RFA has been disrupted by socking both in the Support and Oppose sections, and especially by w:User:Dragonron.

If you end up becoming an administrator again, I look forward to working with you to build a collaborative atmosphere on this site.

Good luck in the rest of your RFA,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the RfA is now standing at 10:1 support, due to close today, it occurred to me to think of the possibility of reaching out to that one remaining opposition !vote. You did apologize, in the RfA, for your comment to the user, but that was weakened by "explanation." I've learned that when I have unnecessarily offended someone, if I explain why I did it, it tends to upset them more, not less. What works to restore harmony is far simpler and actually easier: "I'm sorry!" with whatever minimal explanation is necessary to defuse the offense. Such as, in this case, "What I wrote was unnecessary. I see that you are an established user, and if I can be of any assistance, ask." Or something like that.
The reason I raise this is that 100% consensus -- or at least all opposition is standing aside -- is spectacular, especially in a situation that has previously been contentious. Even with that one opposition, this RfA is an inspiration. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I am always glad to help people to be inspired in good ways which can be beneficial to all. I will endeavor to make some remarks which I believe honorable which might persuade the one remaining person voting against me to alter their opinions somewhat. Even so, I think those who know me well know that I am not inclined to declare regret or sorrow for being honestly harsh and callous to those being what I honestly perceive to be unjustly harsh and callous, no matter how much we might actually agree on many matters, generally, nor how popular, influential or powerful they might be, any more than I am inclined to apologize for being honestly gentle and kind, to MOST, and especially those most inclined to being gentle and kind, no matter how unpopular they might be, nor how much we might differ, or be actually and vigorously opposed on many things. I do believe in the virtues of great capacities and a strong will towards forgiveness and of fighting against the impulses to be unforgiving or promote such impulses in others. I will thus attempt to craft some comments, that I believe might be be properly honorable to all involved, before proceeding to other matters, here and elsewhere. As happy as I am with the results of MANY things in recent days, thus far, after many distressing periods of confusions, I do actually expect to be extremely busy elsewhere for at least another day or two, and will probably have limited time to be active here. I should have perhaps a few hours now, to do some things on the internet, and perhaps a bit later as well. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Though it was not easily apparent to others, there were actually 2 people who remain opposed, not just one, as one had wavered back again — and I made a final appeal to both of them… which I hope does not cause any undue delay in matters. I actually had made extensive comments to one, and then revised that statement after realizing there remained two, and cut out MOST of my commentary about related matters, but now have a few more of my more common tasks here to attend to. I hope to be attending to many more in coming days, but again, expect to be busy elsewhere, for much of the next couple days, at least. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I missed that. It should not cause a problem. I do think you might consider giving more attention to the "wall of text" issue. It's one I've had to confront, myself, many times.
But I'm not going to belabor it; on the other hand, next time I see an unnecessary wall of text, perhaps I will drop a tome on it ;-) ... interspersed, with detailed response, with references, to each sentence of yours. After all, shouldn't we be complete?
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? (Probably, we both get banned. It's happened.) Thanks for your effort. It takes a 'crat to close.
(There are techniques to improve readability.) --Abd (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are now an administrator.Edit

Congratulations Kalki, it has been a long time coming. I would like to caution you on one point - as annoying as vandals can be, please deal with them compassionately. A vandal is someone who is blindly damaging something of value to others as a way to feel powerful, because they feel their own life is inadequate and a failure. No happy, successful person is sitting at their computer vandalizing Wikiquote. Treat these vandals with the same pity you would give to anyone whose life was such a wreck that they could not obtain a sense of validation through normal, productive means. Otherwise, good luck - be good and do well! BD2412 T 00:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, Kalki. Very well deserved. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • End of an era, beginning of eternity. Congratulations. --Abd (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I was attending to quite a few other things and only noticed the changes here in the last few minutes. I will attempt to get to work on a few things as soon as possible — including re-familiarizing myself with tools I haven't had in a few years, and many of the current options. I also need to start familiarizing myself more with cross-wiki issues I hadn't worked on in quite a while and have to become more acquainted with in coming weeks. BLESSINGS to all. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Congrats Kalki! I wish you only the best! Eurodyne (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations and good luck, -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kalki, my congratulations and all the best. -- Mdd (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again to everyone — I have to be leaving within about a half hour now, and will probably be gone most of the day. I hope to do a little more before leaving, and much more here after I get back. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for your help during my RFA. Illegitimate Barrister 21:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations (long overdue). Welcome back to the team. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Much thanks to everyone. Unfortunately I am a bit busy with many other matters, and it might be a week or more until I can spend much of a day here. Yesterday I was a bit busier with other things than I expected to be, and when I did finally get home, so tired I had to sleep — MUCH more than I usually do. I will probably be able to be able to do a bit here most days this week, but expect it will be longer before I am able to focus on it extensively, and develop some pages and ideas I am considering how best to work upon. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I missed your RFA. Congratulations on becoming an admin! OccultZone (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I remain extremely busy…Edit

I anticipate remaining pre-occupied with many other activities and projects for at least a couple months now, and though I fully expect a nearly daily presence here, sometimes for many hours at a time, there will likely be some weeks where I can only spare more than a short time here a few days of the week. Today I just completed a necessary task, and sometime later today will probably attempt to complete several QOTD selections for a few days ahead, as the power conceivably could go out on me in coming days, but expect to be gone much of the day, busy with many other activities, and am perhaps not likely to have more than a few moments to check in here until sometime tomorrow. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC) +tweak


As I know you have commented often on this topic in the past, I thought you might have additional thoughts to add to a discussion, currently located here: User_talk:Cirt#Wikilinking_within_a_quote.3F. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just arrived home within the past few minutes, and will examine things more thoroughly before responding there. I have a few things to take care of first, and might be leaving again within a few hours, but should have time to make at least a brief response even if I do. I expect to be gone most of the day tomorrow, and much of the day Wednesday, so I will probably have limited time to comment for a few days. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was moved to the Pump. Kalki, I have proposed developing a guideline on this, and the Pump discussion seems to be developing a consensus that this is the path to take, not some instant decision. Arguing the point there is probably wasted time, it's very clear there is no extant consensus, and there never has been one, and developing consensus takes time and effort. You can be sure that whatever your position is on this issue, it will be fully considered, before any policy or guideline becomes official, if I have anything to do with this process, and I probably will. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually the generally freedoms of PERMITTING and even encouraging wikilinks and bolding HAVE come up several times before, as I believe others involved are very well aware, and with MOST of the active participants in the past ACCEPTING and APPROVING such options. Bringing it up again AS IF it hasn't been a generally accepted practice, in response to a recent users inquiry, in order to apparently once again attempt to constrain and restrict it is something I find rather objectionable in various ways, but I am considering how fully to attempt to respond to the matter at this point, and might delay making some of my observations on matters until I have taken care of a few other things of greater immediate urgency. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Response to vandalismEdit

