User talk:Kalki/2016

Add topic
Active discussions

This is an archive of past discussions on my user talk page for 2016.

The one on Budhism is actually memorable; though it would work better for Wikipedia if you can find a source. I can understand science.Edit

She is just as obscure as most of these game programmers and graffiti artists; or the doctor arguing against the effectiveness of anti depressants. I'm done for now as it was reallyjust Disney movies left for me and cleaning up what is determined to be my mistakes. Overall though I did more good than bad and doing something else will be good before going through those Disney movies. Sorry if this ends up being more than 10 edits in the end; I thought being more inclusive was better than less as all these people have fans. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually have a rather high tolerance for inclusion of statements of notable specialists on relatively specific subjects, but just did a google search for "Kathy Castro" dominatrix — to get a sense of the notability of this professional dominatrix you have apparently been quoting on numerous pages and had 26 hits — which hardly seems to qualify her as a highly notable commentator even on her specialty of sadomasochism, let alone on the broader subjects of science, Buddhism, ‎Slavery, Smallness, Feet, Fantasy, Euthanasia, and Genomics where you have also added statements by her. I have removed 2 of these already — and will likely remove the rest, but I have other things to attend to for at least an hour or so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Other things kept me busy after I made the above comments, but I see that others have attended to removing some of these additions which clearly do not merit a great deal of attention, and do not meet the standards of notability usually applied here. I will probably add some more comments on such issues eventually — but remain rather busy at this point. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Why NOT the image?"Edit

I know you (unlike Trump) love Obama, so I'm not going to keep reverting your POV pushing, but since you ask – obviously that quote was said before Obama had done anything (just like he won the Nobel Peace Prize very early, before going on to start more wars and kill more alleged "terrorists" via executive orders than the number of terrorists the Bush administration arrested and tortured – while still complaining about Guantanamo with a straight face; but I guess it's better to be hit by a missile and explode into pieces than to be tortured). And in long pages, I feel images should be used sparingly to highlight (or bring attention to) the very best quotes (like the ones from The Art of the Deal). But okay. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You make many assumptions, as many people do, some rightful in many ways, some wrongful in many ways — and emphasize some fantasies about facts or fictions, some of which can be very helpful to Humanity and others far more dangerous, detrimental and harmful to it. I love Humanity. I love ALL Awareness, Life and Love — but do NOT claim to be so aloof from mortal aspects and ultimate necessities of Humanity to love all ASPECTS of ALL Awareness, Life and Love. I love people to the extent I believe they manifest and serve Humanity, and many great aspects of ALL — and to the extent they denigrate or deride them, I can despise their ignorance and confusion and stupidity. I do NOT embrace or promote hatred or intense malice towards even to those I consider most vile in their inclinations and assertions — but to the extent they make assertions or produce actions or circumstances I consider vile, and conducive to various forms of ignorance, confusion, error or evil, I can and will have contempt for many of the attitudes and inclinations they manifest. I have VERY mixed feelings about MOST people — and to say that I love anyone or hate anyone is to have very simplistic notions of what I or others ARE or can BE or can DO, such as I have rejected since infancy. I don’t have time to elaborate on rational, ethical or mystical matters now, and will probably refrain from doing so here, to the extent I easily could — because I have more urgent and important matters to attend to at present, and am likely to remain busy with other things, elsewhere, for far more time than I would like to spend on them. But so life goes — and I love LIFE, always and everywhere — to the extent I encounter it — and even with much respect to the extent I cannot. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

My apologies for the 3 quotes you reverted.Edit

I know I already thanked you, but I wanted to say I'm sorry for wasting you and everyone else's time with an internet figure it should have been obvious wasn't notable. Looking at the pages with inadequate citations, I see even people with Wikipedia pages may not be suitable to quote; nor are there ultra niche quotes always useful for theme pages; like Martín Palermo. I hope I'm getting better and not worse at east. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I recognize that some of your edits seem to have more merit than some previous ones. I have not had time to make note of all your edits, but still find some a little problematic, though some of those I have glanced at recently have been better than some of the previous contributions. I recognize you have been having dialogue and contentions with others, but have not followed all of it, and am not likely to attend to it a great deal any time soon. I have had some problems with some edits which I have observed, but not enough to become heavily involved at this point. There are some relatively minor formatting problems I might address soon, with some of the contributions of you and a few others — but I really am too busy to spend much time here today. I have many things to take care of before I leave within a couple hours or so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC) + tweaks


Thanks for your help on this article. – Illegitimate Barrister, 23:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Getting article on search engines.Edit

I was wondering how to get Google and other search engines to recognize Anonymous Organization?

When I type it in this comes up Google search results

Any help at all in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and I bid you Good Day.

Anonymous President (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Anonymous President

I just happened to check in here a few minutes ago, and am preparing to leave soon, but I moved the page you improperly created in article space to your user pages — where ANY such pages should be created as a subset of your "user-space" — such as a page for "User:Anonymous President‎/EXPERIMENTAL PAGES". I am NOT interested in getting your efforts at self-promotion a greater Google hit status — and that is NOT what Wikiquote exists for, and I really have never been too focused on quantities of hits made here, so much as maintaining important ways of providing searchers access to accurate quotes when searching for them. I have not thoroughly examined it, but the page you created has quotes you find interesting and minor essays on your views of things, which others may or may not find significant. ANY such essays or endeavors are probably tolerable and permissible as long as they are not merely commercial spam, but IF such self-promotion is what you are primarily interested in here, you might find yourself increasingly unwelcome or even blocked or banned from the WIkimedia projects.
I had not checked in here much today, and will probably be around just a little while before making a couple excursions, so I might not reply to any responses before a final return here, some time later today. I sometimes check in on things here on my iPhone, to see if anything drastic needs to be done, but I seldom edit pages from my iPhone, because I find it very tedious and difficult to do. Please take into consideration Wikimedia and Wikiquote policies on the creation of ARTICLES here — I am sure you have interesting perspectives to contribute — but ANY contributions in article space should AVOID the expressions of merely personal opinions, and primarily stick to such information and facts as are generally verifiable. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks


I have sent you mail, thanks. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandal, but I am declining that request for now, unless the owner of the user page requests such an edit as you suggest. I usually do not concern myself with removing the records of asinine vandals from my own pages, and others might not wish this done either. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I wanted the revision hidden is because it is grossly offensive. I did not want Eagle storm to see that, because we don't know... maybe he might have depression? We don't know. + We hid grossly offensive attacks at en.wikibooks and meta. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

special QOTDEdit

Harper Lee and Umberto Eco both died yesterday; what do you think of adding two more quotes to today's QOTD (e.g., "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it", and "We live for books", respectively) as a tribute? ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to use "In youth we are prone to fall in love with love." for Eco; I will post these below the current QOTD shortly. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 13:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I have posted a layout with both of the above authors, using a higher resolution image of Harper Lee than was previously available — but the Commons server currently seems to have some problems displaying some images; I expect this to be over with shortly. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotes thanksEdit

Thanks for picking my suggested quotes for QOTD! – Illegitimate Barrister, 00:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I just arrived home again, and scanned a few things. Thanks for correcting my error in attributing it — I have thus far used a "3-key key" to trigger credits to myself and a few others on the suggestions — but have pasted your name and others into mine, when I have not made such a key. Within a half hour of leaving, I suddenly realized I had been in such a rush, that I wasn't sure I had properly credited it, and meant to look up and correct it from my iPhone, if I had erred — but then got distracted and didn't think of it again until I noticed your correction. I will have to make one up for you now, so that is less likely to happen in the future. I have MUCH on my agenda, but I will probably work on a few pages and create a few, sometime in the next week or so. There are several that I have had in mind for years, and I believe I should finally get around to soon. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 03:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
No apology needed, 'twas an honest mistake. Thanks again! – Illegitimate Barrister, 03:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