I have mentioned an edit of yours at [[5]]. Please consider your response to vandalism. It is possible that it is harming the wiki, by encouraging more of it. --Abd (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Though sometimes swift to bock people after a warning has been given, or obvious spambots on sight, I have never been inclined to block IPs or accounts other than spammers on the first edit without a warning, even with deliberate and obvious vandalism, unless it was quite apparent they were a new manifestations of long-term pattern vandals, with familiar phrases, expressions, or improper user names. I perhaps may seem obtuse in your view, but I genuinely fail to see how giving a warning to an anon IP without a clear pattern of behavior is " is harming the wiki" or actually "encouraging" vandalism. IF a new policy is developed which insists people should be more aggressive to apparent incidents of first time vandalism I might be sometimes inclined to be a bit harsher, but can't say I see where "harm" actually comes from waiting to respond to relatively trivial vandalism with a block until after defiance of a warning. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
My issue is seeking consensus, Kalki, not pushing my opinion, nor, in fact, is your opinion the issue. If you "fail" to see what many others see, what does this indicate? "Obtuse"? Maybe. Your word, not mine.
The issue is not being "harsh," in fact. IP editors have nothing invested, it harms them very little -- or not at all -- if they are short-blocked. They don't care, and they expect and understand it. I haven't said anything about "relatively trivial vandalism," but only about blatant vandalism, and what I've said is actually global practice wrt "vandalism-only accounts," even registered ones. I pinged you here about the discussion there, because I used your talk page creation as an example. If you don't want to block these accounts, fine. Don't! I'm suggesting you not warn them, because that creates useless traffic.
We could also discuss blocking, specifically how to block, for maximum benefit and minimum damage. That is a separate discussion. --Abd (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I am simply complying with what I believe has actually been general policy or guidelines here at wikiquote, and which I believe have never been radically changed. If there are new wikimedia-wide guidelines or mandates which have been developed of which I am unaware, I am willing to take such into consideration in altering my own practices. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming "policy violation" here, Kalki. If there are local guidelines, I'd appreciate a pointer to them. There is no "mandate." There is no WMF-wide guideline, global guidelines are primitive and often out of sync with actual practice. You can see the opinion of a steward on the page where the discussion is taking place. Meanwhile, keep warm. I'm in similar weather to you, in Western Massachusetts. --Abd (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I see Wikiquote:Vandalism. This was considered policy, but without the discussion that should precede policy designation. it was deprecated in 2007 to draft policy. Discussion on the talk page is primitive. Basically, one more example of long-term neglect. The result: long-term waste of time. --Abd (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Apologies for opposing your RfA; I didn't notice your response there until now. I hope that won't preclude responses to questions I ask you in the future. Cheers, --L235 (talk) enwiki 21:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I embrace no resentment of people acting honestly upon their actual impressions, even if I believe these to be mistaken, and though I can have anger at those acting dishonestly or unjustly in various ways, I believe that I actually develop and maintain very little resentment towards even such unfortunate people and their unfortunate attitudes. I hope to make that more plain in coming months and years, and to provide some of the reasons why I embrace such strategies and attitudes.
I believe many people have developed a rather poor and somewhat skewed impression of me, from the periodic need to specifically address various forms of error or defamation which I believe have occurred here in recent years. I believe that I am actually a very forgiving person — which seems odd to some, because I clearly can be and am a fierce fighter in many subtle and overt ways, including very harsh ones — against what I perceive to be injustices, hypocrisy, extreme distortions of truth by presentation of relatively irrelevant or very misleading facts and fictions, or outright lies. I see no innate contradiction in such attitudes, which impel me to be both fierce and forgiving in my efforts to be fair, but I recognize others can perceive this as paradoxical.
I believe that in coming months and years some will come to learn I have never been very easily duped in such ways as many might suppose I sometimes have been, and yet though I often incline to fight against the duplicity of those most inclined to dupe others, I do not always choose to do so, and am generally not inclined to punish, humiliate or afflict others any more than is needed to impel them to desist from forms of injustice. It is when people expect or demand flattery or even insincere and shallow homage from me towards any forms of error or hypocrisy, such as they often expect from many, that I generally cannot comply with their expectations, desires or demands.
The paths and patterns of such forms of ethical integrity as I embrace and promote as best I can are such things as I will probably touch upon more in coming months and years, for I have long been relatively silent upon many of the most important principles which have ever guided me, from earliest childhood, to a deep and profound reverence for the Beauty of Truth of ALL Awareness, Life and Love. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Actually, I was just aiming to fix the human nature/human nature issue, since it was complained of in the wikilinking discussion. The punctuation script just happened to be the last script I had handy. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

on WQ's influenceEdit

In correcting a few quotes from C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, I once again noticed how Wikiquote has helped to propagate many mistakes in wording of quotes into many websites, and even books.

Sometimes it can be funny though: after correcting this quote from The Silmarillion

  • "...and at long last an end had come to the Eldar, of story and of song", to
  • "...and an end was come for the Eldar of story and of song"

—, and in double-checking it on the web, I came across this blog post, which reads, in part:

Late last night we finished The Silmarillion, Marcus keeping my throat sustained with iced orange juice. The last sentence came hoarsely but triumphantly: ‘and at long last an end had come to the Eldar, of story and of song.’ I closed the book and we hugged each other in our excitement. Then we were sad; we had been reading this book together ‘forever’!

(My favorite incident so far has been seeing both a quote and a picture that I myself chose and added to the Virgil page being used by an economist in a post on the gold standard.)

I was going to stop editing for a while, but as Ningauble has apparently just quit(?), I might keep patrolling the recent changes myself, just to revert obvious vandalism, and the like, if needed—but I trust you will pay close enough attention to the recent changes yourself, should N. have truly given up (which would be a serious blow to WQ). Peace ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

From what little attention I have been able to give things, I believe he was merely expressing some frustrations with the ways people rather obviously abuse certain processes, and how little some seem to wish this to be recognized. Though I have been eager to enter some remarks about matters myself, I have refrained for many reasons, chief of them being I have been too busy to attend to them sufficiently at this time, and thought it best that I refrain until I can attend to things more closely. As it is, I had just sat down to do some QOTD work earlier, got called away suddenly for a few hours, and after returning have just completed some work on the QOTD, and must again be leaving, rather wearily, and even when I can return don’t expect to be rested well enough to do much here until tomorrow. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Further storm warnings impel me to further activities elsewhere... for now...Edit

I just did some VERY brief work here before I have to leave and do some important things elsewhere, for probably several hours. I hope to do much more work here later today and tomorrow, before the winter storm which is approaching the region of the world in which I currently reside hits its peak. IF the storm permits me to, I hope to get a few crucial things done within the next couple of days, before being very busy elsewhere once again, probably for at least a few more days. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again only had time to do very brief work, and will be leaving again, within the next half hour or so. Might then, perhaps, have the opportunity within the next day or so to do a bit more than I have here in recent weeks. Am preparing to leave again even now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Stay warm! BD2412 T 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year of the Yáng!Edit


Happy New Year! In the Chinese Calendar, as many of you are aware, it is now the Year of the Yáng — a Year of the Goat (or Sheep — or Ram). I had planned to make note of this, and a few other things, much earlier in the day, but was called away suddenly, before I had a chance to do so, and have just returned in time to do a bit of QOTD work, and must be leaving again soon. Will probably try to do more here within a few hours, but I expect to be extremely busy for at least another day or two, before I am likely to have much time to do much here. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote of the day todayEdit

Good song. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on admin!Edit

Sorry I'm late ;-) Just congratulating you for finally getting the mop and bucket back! --Goldenburg111 23:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I have been too busy with other things to spend much time here lately, but expect to have at least a little more soon. I was away most of this day, arrived home a short while ago in time to do some QOTD work and must be leaving again soon. I might be able to do a bit more here in a few hours. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopeful of greater time for activity here in the next week or so...Edit

I had actually had expected to have MUCH more time here today than I ended up having, but was called away early today, just as I was preparing to begin work here, and was busy with many things elsewhere most of the day. I expect to have at least slightly more time to work here in the upcoming week than I have had in recent weeks, and will attempt to examine and respond to some problems and issues which have recently been evident here in the coming days. There will still be some things keeping me busy elsewhere, but I don’t expect them to consume as much of my time in the coming week as they have recently. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, in the past day, I was a bit busier with other matters than I had expected to be. I have just returned from being out in what is being forecast to be one of the coldest nights in many years in this area of Maine in which I reside, and the temperature was falling fast.
I expect to remain busy with many somewhat more urgent matters than some of those I perceive significant here, for the next day or two, but still am expecting a bit more "free-time" this week to work here than I have had lately. We shall see how things proceed, and I will probably do a bit more here before the night is over, amidst many other activities. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
I have been away from my current residence more than I had expected in recent days, and even what few matters I have been able to attend to here have somewhat delayed me taking care of some urgent matters I expect to have done within the next few days, and others of significance which I hope to have done within the next couple of months.
Within the next month I will attempting to get many things done at my current residence, prior to moving back to my more usual residence, probably very early next month. I have been a bit more busy than anticipated with several things, and expect that many of my opportunities for relaxing will probably be diminishing in coming weeks. I do look forward to attending to a few things here as relatively relaxing compared to some other tasks, but know there are likely to be some frustrating contentions as well, and amidst many other activities keeping me busy, I am considering how best to engage in some of these. I will probably be too busy with other things to do much here for at least a few hours. So it goes.... ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Expectations of more time to work here haven't worked out for me yet… I have been gone much of the day and must be leaving again soon. So it goes... ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Expectations of much more time here for the next month or so are dimming considerably. I currently have so much on my agenda that I believe there will be many days where I can just briefly check in here. There will likely be a few when I can spend much time here, but not many. So it goes... ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I have recently had more excursions elsewhere than I had expected, but even when many of these end, I will probably usually be too busy with other things, even when I am home, to check in on the computer and here as often as I might like, for most days in the next couple of weeks. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

English Qs.Edit

Two quick questions, if you don't mind.