original research?Edit

[1] [2] – their Wikipedia articles don't even mention absurdism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As an absurdist philosopher, with a great affinity for mystical ethical rationalism, and a great deal of good humor, like that evident in the writings of the great absurdists Kurt Vonnegut, and Robert Anton Wilson, as well as the more somber reflections of those who helped developed the seeds of modern absurdism, Simone Weil and Albert Camus, and broad ranges of exploring minds within and beyond such ranges as many can perceive, I have a very broad and inclusive view of both absurdism, and philosophy generally. There is also barely any mention of Jesus as a philosopher on his Wikipedia page, and some have objected to him being declared that, or "merely" that, or being accepted as that at all — while many philosophers among both Christians and non-Christian traditions are willing to accept him as clearly one of the greatest and most significant philosophers of all time — certainly among the most famous — but that designation remains "controversial" among those who lack a great deal of sense. There are are many discernments that those more prone to accepting many foul and unhealthy absurdities and rather ill humor of highly exclusive categorizations might find difficult to accept, for a time — but I have confidence that appreciation of many forms of vital truths will gradually grow, and this year might well eventually reveal many long standing absurdities, weaknesses and evils of various forms of shallow minded exclusions, and policies of exclusions and blind hostilities, amidst rather rigorous idolatries which abound in many diverse ideologies of many types. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I will assert that the most advanced forms of absurdism and many forms of philosophy have a very profound base in a competent process of Semiosis, though few would actually call it that — and a competent semiotician PERCEIVES the processes of semiotics EVERYWHERE. This I have done since INFANCY, though it was probably around the age of 5 when I first began to have confirmation of some of my own discernments in beginning to learn in earnest of some of the principles exposited by Socrates, Plato, Charles Sanders Peirce, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, Samuel Beckett and the imaginative expositions of Lewis Carroll, Edwin Abbott Abbott, Albert Einstein, George Gamow and many others on broad notions of dimensionality within Reality — and have often been amazed at how dull and stupid people who don’t have a profound appreciation of many ambiguities and potentials indicated by semiotic competence and and mathematical and conceptual dimensions of reality quite often remain, in regard to many things. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
  • You are wrong. Laozi I don't know much about, but Socrates' absolutist theories of knowledge and ethics make him the exact opposite of an absurdist. Maybe you should stop projecting your own philosophical inclinations onto others? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
OF COURSE I AM WRONG — in your very dim perceptions of many things. To quote The Illuminatus! Trilogy : ONLY THE MADMAN IS ABSOLUTELY SURE.
I will state quite politely that you are plainly very ignorant of much, and the processes of projection that MOST people regularly engage in — ESPECIALLY, dimwitted absolutists, who fail tor realize that absurdists CAN and DO assert the reality of ABSOLUTES — the most competent of them simply reject the abysmal ignorance and confusion of those who believe THEIR NOTIONS and IDEAS about SUCH are CERTAINLY the BEST or ONLY ones which MUST be accepted and approved by ANY and ALL others as UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTES for ALL, and take generally fascist means of apparently "proving" this — often by banding together with those MOST prone to resort to fascist relations between human beings, seizing upon reasons to hate and exclude MANY forms of truth and beauty, rather than permitting them to flourish, or even survive. I pity those who remain in such darkness — but also know many would prefer to remain comfortably blind than to see the vital light of the vital truth of Justice, Unity, Liberty and Joyous Universal Love of ALL— or even to permit others to see it. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
  • 1) Whom do you consider not an "absurdist" under your (absurdly loose) definition? 2) Could you please name any encyclopedia that classifies Socrates as "absurdist"? Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That would indeed be difficult to do — but I am very tolerant and charitable to the lack of discernment of many people — and the greatest ways of absurdism have a VERY light yoke — and are willing to consider a joke such insistences of absolutists and many types of idiots laying down heavy or impossible burdens upon others, in order to be considered "respectable" or valid at all. I consider most people who lack a profound semiotic competence as extremely ignorant of much of truly vital importance — but realize that MOST people can and do recognize at least SOME of the absurdities of their own perceptions and stances — and I would consider that core of humility to be among the primal seeds of competent absurdism and many forms of vitality — in that there are signs of capacity to grow in capacities of intelligence and life. I usually reserve the designation "absurdist" to those who have demonstrably reached some of the heights of wisdom, humility and courage, and recognized the absurd lies and falsehoods which could potentially be served by their most earnest and honest assertions — and the most profound virtues that are often served by the most stupid and vile of imbecilic lies, such as many of their adversaries and the foulest fascists of the ages have depended upon and relied upon — for a time. Those who reject the authoritarian and nihilistic ranges of many profoundly stupid absolutisms are well on their way to greater mental health, and becoming competent absurdists. The wise KNOW that ambiguities and absolutes ABOUND — ALL as part of an Ultimate Necessity they would much rather celebrate and cherish and help others to more greatly appreciate — rather than place too many constraints and bonds upon capacities for human enjoyment and growth than most could safely bear. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
  • If you can't find a single encyclopedia that agrees with your (inaccurate and misleading) classification of Socrates as an "absurdist", even conceding it to be a "heavy or impossible burden", why should we classify him as such on Wikiquote? Because Kalki says so? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You are free to quite often troll here, so much as you have, because people like me accept the need for many forms of intelligent and stupid beliefs to present themselves in many diverse ways, until they are recognized for what they are. I accept that you are clever in some ways, and even wise in very limited and highly constrained and immature ways — but I accept also that you can yet grow in wisdom. If you are so shrunken and shriveled in your present capacities for wisdom, that you insist this great philosopher, who recognized MANY of the limits of words and definitions and the varieties of their applications and misapplications, and asserted "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." is NOT an absurdist, you are free to remove that tag — I probably would not be inclined to immediately contest such ignorance, because I am quite aware that there are many more ignorant fascists likely to join with you than there are intelligent absurdists who would join with me in defying many pervasive forms of fascism. I would assert he was a very great semiotician as well — though I doubt I could presently find one encyclopedia which describes him as that either. But I cannot tarry here much longer, and must be leaving soon... after I return I will probably try starting at least a few pages, within the next day or two, and prefer not to get too involved in much discussion on the absurd distinctions both idiotic absurdists and idiotic absolutists can make. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.
~ Socrates ~