.....and sourced it as best as I could. [6]

I wrote that in a hurry, but it doesn't sound right. 1) Can "source" be used as a verb (in the sense of finding and adding a source somewhere)? And 2) should it be "as best I could" (instead of "as best as I could")? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Many words in English can be used in both verb and noun forms, though to do so is rarer with many words than with some commonly used in both ways. We have used "source" in both ways here for many years, though I believe it is relatively rarely used as a verb among most people. Either way of indicating you did "as best you could" are acceptable, though perhaps there would be some preference for the simpler form. I just checked in here and noticed your note and a few other things, and am perhaps just briefly back, as I have been more involved with many other things than I had anticipated in the last day or so. I might do a few things here within the next hour or so, before attending to many other things I expect to be busy with for at least a few days yet. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Do you think you could add a quote by Leonard Nimoy today? Lots of pictures to choose from. I suggest using this quote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I had been trying to arrange something for one by Michel de Montaigne, but agree Nimoy's death is significant enough to override anything I was developing on those lines. Your suggestion is a good one, and I will probably work on it or any other formal suggestions made within a few hours. I have to soon be leaving for at least an hour or two, but should be back in plenty of time to develop something to post. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
[7]? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I very briefly considered using two, but I believe it would probably be preferable to stick to just one, unless a choice had already been made, as had occurred in some cases in the past. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Wherever your life ends, it is all there. The advantage of living is not measured by length, but by use; some men have lived long, and lived little; attend to it while you are in it. It lies in your will, not in the number of years, for you to have lived enough.
~ Michel de Montaigne ~

The miracle is this
The more we share...
The more
We have
~ Leonard Nimoy ~

The above quote of Montaigne I had been considering actually probably would work well, with images of Nimoy and other things — but there are probably about 3 hours yet before a final decision must be made and your suggestion of the lines of Nimoy are some I will be thinking upon while I am gone. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo Ferderation.svg

The miracle is this
The more we share...
The more
We have

~ Leonard Nimoy ~


You had given me a private thanks for the layout, but I just decided to post the final result here, and thank you for having made the suggestion — I had been so busy at the time that I probably would not have heard of Nimoy's death for at least a few more hours had you not alerted me. Thanks. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed your redirect. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem; seems appropriate. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I also considered redirecting it to bravery or courage. What do you think? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The choice you made of "ability" was best; the others really don’t match the concept as well, and only have relatively loose association with it. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hyperactive Absurdist in major transition period....Edit

I just got home a short while ago, finished up a layout I had begun earlier for today's QOTD, literally at the very last minute by UT calculations, immediately did a selection and in a very few minutes had created an entire layout for tomorrow, but now have to begin attending to many other matters, and expect that for at least the next week or two to be so active with other things that it is very likely I will have very little time to spend here each day. AFTER that, within the next month or so, I actually DO expect to be able to devote extensive time to at least a few things here, but find it unlikely I will get around to doing some things I have been too busy to do for at least another week or two, and might often still have only a few minutes a day to spare to do things here. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


I need to remove uninformative quotes to make the page more usable. The Divine Milieu section should be completely removed because its informational content is close to zero. After that, I will fill the freed space with informative quotes. 16:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in dialogue, at this point, but I would assert that you do not "need" to remove what you personally consider "uninformative quotes" of the great philosophic mind of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin‎‎ which others have found acceptable and significant for some years. The casualness with which you assert a belief in such a "need" is VERY informative of many casual assumptions and rather sloppy thinking. I am very glad there is interest in adding to the page on your part, but ANY removals of valid quotations from ANY pages should be SPECIFIED with clear reasons, in edit summaries, and USUALLY should be discussed beforehand on talk pages. As I have sometimes tried to point out to others, over many years, this project exists as a gathering place for wit and wisdom and some tolerable silliness at times, it does NOT exist as a place where those who believe they have enough wit and wisdom to be extremely silly and extremely stupid to arrogantly decide with absolutist assumptions and presumptions what valid and permissible material others should NOT be exposed to, without ANY extensive debate on such matters, among those interested and involved in the project. If such an attitude persists, I will likely extend a block on that page from anon edits for more than an hour, and perhaps a few weeks or more. Please take into consideration that this is a project for collaboration amidst many possible contentions, NOT for imposing judgements without contentions by those who believe they are right and proper in their assessments beyond any doubts of disputes which others might make. ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I thought you'd see yesterday's edits (e.g. my updating categories) to the Terry Pratchett page, which you've edited significantly, and so become aware that he'd passed away, without my having to bother you again with another message here. Although I am admittedly not familiar with his writings, I did realize that he was significant to you (through all the bolding, wikilinks and pictures in the page). Okay, ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It is no one else's duty to inform me of current events. I was so busy with several things I didn't have time to read all the edit summaries by generally trusted editors. I was somewhat disappointed to find no confirmation of the quote I had initially used to commemorate his life, as one of Pratchett's, as it had long been one I had much liked, and I just made corrections on the Discworld page and to the QOTD layout, based on my discoveries. I much liked Pratchett, and enjoyed what little of his work I have had a chance to read, and for many years had personally recommended Good Omens, his profoundly hilarious collaboration with Neil Gaiman, to people as one of the funniest satires I had ever read. I must be leaving soon, but will try to do a few things here, before doing so. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

"WikiSummary" friendly criticismEdit

Having just read the section started by the IP, above this one, I should perhaps remind you that you do go overboard sometimes. Don't take this the wrong way, but for example here you don't show any understanding of what "quotes" are. It's of course a natural tendency to post too much from a text that we find enjoyable, but we do need to have a sense of proportion. Keep in mind, Voltaire wrote over 2000 books and pamphlets. I have read a few dozens of them, in their original, but I would never consider myself an expert on Voltaire, and most certainly I would listen very carefully to the objections of any reader more knowledgeable than I on the subject, to having too many unimportant quotes in the page, from relatively minor works. A couple of weeks ago, I read his essay on Camoens (where he says the Lusiads steered a new course, &c.), and even though it was full of painful historical errors, I very much enjoyed it (because I am interested in such things) – but I didn't feel the need to flood Voltaire's Wikiquote page with it. Such long "quotes", from texts most people are not interested in, really do distract from the other more famous and notable quotes. "Space" should always be a concern. BTW, what is the English word for what students write down in a piece of paper (or tablets, nowadays) while studying, with the key points of the material that is going to be evaluated in the exam? "Synopsis"? Or "summary", maybe? Anyway, I get the sense that you sometimes do the same here, not just with quotes, but with bolding too, like a student underlining the stuff he thinks is most important in each passage... are we "Wikisummary"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Even before reading your comments I was examining and considering ways I might properly be less severe in some regards. I certainly do not wish to criticize any inclinations to honestly criticize me — and I will have a few harsh criticisms I will probably make of myself in coming months or even days, but I believe I have a very valid, extensive and profound awareness of what "quotes" are, and also understand what others often take them to be, and know that they are not always merely "quips" such as those who like to gain advantages without the discipline or burden of very much thought on their parts, or on those of their audiences. As to the words people use in diverse ways: many diverse sorts of summaries can go by many names, but to sum up some of my present concerns, I will state that some of this criticism is certainly valid, but disputable — as most assessments are, but I don’t have time to make much response presently. In recent days, and today, I have been busy with many things away from the computer, and must now AGAIN be leaving on an excursion to a nearby town, having just briefly gotten back from one. I had earlier hoped to have time to finish up a few things here, but did not, and will probably be back in time to catch up on at least a few necessary things, within a few hours. There are a few more things I would like to say on various issues, but don’t actually have time to do so, but might get back to addressing some of them within a few days or so. I actually expect this coming year will be one of the busiest of my life, in many ways, thus far, but I also expect to be able to take care of many more things here and elsewhere more rapidly as some things gradually or swiftly get done. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC) + tweaks




He does love his numbers
And they run, they run, they run him
In a great big circle
In a circle of infinity
3.14159 26535897932 3846 264 338 3279...