Things are busier here lately…Edit

I am very pleased to see that many diverse forms of contributions are picking up here — after a long lull of many years where it seemed much activity was discouraged and stifled. I remain busy enough with other things to normally be able to check in here, at most, only a few times a day, usually only briefly, but have just increased my default view-range of the Recent changes pages from 222, where it has rested for many years, to 444 pages, where I expect it might remain, in order to have adequate scope of checking in on most changes since my last visit. I am just making note of this with gratitude to those who have been increasing the contributions regularly made here, before I go about doing some of my daily tasks, and leaving once again. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC) + tweak

I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car. ~ Penn Jillette

It was you who missed the point of the Penn Jillette quote. The part of the quote you chose to highlight (for political reasons – you are shamelessly trying to push for Hillary Clinton) is absolutely trivial: there are many people who would vote for Clinton over Trump. What Penn was trying to express is something much more interesting, viz. that while he likes Trump (not the first time he calls him a genius), he wants the President to be at a different level; he expresses this idea more eloquently in other interviews. Re the other images, at least the quote from his wife tells us something about Trump – but it was you who added the images, I would not have done so. The quote by Ivana Trump is even more obscure, no reason to highlight it. (I think you added them to try to cover your Clinton-pushing.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I have contempt for the hypocrisies of MOST politicians, and for most deceitfully craven attempts at censorship and suppressions of opinions. You have disgracefully, shamelessly and irrationally made all manner of assertions which lack either awareness or respect for many aspects of both truth and justice. I too, much like Jillette, will confess that I actually do like much about the boldness of Trump, and have no malice toward him at all as a human being, and have actually been strongly amused by the fact that he is prone to some unusual forms of arrogance and candor in presenting it, though I, also quite like Jillette, STRONGLY disagree with many of his opinions, assertions and quite evident attitudes and aims in regard to MANY things, and abhor his infantile narcissistic inclinations, his propensities for childish tantrums, and the many profound and obvious, or subtle forms of extreme deceitfulness and hypocrisy, and or obliviousness to MANY realms of knowledge, and his clearly immature forms of emotional outbursts, intolerance and hostility to those who dare oppose his inflated opinions of himself and various mercantile, mercenary and fascist means of intimidation and "persuasion". I like Penn, and MANY others, among Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, would consider a success of his egotistic drive toward the presidency not only a disaster for the United States, but a severe endangerment of Humanity. I object to your attempts to remove prominent indications of the clear expression of the primary points of a prominent person such as Jillete, who is VERY familiar with him, and whom you have claimed to admire, has to make about his opinions of his candidacy. I believe that you are simply quite aware of the potency of someone with such intense antipathy for the Clintons express that despite those, he would consider it his duty as a rational and ethical individual to support the relatively mild governmental hawkishness of Hillary Clinton, over the extremely Hawkish demagoguery of Trump, and his appeals and pandering to the most bigoted, racist, xenophobic and fascist inclinations of very ignorant and confused human beings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
To be fair, Penn also disagrees with Trump on "just about everything". For the "Quotes about Trump" section, the quote in full is fine, but your biased choice of caption (above) – making it more about Clinton than Trump – is not. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You've opened Pandora's box. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I previously deferred commenting, slightly astounded at your lack of discernment of many things — and I am not inclined to comment to the fullest extent I can any time soon — but am adding some of my inclination to responses to notable promotions of the foulest forms of fascism here:
File:Düsseldorf, Rosenmontag 2016, politische Karnevalswagen (05).jpg

The stuff [he] is saying on immigration, the stuff he's saying on torture, the stuff he is saying on war, is absolutely unforgivable ... He is coming out directly against the Statue of Liberty. … I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.

~ Penn Jillette ~

So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. AmbedkarEdit

Hello Kalki ji, it's great that you are watching Dr.Ambedkar's page from a positive point of view. I am proud to know that. However there are some quotes which are anti-muslims and anti-Islamic which I think are quite problematic and controversial. I think that Dr.Ambedkar would never say such things against Muslims and Islam. There is no online source available to verify the same. I am just requesting you again to remove them. Terabar (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually just came to my computer a few minutes ago, after being away a while — I was familiar with the fact that these quotes have been deleted before, and they seem to be sufficiently sourced and legitimate, despite whatever one wishes to make of their character. I just began to format the positive quotes you added, relative to him, as we use interlinear formatting here — but I have not double-checked them as yet, nor applied final formatting to the page. I will probably deal with that and a few other things I just noticed elsewhere, within the next hour. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The man who added such controversial quotes on Dr.Ambedkar's page is also spamming other pages with anti-islamic quotes. For example over here He is anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic. Those quotes are still cannot be online verified. We must provide some online sources to verify such controversial quotes. Dr.Ambedkar is not Anti-Islamic in general. RSS misquotes him always to present him as Anti-Islamic and Anti-Muslim. See for example this. Top RSS leader misquotes Ambedkar on untouchability. So I again request you with joined hands to remove such quotes. Terabar (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have extended one of the statements you directed me to, to make as clear as possible that, though they do contain criticisms of fanaticism in any traditions, it is not, on the whole, anti-Islamic in nature, though the portions selected were presented as if they were. He is clearly being critical of fanaticism, and does have some criticism of the dangers of inspired prophets who retain emotional attachments that could be of dangers to themselves or others. I generally disapprove of a tendency to focus upon the worst aspects of people, and to emphasize those, as generally resulting in a strengthening of the worst aspects and potentials of people in oneself, as well as in others, and not a genuine emphasis on such potentials of humanity as can best dispel the tendencies toward negations and denigration of those truths which are most beautiful and vitally important, and have been generally emphasized by all the greatest minds of the ages, and their enduring testimonies, including those of Muhammed, and many others. I don’t have time to deal with all the problems I am aware of, here and elsewhere, but am addressing as many as I can, to the extent I believe I properly can. I will probably attend a bit more to some of these pages within the next week or so. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
You don't seem to know anything about Islam, Islamic culture, or Islamic values. Criticism of Islam, for example, is not allowed in Islamic countries and societies and is generally punishable by death. Leaving Islam or changing your religion is also punishable by death. There is a reason that the majority of Islamic countries score the lowest on quality of life measures, including the mistreatment of women, abuse of animals, minimal to no democratic institutions, and the lowest measure for charity and respect for non-Muslims. In virtually every measure, Islamic countries come dead last, from freedom to independent thought. In Pew poll after poll we find that mainstream Muslims, not radicals, oppose democracy, oppose free press, oppose the equality of women, and support sharia law. In poll after poll we find mainstream Muslims sympathetic with terrorists, sympathetic with those who oppress and kill non-believers, including atheists, Jews, and Christians, and generally hostile to Enlightenment values. When one looks at the hard data, examines the evidence, and summarizes the facts, one is forced to conclude that Islam is incompatible with Western values and cannot be treated as equal or the same with other religions which have either reformed over time or have become secular and westernized. For you to claim that Muhammed was a "great mind" is quite possibly the most ignorant statement you could make. There is no redeeming value in the Koran or any other Islamic document. 01:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
IF I were to ever encounter a human being who was omniscient, devoid of bias and considerate of the innate biases which exist in all mortal perspectives who yet agreed with your assessments of me, my ranges of knowledge, and of your opinions as to the innate fiendishness of any forms of Islam, and of the pervasiveness of fiendish fanaticism among those who count themselves muslims, above and beyond all other forms of fanaticism, I might give a bit more credence to your assertions, but as such an innate impossibility is rather more than unlikely to be encountered, and given the fact that it is often difficult to find humans uncorrupted by some forms of foul bigotry, among MOST religious, non-religious and anti-religious factions of humanity, I will simply forgive you for your displays of yours, and get doing things that have more immediate utility than trying to contend about such matters with bigoted fools and fanatics of any factions here. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
Pew polls are pretty hard to "contend" with... But the IP is wasting their time: Kalki lives in the USA, and will let no fact disturb his feelings/bubble. He may pay lip-service to freedom, but after the Charlie Hebdo shooting – in which cartoonists were shot in the head because of drawings – he implied they had it coming (quoting "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
You are either engaging in a FECKED UP bit of SLANDER or simply OUTRIGHT STUPIDITY (There were other ruder and much cruder comments I was inclined to make, but restrained myself from declaring — but I will simply state that I consider it a delusion of paranoid bigotry IF you are inclined to believe such nonsense as you just stated). As to polls — I make no contentions against the facts that there are widespread forms of bigoted stupidity among many muslims — as there are among MOST factions of humanity — of which many examples can be provided. Those who seek to enumerate the bigotries of others to justify or excuse their own are among the most common sort of pathetic bigots among all factions. Fortunately most are NOT usually inclined to become active extremists in their actual practices — but extremist attitudes and inclinations are nurtured and sustained by such bigotries in many factions of humanity, and give rise to the worst forms of terrorism and tyrannies. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Your argument, that so-called "Islamophobia", or discrimination of some kind, is responsible for the rise of Islamism or radicals of any kind is easy to disprove and demonstrably false. This canard has been and continues to be trotted out by governments and media on a daily basis without the slightest bit of evidence. Meanwhile, ethnic group after ethnic group has faced real discrimination over the decades, including Italians, Irish, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and more. When faced with real prejudice, these people and communities didn't murder innocent people in the name of superstition and religion. They didn't kill and maim children in the name of an invisible deity. Instead, they worked hard and became good citizens, started businesses, educated their children and contributed to society as human beings. When it is so easy to prove that "Islamophobia" does not exist, nor is it responsible for any kind of terrorism, we must then set our eyes on the real problem: Islam. 08:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC).