~ Kate Bush ~



Did you see this? Someone complimented you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. I had long intended to use the same layout of Kate with the π sign and numerical elaborations of it which I had used last year, and perhaps the hand with the dharma sun-star-cross-wheel on the other side from it — but I hadn't actually done much work on it, was trying to think of many other options which might work, and I actually had made no final decisions until the last few minutes, when most of the elements were swiftly gathered into a few slight variants, after I had returned from an excursion yesterday. I am now going to upload some images of pi-pies I made and ate this morning, to the Commons. I had meant to do that a bit earlier, but still have time to get them up to close this Pi-Day. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
The voice recordings you used to upload to go along with the QTODs are of your own voice right? (I found it surprisingly low-pitched.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to give no definite answers to some questions that it is not necessary for me to answer at this time. I am however quite proud of having made and eaten the Pi-pies pictured here — I had to do some editing in a rush, but did manage to get them posted on Pi-Day 2015 by UTC. I had made them prior to the "Pi-moment", ate the Pizza one just prior to it and the Fish-finger and custard one just after the moment. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I need... I need... fish fingers… and custard!
~ Eleventh incarnation of The Doctor ~
Well, I would expect you to read quotes, especially poetry, with more passion, & fire. But worry not — one of the great thing about the Internet is that we get to read other people's posts with whatever voice we feel is most adequate ([8]). (I suppose the "Pi-moment" you're referring to was yesterday (March 14, '15) at 9:26:53... The pie and pizza look good.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, so fortuitous a date provides such a "Pi-moment" only once in a century, on the 14th of March, and as "Pi-Day" has only gradually arisen as a celebration since the 1980's this was actually the first celebration of it ever — and thus my impulse to mark the occasion with 2π pies... So it goes. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually had eaten fish-fingers and custard in relation to previous Doctor Who events prior to today, so I knew it actually is pleasant tasting, despite the rather ridiculous-sounding oddity of the combination. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
People celebrate for all sorts of "irrational" reasons. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, and π is very real, and very significant, and very "irrational" and the implications of it in many ways provides many forms of intellectual and mystical and simply silly fun. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamedEdit

23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with the Kalkin account being renamed (which merely redirects to this one, on this wiki). I would have preferred to have retained it as an active alternative account, on some wikis, but in response to coercive demands I had agreed some years ago not to use any of my alternate accounts here to edit, and in meek deference to many forms of paranoia and hypocrisy I have not used any of my alternative accounts to edit in some years, on any of the Wikimedia wikis, though not without some consternation at the unjust constraints upon my genuinely creative, instructive and benevolent intentions. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

I am assuming that only the Kalkin account will be affected, not my MUCH more used Kalki account. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am cleaning up the article. Also thanks for help. --W56J (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your very welcome. I had been gone longer than I had intended on a couple excursions last night, and must soon be going off on another one, so I might not do much on the article myself immediately, as I attend to other things. I expect to be intensely busy for most of the next week, but when I get the chance will be checking in here often, and might do a little bit within the next hour or so. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 11:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I find amazing your editing at the referenced article. I learned a lot witnessing it. Thank you for the lesson. --W56J (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I am always glad to help encourage involvement here in making significant contributions to the understandings of diverse forms of thought and reverence. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 13:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me guessEdit

Let me guess. You're under 30, American and never attended university, hence your immature interpretation of Browne to tally with your pseudo-spirituality.—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Let me guess, in return, with a bit more elaboration — you seem to be an arrogant pseudo-intellectual absolutist with probably a slightly above average I.Q. who believes that their particular dull, stale, mentally constipated perspectives should be those which constrain the rights and tastes and expressions of everyone, and things should be censored enough to make their very limited intellects seem brilliant relative to others, even such as Thomas Browne, because even his wit and wisdom is often presented in such tepid and dull forms as they favor. I will state, that even as an absurdist, who does recognize the limits of many forms of absolutes, I can say that you are absolutely wrong on some of your apparent assumptions, and "guesses" though I will not specify which, at this time, though some of them might be revealed later in the year, as I unleash more of the information which I can to help many combat the ignorant and confused and misguided forms of absolutism which are normally encountered by most people in their daily lives. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Block vandalEdit

Hi Kalki, can you block this vandal? User talk: Thanks in advance.--Syum90 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone already has, for the time being. Thanks for the notice. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Chronology vs Alphabetical listings in theme pagesEdit

Hi Kalki. Thanks for your note about chronological vs. alphabetic organization of pages. You make a good point about duplication of quotations being easier to avoid in alphabetically sorted pages. I hadn't thought about that. My thinking is that a historical organization allows the reader to see the evolution of ideas on a subject over time. I understand your concern, and I will stop changing existing pages until we get a chance to discuss the subject more. Peter1c (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am currently busy attending to many other things right now, on and off the internet and my computer, but expect to do a little more here within a few hours. I had hoped to be somewhat in a more restive period soon, but my current assessments are that I am going to be full-out busy with many things for at least some weeks yet, but I gradually should have more time for more extended periods of work here, rather than just brief glances in on things. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading this reminded me of a thanksgiving sermon for the restoration of the monarchy in Portugal (1823) preached by José Agostinho de Macedo in the presence of the King, in which he says (my translation):

"If I contemplate human Societies in their moral state, all that is required to make me fall into an abyss of horror and sorrow is the contemplation of the scourge that is called war. I will give it another name, and call it the universal grave of mankind, the most powerful weapon that sin put in the hands of death!! The War!! Ah! may its ominous shadow never darken our horizons! Lord, let me raise [...] this mourning veil, [...] be a peaceful King. Portuguese People, fear this devouring monster! The war of the Lord alone should arm your arms: ad praeliandum bella Domini: only when Religion is attacked, and the throne offended, defend yourselves: never provoke war, repel the aggressors of war. The war; this is the greatest scourge of the moral World!"

I thought you might enjoy it. The rest of the sermon is even more interesting, but I don't have time to translate it. Take care, DanielTom (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I consider Daniel Morgan one of the most effective military commanders of the entire revolutionary war, and his victory at the Battle of Cowpens one of the most important of the war, and perhaps an indispensable one for the progression toward what became the victory of George Washington at Yorktown. In their own diverse ways, those two, Lafayette, and Ethan Allen have long been among the most impressive figures to me, in their various actions during that conflict. Don’t have much time to say more, because I must be leaving... So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A notice against fanatically obtuse "Power Promotions"…Edit

As the prompter of this section is an anon who seems to prefer using various IPs and not establishing any coherent identity beyond those discernible by the patterns of destructive editing which has been engaged in, this is a notice to the promoter of "Power" imagery and ideas who seeks to promote peculiar views which involve REMOVING of statements of ideas of others, and promoting peculiarly asinine and sociopathic views as if they were signs of "Greatness."

I am assuming, by the content and nature of your edits that you are the same person who made extensive destructive edits to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin page recently.

To all appearances, by your actions, you arrogantly and seem to have an infantile idea that you are somehow to be perceived as a "great man" in your REMOVAL of relevant statements of Quakers and the great Jewish philosopher Martin Buber on notions of power with edits summaries in doing so of "If power is understanding, then it behooves a great man to crave power."

You specifically REMOVED these relevant statements by the Quakers and Buber, among others:

  • Greatness by nature includes a power, but not a will to power. … The great man, whether we comprehend him in the most intense activity of his work or in the restful equipoise of his forces, is powerful, involuntarily and composedly powerful, but he is not avid for power. What he is avid for is the realization of what he has in mind, the incarnation of the spirit.
  • When we see a great man desiring power instead of his real goal we soon recognize that he is sick, or more precisely that his attitude to his work is sick. He overreaches himself, the work denies itself to him, the incarnation of the spirit no longer takes place, and to avoid the threat of senselessness he snatches after empty power. This sickness casts the genius on to the same level as those hysterical figures who, being by nature without power, slave for power, in order that they may enjoy the illusion that they are inwardly powerful, and who in this striving for power cannot let a pause intervene, since a pause would bring with it the possibility of self-reflection and self-reflection would bring collapse.
  • So long as a man’s power, that is, his capacity to realize what he has in mind, is bound to the goal, to the work, to the calling, it is, considered in itself, neither good nor evil, it is only a suitable or unsuitable instrument. But as soon as this bond with the goal is broken off or loosened, and the man ceases to think of power as the capacity to do something, but thinks of it as a possession, that is, thinks of power in itself, then his power, being cut off and self-satisfied, is evil; it is power withdrawn from responsibility, power which betrays the spirit, power in itself.

Though you seem interested in contributing some material, you seem MORE obsessed with REMOVING it, and thus seem to manifest a clear inclination to absolutist CENSORSHIP of any ideas contrary to one's own which is clearly evident in the highly DESTRUCTIVE pattern of editing you THUS far have been engaged in some of the pages you have afflicted.

I had previously been willing to retain some questionable material you had added, on another page than I had actually thought was clearly merited, and shall continue to retain those quotes you add which are clearly relevant to the subjects of the pages, yet by some of the very analogies you seem obsessed with promoting your very own "Destructive interference" against the normal process of this wiki in presenting diverse views, and retaining them, where relevant, is a SYMPTOM and testimony of the WEAKNESS of your own grasp of MANY of those ideas.