~ Peace on Earth ~

I actually imply and am willing to state in no uncertain terms that in ALL cases of bigotry we should focus on the ACTUAL and PRIMARY and ESSENTIAL problems — which are those of BIGOTRY — and the WILL to do HARM to others and their proper RIGHTS and LIBERTIES as CAN be recognized or ignored or denied within all Human societies — ranging from the most sincerely Humane to the most unapologetically brutal. I will assert that your ASININE assumption that it is MY argument that ""Islamophobia", or discrimination of some kind, is responsible for the rise of Islamism or radicals of any kind" is ITSELF a product of a BIGOTED DELUSION which fails to discern many aspects of both radicalism and extremism. I will acknowledge that SUCH forms of IDIOCY are certainly as easy to refute as my refutation of your PRESUMPTION that such arguments MUST be MINE — but I will not deny that the growth of fears and hatreds among many have contributed to the growth of fears and hatreds among others. I will assert that forms of extremism which are widely called Islamism and MANY other forms of ASININE BIGOTRY among ANY or all factions of Humanity are forms of FALSE and FOUL IDOLATRIES — which make FOOLISH, GULLIBLE ABSOLUTIST BIGOTS seize upon WORDS and LABELS by which they can assert to others similarly ignorant and confused and gullible and full of many prejudices and presumptions that these words reliably or even ABSOLUTELY represent "ABSOLUTE GOOD", or "ABSOLUTE BAD". Throughout human history UNTO THESE TIMES — such words of ABSOLUTIST SCORNFULNESS have included terms such as "Islam", "Christianity" "Religion", "Atheism", Paganism, Faith, Science, Evolution, Democrats, Republicans, "Conservatives", "Liberals", "Progressives", "Socialists", "Capitalists" and "Communists". The PRACTICE and sometimes the POLICIES of MANY bigots throughout the ages have been to seize upon some WORDS or other signs towards which people can be or have been taught and trained to have VISCERAL and AUTOMATIC reactions with very little capacity or inclination for considerate thought or reflection. Even many of the best and wisest of people can be very skilled at using strategies involving such tactics when they perceive them necessary or unavoidable — but many of the worst and pettiest are eager to use them whenever they CAN, however haphazardly and erratically.

I do NOT ignore or deny that throughout human history MANY forms of bigotry FEED on the asinine assumptions of OTHER forms of bigotry, but I would be NEARLY as DELUDED as you or many other bigots are, IF I were to say that was the SOLE or even primary cause of such forms of ignorance and confusion, ERROR and EVIL. There are USUALLY many forms of ignorance and confusion and STUPIDITY involved.

MANY FALSE ASSUMPTIONS and assertions such as those you present are easily used to argue for fanatic intolerance of such intelligently broad minded and strong tolerances as mine — IMPLYING or INSISTING that IF I am NOT hateful of such bigots I must be FOR them — or that IF I do not HATE those which others hate than I certainly MUST hate THEM — ands wish them harm. Such attitudes are indeed pervasive — but it remains evidence of the potential good and healthy will among all people that the vilest forms of insanity which they CAN produce and which drive people to overt terrorism and tyranny of the most extreme forms are relatively rare.

Though very capable of INTENSE ANGER and FIERCE FURY — such has made others QUAIL to even witness on the VERY RARE occasions I have unleashed it with great force against the unjust efforts and aims of others — I will assert that I am NOT hateful or malicious towards human beings but I confess to sufficient "bigotry" to be hateful of MANY forms of bigotry which encourage SUCH forms of hatred, absolutist exclusions, unjust oppressions and various forms of slavery, murder and genocide — such as are clearly evident in the psychopathically deluded idiots who serve DAESH. Many who consider themselves good Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and religionists or atheists of MANY kinds embrace such views as promote hatred, intolerance and ARE USED by the very IGNORANT, CONFUSED, SICK, PSYCHOPATHIC and SOCIOPATHIC minds MOST prone to engage in acts of terrorism and tyranny.

I did not immediately notice your posting here, because I actually had other things to do and then caught some sleep. After awakening I took care of a few other things, and then checked in here, and began attending to QOTD work and some relatively brief explications of some VERY complex matters which I know will NOT be sufficient to dissuade many forms of bigotry from persisting, but at least provide a point of departure to some, from some of them.

In regard to DanielTom's rather SICK, PRESUMPTIVE and EXTREME misconceptions as to what I had previously indicated or even IMPLIED, before moving on and attending to other things than those occurring here, KNOWING that I NEVER would have made such ASININE assertions — I double checked on how the DELUSION that I ever had might have arisen in his mind: it seems to have stemmed from the fact that the day AFTER the ATROCITIES of the Hebdo assaults — the quote of the day display was this one with a quote of a very admirable Quaker pacifist social-activist whose views I had been familiar with since my early childhood.