IF you were less fanatical in ERASING the ideas and presentations of OTHERS, I certainly could perhaps sympathize more readily with some of your desire to promote what you seem to believe are important facts, and which in some cases may be, and to various degrees your personal opinions about them, which might quite rightly seem very strangely deficient or deluded to others, whether or not they are right in any of their particular assessments as to why or how or not. Such are fates familiar to many of us, whether we regular indicate such things or not. I don’t have time to do a thorough assessment of what you might have added to the pages you recently edited, just now, as I must be leaving soon, but will probably add back any clearly relevant material you may have provided, later today. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 13:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

You sent me a message about supposed "nonsense" on Spider Robinson's Wikiquote pageEdit

If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron. ~ Spider Robinson

If you HAD BOTHERED READING THE STORY, you would have see that I had quoted THE NEXT SENTENCE from it. The one spouting nonsense is you, not me. I would hope you would apologize, but I know that this is generally not going to happen.JHobson3 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually had read the story, "God is an Iron" by Spider Robinson, MANY TIMES, as it has long been one of my favorite short stories, and one which I have long found among the most notable I have ever read, for MANY reasons, and the phrase which appears as the title was actually the very FIRST quote I ever personally chose for "Quote of the day" here, way back on 1 November 2003. So I was VERY familiar with it — in its ORIGINAL form, as published in OMNI magazine in May 1979, p. 66

I will presently apologize, for some of the errors involved in the present situation, in the sense of explaining what has occurred to produce some of the honest errors which have occurred.

When I saw your irate statements, I initially thought I might be dealing with a troll, because I HAD actually first done a search at the time to make sure there was not some new version of the story out there of which I was unaware, but there must have been some error in my search entry, or the search results for some reason, for I did NOT turn up ANY instances. Now having done another search I find there ARE a few instances where the new line is included in the story, apparently in the version in Time Travellers Strictly Cash (2001), which I had not read. (Let's do the time-warp again?)

Please accept the fact that there have been misunderstandings in this situation. I actually find it somewhat hard to believe Robinson actually altered the story in such a way, for it somewhat alters the dramatic and thematic flow of the narrative.

Eventually I intend to publicly reveal some interesting reasons I find the story so notable, but it might be many months or years before I do, and it involves some surprising peculiarities in my own life, and my discovery that "God is an Iron" as a very young child, and my own use of the phrase in PRECISELY the sense that Robinson does, long before I had ever had any encounter with ANY of the published versions of that story or anything else by him, to my knowledge. I am genuinely sorry but somewhat amused that there has been such a misunderstanding between us, and will make a note of the differing versions on the page. Thanks, for your interest in our project, and I hope you can appreciate the fact that I, much like Robinson, do tend to believe that God, indeed and beyond all deeds, IS an Iron — and will now repeat his own assertion and declare — "that's a hot one." So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually do feel I am in something of a "time warp" experience here — because examining the PDF copy of the magazine at the Internet Archive, I see the phrase occurs there as well, and presently I can only assume that an html copy I had found on the internet MANY years ago, and probably had read over the most had omitted the line — but in any event, I seem most in error here. SO it goes. … ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should change the message {{test2}} into {{welcome}} on his talk page. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that reminder. I had been busy at non-computer tasks, and expect to remain so, off and on, for the next week, so even when I am able to check in here briefly at times, there will be many occasions where I can't stick around long. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A fool such as I …Edit


Now and then there's a fool such as I am over you.
You taught me how to love
And now you say that we are through.
I'm a fool, but I'll love you dear
Until the day I die.
Now and then there's a fool such as I.

~ Bill Trader ~



I developed this layout for All Fool's Day … but liked it so much that I will probably use an adaptation of it more prominently in the future, and perhaps trim down some of the other quotes on this page. I'd had some elements of it in mind for quite some time, but they didn't all come together well until the last few minutes of work on it, before posting it — as is quite often the case. ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


Did you know Dryden translated the first book of the Iliad?[9]

(Pope mentions it in his Preface: "It is a great loss to the poetical world that Mr. Dryden did not live to translate the Iliad. He has left us only the first book, and a small part of the sixth... had he translated the whole work, I would no more have attempted Homer after him than Virgil: his version of whom (notwithstanding some human errors) is the most noble and spirited translation I know in any language.")

It is often said that the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon is mentioned in the proposition of the Iliad, but (unless I'm misreading something) that is not the case:

The wrath of Peleus' son, O Muse, resound / ... From that ill-omened hour when strife begun, / Betwixt Atrides great and Thetis' godlike son. (Dryden)
Achilles' wrath... / ... Since great Achilles and Atrides strove... (Pope)

Notice that it doesn't say Atrides's son (Agamemnon). Pope writes in his Preface that the main story of the Iliad is the "anger of Achilles". Apparently it never occurred to him that "anger" (first word of the poem) is not a very noble emotion for a hero, nor that it is completely inappropriate as the subject, argument, and action of an epic poem, which should be something commendable, virtuous and sublime. How can a passion such as "anger" (or "wrath") ever be worthy of the majesty of an epic?

Just some thoughts. I am actually very impressed by Dryden's version—having tried to translate the first few lines of the Iliad myself, I know how hard it is to make it sound poetic. But then, everything Dryden and Pope touched turned to gold. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I was dead wrong, but I'll keep what I wrote above for reference. Atreus is the father of Agamemnon, but Atreides is in fact Agamemnon (Atreus's son). Not knowing this, I started writing the above post first as a question, but was then misled by a redirect from Atrides to Atreus on Wikipedia (which I now see leads to a section explaining the difference). So, writing "Atrides" or "Atreus' son" is actually equivalent. Okay, DanielTom (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I have scanned over your comments, but don’t have time for a full reply right now — I have been gone much of the day, and must again be leaving in a few minutes. I might indicate some thoughts on such matters as you have raised within a few days here, or I might not — I remain far too busy with too many things to make definite commitments about what I can do here and at various other places in coming days. I don’t expect to be gone long after I leave, but do need to rest for tomorrow, as I have had very little rest or sleep in the last couple of days, so I might not do much here for a day or two, even after I do return. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎
That's fine. I'll just mention that reading these names again suddenly reminded me that my own language (Portuguese) used to distinguish between the father's and the son's names in a similar way, in the old days, if I'm not mistaken—for example, Fernandes would also be the son of Fernando, etc. (but this might just be a coincidence). Okay, I shall bother you no more... Nice QOTD, above, btw. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I remain somewhat rushed as there are MANY things I must apply myself to in my local terrestrial vicinity for most of the next week. I will note that your comments impelled me to think upon making more assertions on my own perspectives so as to clarify them for the sake of others. I was reserved, earlier about asserting to many of my own discernments at this time, but I was sorrowed by your confusing assertions indicating anger as something inately vile. An excess of it, and especially a misdirection of it at people, rather than some of their actions and will is certainly vile, but even a normally serene and intensely loving person can be very intensely angry at many forms of injustice — and yet never fall into the error of directing anger against the proper welfare of anyone or hating the individuals who are so ignorant and confused as to be committing or promoting such injustices.

Even the very great Christian saint, Augustine of Hippo wisely asserted:

Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.

It is always a tragedy to be ruled by anger, hatred and fear of many forms of vileness — or simply DIFFERENCE, rather than by acceptance, love and hope of greater good, and appreciation of great diversity.

Music and words that indicate very great levels of Awareness, Life and Love often inspire me, even when they are not always logically or rational explicable to very poorly informed or developed minds. Whenever the subject of anger comes up, I tend to think of one of my longtime favorite Kate Bush songs and videos : "Love and Anger (but in all honesty there are very few things by Kate which are NOT among my very favorite pieces of music). This was the first music and video I listened to this Easter morning (It is still Easter where I am located). I believe I did this just after sleeping soon after the dawn, but might have done before the dawn, while I was awake doing other things. Afterwards I listened to a relatively new member of my "favorite groups": Walk off the Earth, and their video of "Rule the World" which certainly is not intended for any claims of authoritarian command over others but a rather spirited defiance of such attitudes. There are indications of both anger and a firm and resolute transcendence of anger which I believe is evident in this piece of music and its video, and I am only now beginning to familiarize myself with more of their covers and original music in recent days. I probably will have a daily dose of that for at least the next week to help keep me inspired. I have a few other things to deal with here and elsewhere, so I am going to attend to some of these things now. I will probably attempt to elaborate on more of my ethical perspective soon, so that people can better understand my attitudes and why I sometimes have peculiar resolves I know that they cannot understand and usually don’t bother to try to explain (and when I do I often get accused of being too "verbose" in my efforts at being meticulously honest). So it goes... ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

Thanks for your thoughts. Still, the classics have always seen anger as a mad and hateful passion: Horace called it a brief furor; Cicero without ceremony called an angry man "a moron", and even Aristotle (as fanatic as he was for Homer) outlined this passion as an irrational and canine affection [J.A.M.]. It may be a mistake, though, to say that the Iliad is just about the anger of Achilles at Agamemnon: the true theme of the epic might be something more profound, viz. a reflection on the effects/consequences of anger, or: when (if ever) it is appropriate, even being angry, to take another's life. For example, when Patroclus kills Sarpedon, Hector becomes angry, and kills Patroclus, which in turn angers Achilles, who kills Hector. In the end, Homer might be trying to give the answer, that anger is never a justification to kill. Again, I may be mistaken about this. What I do know for sure is what music you should be listening to this evening: [10] – happy Easter. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, as an absurdist I am VERY aware that the ways words CAN be used can be VERY different. When I refer to anger I refer to a valid emotional response in rejection of some forms of circumstances or will, and not to some contempt of other human beings and their capacities for various emotions and will which can be manifest in malice and will to do unjust or needless harm. Here I will note that though I can accept far broader ranges of definitions of some terms than many, I tend to restrict myself to accepting much narrower definitions of justice, and REJECT the notions of vengeance which are quite common or usual among many people, and tend to focus more on genuine rectification of unjust situations, to the extent possible, than mere retaliation against others for having had roles in creating these, especially when it clearly does not or cannot serve humanity generally to indulge in sometimes quite natural impulses to such. One can be quite fierce and angry in pursuing Justice, but those I would define as the wisest, strongest and best of people do not do needless harm, even to those extremely contemptible in their inclinations and aims. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to note I was listening to parts of your suggestion even as I typed — one of the favorite pieces of many people, and one I have often listened to. Though honestly I believe I have listened in recent years to renditions of Leonard Cohen's modern take on a "Hallelujah" theme a bit more. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
It's 3:30 a.m. here, and it's been a long day, but I forgot to add that if the interpretation of the Iliad that I suggested above is wrong, then according to its proposition the story really should have ended once Achilles and Agamemnon reconcile. The problem is, this doesn't happen. Instead, the poem goes on for countless other books, which are (at best) an addendum/appendix to the main story. These later books do nothing to advance the story the author proposed to sing so they don't actually belong in the poem. To me, although I admitedly may not even have a fraction of the wisdom of Homer (or whoever wrote his lines), his whole poem is a huge mess. Now, on the question of justice... it seems to me you are fundamentally mistaken about it. As you should know, Justice demands complete impartiality, which is why it should be administered solely by the state, and never by the victims—who although entitled to material, moral and historical restitution for their suffering, should never swing the sword of "justice" themselves—for, as you say, they would inevitably (mis)use it for vengeance—which alas often passed for "justice" in the dark and barbaric not-so-distant past. I have to wake up at 6 a.m. tomorrow (actually, today), so I'm now going to bed. 'Night. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I accept that you must rest, and make a few notes for further reckonings whenever you encounter them. I acknowledge without resentment that variations of "the state" currently have a prominent role in administering many things, including notions of justice, and probably long will have, but Justice is a word, and like all words can be defined in various ways and have various associations to various people. I do NOT seek to idolize words as absolutely reliable means of conveying many notions I myself or of anyone else might develop, but accept and assert that they are INSTRUMENTS of INDICATION which can provide some means of partial or provisional understandings and agreements in regard to many things. WE personally seem to agree that vengeance and its pursuit is NOT innately just, but I know that there are many who would deny and reject such notions, and I can respect many of their emotions and even valid reasons for many of their feelings, even if I disagree with their assessments overall. I generally have avoided providing many direct indications of my opinions about many things here, because I know that they are extremely complex and often involve complex notions, ideas and associations most people are not very familiar with, as yet. I might deal with some of these more openly within a few months, to help clarify some of my own ideas to others. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter, from Harvey and me!Edit

P-O-O-K-A. Pooka. From old Celtic mythology, a fairy spirit in animal form … The pooka appears here and there, now and then, to this one and that one. A benign but mischievous creature. Very fond of rumpots, crackpots, and how are you, Mr. Wilson?
~ Harvey ~

I've been far too busy to do much here today, and must again be leaving, but am posting a picture of my favorite Easter egg and spoon. I should be back in time to do a bit more here before the day is over. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter, Kalk! Not sure if you're religious or anything. But, anyway, hope you're doing well. Illegitimate Barrister 02:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I can and do appreciate and celebrate much of the beauty and wisdom inherent in many aspects of a wide variety of religious observances, but not necessarily with any acceptance or devotion to specific credal doctrines. I am very much aligned with many of the ideas of many Unitarian Universalists on such matters. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 03:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Global auto-blockEdit

Hello. My account was compromised during my absence. Can you indefinitely block my account globally to prevent damage to all sister wiki projects? Thanks for collaborating! --BScMScMD (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As your account is a very new one, I am assuming this is some new form of trolling behavior, but do not have time to look into the matter thoroughly right now. I must be leaving soon and will be gone most of the day. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 08:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

read thisEdit

Humans are NOT dung beetles, and most of us, quite naturally, do not have any appetite for horseshit, and are not prone to accept people labelling it anything other than what it is.

please --Sigehelmus (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I could easily be quite facetious and say something like "OMG! You are one of the few who have uncovered the wordwide Zionist conspiracy at controlling the world!" Or I could be a bit more crude and say "OMFG — you are another one of those who eagerly seek out and eat up such masses of horseshit, and expect others to do the same."

I can actually respect your apparent sincerity and your humanity, and your capacity to be deluded, and thus can believe that you actually believe much of that crap is true which is merely wildly insane fantasy, and fail to realize that what apparent "facts" can be found to apparently support them are usually but meager and very carefully selected ranges of far broader ranges of facts and truth that provide far greater support to the repudiation of such nonsense.

I can accept that when people have been fed so much racist, partisan and ethnocentric horseshit that they actually learn to like it and think of it as "great nutrition" they are generally more to be pitied than blamed for many of their forms of stupidities, no matter how disgusting and appalling they may seem to most. But when their obsession for it is such that they insist on feeding it to others as nutritious food, human beings of greater intellectual and moral integrity should insist Humans are NOT dung beetles, and most of us, quite naturally, do not have any appetite for horseshit, and are not prone to accept people labelling it anything other than what it is.

I actually have very little time to spend here, and must leave soon, and will be gone much of the day, and a quick scan of your link and your edits leaves me with sufficient impressions of your agenda to assert that continued insertion of extremist "conspiracy theories" to justify their advocacy of extremism, and removal of criticism of various forms of fascism and fascist disinformation will likely result in blocks from editing here. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 08:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please show me some hard counterevidence or don't even bother ranting, for you fall on deaf ears. You keep mentioning how yo uhave "little time" yet you continue ranting and raving your New Age pseudo-intellectual garbage, and attempt (and fail miserably) to subtly hide your pent-up frustration at yourself and the truth. EDIT: Oh, and little notice; if you think these articles actually change anyone's worldview in anyone's search for truth, you're terribly wrong and at the most deluding schoolchildren. Are you proud of that? You do know there's a reason professors tell their children not to rely on Wikipedia right? It's because of biased, paranoid, deluded zombies like you. --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Before I actually began dozing off, while responding to many of your ridiculous and contemptible assertions, truly tired from my activities elsewhere today, you truly made me laugh out loud at the profound levels of ignorance, arrogance and asinine stupidity you presented.

I very have little doubt that rational assessments will fall on deaf ears — as that happens all the time, even with people who plainly have far more rational integrity than you remotely have begun to exhibit. To insist I present on "hard counter-evidence" on what is actually an incoherent mass of claims of about worldwide zionist control is a task I will decline to bother with, which I am sure you and others might wish to assert is "proof" of their validity, but actually life is far too short to spend time attempting to address many of the levels of ridiculous stupidity in every lunatic delusion one encounters.

To quite bluntly and simply call such extremely asinine nonsense such as you have linked to a mass of "horseshit" is hardly "ranting". I will confess that my metaphoric allusions to the nonsense you are promoting as horse excrement, is actually a callous insult to that substance, which at least fertilizes soil, whereas the nonsense you seem addicted to believing and peddling to the extent you can is the the sort of foulness which actually poisons many minds which remain ignorant and confused, and in itself serves to fertilize none with any observations of great merit.

Psychological projection onto me and others who clearly don’t accept your apparently racist forms of fascism, of your perception of us all as "biased, paranoid, deluded zombies" is quite revealing observation, of what are clearly prominent tendencies in your own character. And with that observation I will end for now, because I actually do have to go somewhere for a while again, and already am quite sleepy, and definitely I have to sleep when I return in anticipation of another active day tomorrow. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

What you have again just ranted can be accurately strawmanned as a gallant "NO YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT YOU'RE JUST PROJECTING YOU'RE THE ZOMBIE", and then proceeded to add the accursed label of "racist" on top of that. I do not believe other races are superior to others, they all have their own niches that adapted to their environments. For someone with a crucifix placed firmly upon their signature, it is quite hypocritical that it is you who has resorted to anger, prejudice, contempt, astroturfing, and damage control. Although you have rebutted in total enough pedantry to fill several Gospels, you have not made any reasonable attempt to deny any evidence I have presented, most likely because of your own cognitive dissonance (and I hypothesize you suffer greatly from said dissonance as well as a mental disorder such as BPD based on your irrational and unnerving behavior which I would only typically see in eccentrics, and you yourself admitted before your views came firmly planted "from youth"). In short, you are insane and you are trying to play policeman/Messiah and spread your hyper-egalitarian radical worldview "subtly" by emphasizing and limelighting those quotes which satisfy YOUR worldview, and dismiss ANY dissent as the pejorative label of your choice. As the average person would say, "you're bloody crazy dude".--Sigehelmus (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations. That was definitely the most incoherent and irrelevant tirade of quite ignorant nonsense thrown out scattershot which I have encountered in a long time — though I have little doubt that there might well be an abundance of such rants in the forums you and your fellow "racialist" fascists frequent. It definitely made me laugh, for reasons I will probably make more apparent in coming weeks, at my own pace, and at points of my own choosing. I definitely do NOT have time to attempt such today, and will not likely attempt to do so in a single day, when I do get around to doing so. I am currently in a period where I am so busy with so many things that I have very limited time to spend at home, or even at one place, very long. At this point I will simply state that you truly fail to realize how infantile and transparent much of the nature of your own ranting seems to someone of far more intelligence and knowledge than the ignorant and confused people you might normally encounter in making your assertions. I have been aware of many of the processes of psychological projection from a very young age, and I actually make NO denial that I too make projections of various sorts — most people DO, but the character of WHAT they project varies greatly and the kindest and humblest of people tend to project hopes or potentials of kindness in others, even the most ignorant and confused and vile, while the most ignorant confused and vile tend to project the most abhorrent of characterizations they can upon others, so as to apparently justify, excuse or even sanctify their hatreds, indifference or desires to suppress and oppress various individuals or groups in unjust ways.

You clearly seem to have very little awareness of my actual opinions on many matters, even some of those I have very openly stated here in the past, despite your apparent confidence in your VERY INCORRECT assessments of what you apparently believe or wish others to believe them to be. I admire and respect the wise individuals of MANY diverse faiths, of which Jesus was certainly among the most noted and notable, but I also count many absurdist writers and philosophers among the foremost of the wise and admirable. You seem to be quite stupidly convinced that I accept or insist upon acceptance or promotion of some form of official Christian doctrines as if acceptance of some credal statements were necessary for ethical or spiritual salvation. I have never been someone so idolizing of words as many people of many faiths are, and declarations of doctrines of dogma are not something I focus so much attention upon as their clear dispositions and deeds — whatever words or declarations they might choose to embrace or reject. Humility, Courage, Honesty and Compassion are virtues I recognize and revere, and those lacking in any of these lack a great deal of integrity in regards to all of them, for they are all ultimately bound to each other in many ways.

Despite your clear lack of genuine lucidity, coherence and actual knowledge of many matters which you might sometimes seem to speak with immense confidence about, you definitely at times have a bit more sophisticated cleverness in your hypocritical rantings than most advocates of "racialist" fascism of various sorts, which could easily convince many of the ignorant and confused that you might actually have some valid points, even in making some of the most glaring and obvious errors which are apparent to anyone well informed about them. I type with some weariness, and again plan to make at least one more excursion today, despite my weariness. I actually have had far more limited time to spend here in recent days, and expect that circumstance to continue for at least a couple more — but some of your most laughably obtuse accusations and assessments will eventually be more thoroughly addressed when I do get the time, perhaps, this weekend (when I am expecting, but not certain of having a bit more time than I have had in recent days to even check in on my computer, let alone deal with many things at various places on the internet, including this one). Until then I will state I harbor no malice towards people who disagree with me on many issues, though I make no pretense of admiring or agreeing with many of their opinions. So it goes. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC) + tweaks


WikiLubber keeps reverting my edits on American Dad when I'm splitting the page up into different seasons —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

1. You forgot to sign. 2. We don't need individual season articles for every show. We have shows like Law & Order (and all its spinoffs), Full House, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, to name but a few, and they don't have, nor do they even need, individual season articles. WikiLubber (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I just arrived home a few minutes ago and must do a few things here and leave again. I personally prefer to keep shows on one page, where practical, but can concede that a show with 11 seasons is eligible to be broken up into smaller pages. I don't know what most editors of that page would prefer, but perhaps enquiries and discussion should begin on the article's talk page, to see what followers of the program wish. That's about all I have time to state now, as I have much to attend to elsewhere soon, but have a few things to catch up on here, before leaving. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Other examples of non-split pages: Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Shining Time Station, The Golden Girls, Friends, Cheers and many more. Splitting pages into separate seasons is completely unnecessary. WikiLubber (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As I had stated, I often prefer one page where it is practical, but it is not always convenient for many, and many people have preferred to break up such pages for shows into seasons with far less than 11, as exist for American Dad!. It is certainly not extraordinary to break up such a large page into separate seasons, and I believe this anon IP editor has made good-faith efforts to to provide full listing and access to all episodes from the primary page, in the edits which have recently developed. Thus I am presently tending to favor the anon's efforts, barring any clear reason to reject them by the majority of people concerned with the page. I believe a discussion of some aesthetic tweaks or options might be appropriate, but not an outright rejection of the efforts thus far made for a break-out into separate pages. I once again must be leaving soon, but I believe if the dispute continues, the matter should probably be decided by a request for commentary, on the talk page, perhaps with a notice to that page at the village pump. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC) + tweaks


See here. Should we "bold" quotes in other languages (e.g. in Latin)? I'm interested in your opinion. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that bolding should not generally be used on foreign text. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You've helped do this in the past.  Hopefully, you can do it again.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This has now been done. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks!  allixpeeke (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I started a new page called supernatural.  If you know of the source of the Matheson quote, it would make a fitting addition to the supernatural page.  :)  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating that page. I placed quote on the page, after I removed the dead link to the original interview (which I believe I had read while it was active), and replaced it with a more recent link at NPR which references it. The quote is one I found notable as reflecting my own avoidance of the word since about 5 or 6 years of age, when I began to make explorations of the relatively limited and often very skewed and constrained vocabularies of others. There is much more I was prompted to indicate, but I really have very limited time right now, and must be leaving soon. In the past couple weeks I have been far more active elsewhere, on a regular basis, and by mutual agreements with others this is likely to continue for at least another month or two. I do expect to have more time to spend here eventually, but for at least another week or two, it is likely I will often have only a few minutes a day when I can spare the time to check in here. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 11:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC) + tweaks


You're the expert. Is there a way to add wikilinks automatically (say, selecting the word and pressing some button under Advanced which I can't find), or do you have to do it manually [[ ]] one by one? ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I still do it manually one by one, and know of no other way to do it. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 09:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Editing tip – There are two tools for this, an old tried-and-true way, and a newfangled one.
  1. The original tool for this is in the box at the bottom of the edit screen, on the line headed "Wiki markup". Select some text in the edit box or the summary box and click the "[[]]" button. This will place double brackets around the selected text.

    Caveats: (1) If you need to scroll the screen to reach the button, make sure the original text is still selected, as some mouse actions will cancel the selection. (2) If no text is selected then empty brackets are inserted, leaving the cursor between them. (3) If neither the edit box nor the summary box are currently active then the button does nothing.

  2. The newer tool (supposed to be more intuitively user friendly) is in the tool bar along the top of the edit box. Select some text in the edit box and click the icon that looks sort of like three links in a chain, then in the dialogue box that appears click the "Insert link" button to accept default settings.

    Caveats: (1) This does not work in the summary box. (2) I don't use it because it takes an extra mouse click, so I don't know what quirks or "gotchas" it may have. (Personally, I don't use any part of the new tool bar for anything.)

The foregoing tools may not be available, or may be different, if you are using one of the nonstandard "skins" or the "Visual Editor" beta. Happy editing! ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks Kalki and Ningauble. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, in advance.  : )   allixpeeke (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent.  Thanks.  allixpeeke (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

John NashEdit

has just passed a way. The best quote I can think of to honor him is from A Beautiful Mind (film):

"My quest has taken me to the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back. I have made the most important discovery of my career – the most important discovery of my life. It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logic or reasons can be found."

Maybe you could use it in your next QOTD? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I had just thought of Nash at some length within the last couple of days, for peculiar reasons, and am saddened by the news of his death. The line you suggest seems acceptable, with corrections and extensions to read:

I've always believed in numbers. In the equations and logics that lead to reason.But after a lifetime of such pursuits, I ask, what truly is logic? Who decides reason? My quest has taken me through the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back — and I have made the most important discovery of my career – the most important discovery of my life. It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logic or reasons can be found.

I will state the suggestion as yours in posting it to the suggestion page, and working on a layout. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I was at a high school "Japanese" party (Haruhi club) last week, to which I was invited to teach Go, and in my presentation I showed them A Beautiful Mind [11] and talked a bit about John Nash (and mentioned that I thought he was still alive). If I remember correctly, the first time I actually studied game theory was in a class called "Economics and Industrial Organization" (in my second year of college, and others), where the Nash equilibrium is one of the first things we are taught (it's easy). The QOTD you've just created looks great to me. Thanks for your work. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, in advance.  : )   allixpeeke (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to check in just after you posted this — and it is now done. I have to be leaving again soon, but might try to do a slight bit of work here later, before I do — within the next hour or so. I have to be attending to other matters right now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 11:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Gracias.  allixpeeke (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Links for another…Edit

I was a bit delayed in doing things here, but here are a few links to some of the things we touched upon in conversation earlier today:

Kate Bush
Walk off the Earth
St. Vincent
Simone Weil
Albert Camus
Robert Anton Wilson
Wilhelm Reich
James Branch Cabell
Neil Gaiman
Books of Magic
Unitarian Universalism
Joss Whedon
Giordano Bruno
Baruch Spinoza
Edwin Abbott Abbott
Edward Abbey

There are a few other things I might add later — but I must be leaving now. I hope you find Wikiquote an interesting place for explorations. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC) + tweaks

PG artworkEdit

I personally have no qualms with nudity in art, (I actually am slightly favorable towards it, as artistic expression), but I think people who come to the sight may be put-off if the first thing they see is "tits and dicks". Abattoir666 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Block 70Jack90Edit

Would you do us all a favor and please block 70Jack90 for its false allegation against me?

Furthermore, it has been undoing all my highly-justified edits and constantly failed to comply with Wikiquote's limitations on quotes.
And now it has become the real sockpuppet, as its other account: 90Jack70, has proven. WikiLubber (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
And I request that all its false threats on its edit summaries (including that of its sockpuppet account) be removed immediately. WikiLubber (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I certainly have not been spending enough time here lately to be familiar with all the contentions and circumstances involved in this current set of disputes, and do not have much time to spend examining them now, nor even to review my own past assessments of some similar disputes, but from what I little I have discerned, I doubt that it will be settled to everyone's satisfaction, or even that of most people, any time soon.
The past few months have been far busier for me in many ways than I had anticipated, and quite often I have had little more than a few minutes a day to squeeze in a few activities here, before needing to leave and attend to other things. I have already had to make one trip between selecting a quote of a day and making a layout for it, and now must leave again. I might attempt to attend to a few things here when I return, but remain busy with many other matters. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. PinkEdit

If you could help cleanup that would be great on Mr. Pink. Thanks. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I simply made a redirect of that page to the one for Reservoir Dogs, as there is no pressing need for a separate page for a character in a single film. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Eddie GuerreroEdit

take a look at it when you get a chance thank you. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried moving Platoon to Platoon (film), and I also tried moving The Prestige to The Prestige (film), but…Edit

Thanks again, in advance.  : )   allixpeeke (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

These have now been moved to match the Wikipedia titles for the pages. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool.  Thanks again.  allixpeeke (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, thank in advance.  allixpeeke (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

P. S.  Sometimes, I think I should perhaps request adminship just so I don't have to constantly ask admins to help me with these basic moves.  But, then I think, I just don't want that much responsibility.  Too bad there's no way for y'all to grant me the power to delete pages without also granting me adminship.  Alas.

The page has now been moved. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Once again, thanks.  allixpeeke (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


This page should be moved to Spyro: Year of the Dragon, to preserve its history. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The page and its history has been moved, with the most recent tweaks done by IP on a re-creation of the page preserved. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 08:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Before your revisions the intro had read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So i think one sentence, that there exist mainstream view and about not mainstream view should be added maybe in the end of the intro. It's only my humble opinion but I'm not a type of hard-worker and similary not a native English speaker (can't even use a/an/the) so for now I will not complete this contradiction until your decision because You work harder and longer here and so You have more power-mechanisms available "in case of" ;).--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Nota bene inspite of common root in obscure & obskórny (pronounced obscurny) in my old(?) country means inter alia very very ugly and dirty or destroyed (vor instance old damaged building in dark district)(only for w:camera obscura meaning is euphemistic: little-known ;) dark room).--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I was citing a specialized search for a specialized term you had provided, with specific factors to exclude general irrelevancies. "PUC" alone certainly has far more hits than 36 — but NOT in the context you are using it, as does "causality" in general. I really am not that interested in "number of hits" an article here receives, relative to one elsewhere, so much as I concerned with the ranges of familiarity and appropriateness of the introductory information in it. I have no objection to people using relatively obscure acronyms and terminology in their own projects and works — I do it myself almost daily, or far more than that in my daily mental processes, but I do NOT expect to introduce articles with such things. Again I am just very chiefly checking in, and might examine your comments further, and make further responses later. I have to be leaving again, but will be back later in the day, if not within a couple hours. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC) + correction and minor tweaks
I was just about to leave, but clicked on the above link you yourself provide (this) and currently only encounter 35 hits. I will probably have more time to spend here within a few weeks, or even a few days, but am in a period of far more extensive activity than normal right now — and must be leaving, now, for the very least, about an hour or so, and probably more. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

the good readerEdit

I just rediscovered an excellent quote by Socrates, from Diogenes' Life of Socrates, and considering some of my questions here about Homer (who has been for over twenty centuries universally acclaimed as the Prince of Poets), I thought I should share it with you: having read a somewhat obscure book of Heraclitus, he very modestly said, Quae intellexi, proba sunt; credo, et quae non intellexi (meaning: what he understood, was great; and he believed, that what he couldn't understand was great too!), thus preferring to accuse himself of ignorance, rather than the author:

When Socrates had read, as authors note,
A certain book that Heraclitus wrote,
Deep in its matter and obscure beside,
Ask'd his opinion of it, he replied,
'All that I understand is good and true,
And what I don't is, I believe, so too.'

So, the opposite of me, and of some modern readers, who (for being extremely ignorant) dismiss the writer as ignorant, and call that which they do not understand 'errors'. As João Franco Barreto (a Portuguese poet and translator) remarked, a good Reader should always interpret the things they read in the best sense they can, and first defend and listen to the author, before reproaching and biting him. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Disambiguations not working?Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

monad image at Main Page QoTDEdit

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

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

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

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

Before your revisions the intro had read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank youEdit

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

Proposed banEdit

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


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

Minimal mandatesEdit

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

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

I cannot rename people's accountsEdit

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

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

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

sourced quotes?Edit

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

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

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

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


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

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

A Question About An ImageEdit

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

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

Thanks very muchEdit


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

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

Also, I really like this choice :

Great quote about freedom !

Hope you're doing well,

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

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

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

Adding my own creation (Quote)Edit

Hi Kalki,

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

Thank you!

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

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

Why I think the quote is problematic.Edit

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

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

Using quote of the day on WikipediaEdit

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

I was referred to your talk page by Cirt

You may be able to help?

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

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

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

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

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

UDScott (talk · contributions) has already done this today. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. ~ John Kerry
File:Three cross mountain after November 2015 Paris attacks.jpg
I actually am interested in exposing and fighting against many forms of ignorance, confusion and stupidity without needless malice towards those most inclined to various forms of it, and without pardon or excuses for any forms of malicious intentions on the part of anyone. ~ Kalki

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

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

Images on Ethics (Spinoza)Edit

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

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

I especially reject the use of this Raelian symbol:

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

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

A few immediate comments …Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two moves requestedEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Another move requestEdit

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

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

And another move requestEdit

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

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

Yet another move requestEdit

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

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

Quote of the dayEdit

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

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

Christmas and GOD JUL!Edit

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

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

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

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

Return to the user page of "Kalki/2015".