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

~ A. J. Muste ~



Though I do not pretend to agree with all the opinions of such admirable people as A. J. Muste and other Quakers, the FACT is that I had developed and selected that layout AGAINST ALL FORMS of VICIOUS WILL and VIOLENCE — the day BEFORE the attacks — and first POSTED it to be used at 03:42, 7 January 2015‎ UTC — well before those ASININE ASSAULTS of extremist terrorists on extreme satirists occurred. To IMPLY that this signifies an APPROVAL of such ATROCITIES is itself AN ATROCITY — One that I can certainly bear because it is so clearly absurdly a MISINFORMED MISINTERPRETATION of my INTENTIONS — but that people can insist in such absurd opinions is veritable PROOF of dispositions to many forms of bigotry among MANY people.

I recognize and accept that BIASES are INNATE in human beings — and MANY of these are quite natural and unavoidable — UNLIKE many casually scornful bigots, I do not resent or fight many natural or understandable biases — like the biases of myself and those of MOST forms of Life and Love for continuances and growth of many forms of Life, Love, and of Light and Liberty of MANY kinds. Bigotry is a term I reserve for such extreme and ACQUIRED biases as are PROFOUNDLY STUPID — such as a bias towards nihilism, tyranny, terrorism, death and destruction — which are often NOT directly susceptible to MANY forms of reason, rationality and logic — because the KNOTS and TANGLES of CONFUSED CONCEPTIONS are so complex and intricately entrenched in the thought processes of individuals who embrace them. It usually REQUIRES a sever CRISIS to break through many of the layers and forms of delusions which make self-supporting structures of HOSTILITY and HATRED to those which do not embrace their forms of assessment, judgement, and will to PUNISH and control, even when those with more extensively observant and generally coherent and rational forms of assessment would deem these not actually necessary or proper.

At a VERY young age I recognized that IDOLATROUS BIGOTS embrace AND magnify the FOUL IDOLATRIES of other foul bigots in DEFENSE and PROMOTION of their own FOUL BIGOTRIES. I am willing to be such an ICONOCLASTIC rejector of IDOLATRIES of any kind, whether of words or symbols or NOTIONS of human minds — that I am quite willing to be labelled a "bigot" — because I am willing to CONFESS that I am in many ways clearly beyond the reach of persuasion to such realms of bigotries as ensnare and enslave the most foully bigoted into paths of Nihilistic IDIOCIES.

The QOTD today is one of another great mind who I was familiar with to some extent by the time I was 5 or 6 years of age:

We may fight against what is wrong, but if we allow ourselves to hate, that is to insure our spiritual defeat and our likeness to what we hate.
~ Æ ~

And having cited this a few other associated expressions came to mind, including this one I had also become familiar with by the age of 5 or 6:

Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored — contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man — such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care — such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance — such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
~ Abraham Lincoln ~

This somewhat fortuitously, for just yesterday I was reflecting upon options available to me in regard to MANY complex matters and concerns, far beyond those I regularly deal with here — and recognizing that once I said certain things — the DEED of SAYING would be DONE — and what I had said could NOT be unsaid, and what I had done could NOT be undone — and MANY RESULTS would follow — but there is much yet to be said and done before I make full disclosure of what ranges of assertions I am referring to.

The Path of Righteousness — of intense and coherent SELF EXAMINATION as well as examinations of others — can be called Dharma, Dao, or simply DISCERNMENT of MANY aspects of ANY indications or determinations that exist in MANY traditions — INCLUDING many forms of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

Throughout all the traditions and inventions and improvisations of Humankind, WE are ALL on UNIQUE paths of Awareness, Life and Love — and MANY of US can HONOR and CHERISH this FACT far more than others. I have been very demonstrably on an UNUSUAL paths of Dharma since my infancy — as I was remarkably contending against false and frustrating presumptions about right and wrong, necessity and choice, and many appearances of freedom and fixity of events and eventualities even then. By the time I was 5 or 6 I had clearly mentally PROCESSED many aspects of the distinctions of prejudices and presumptions which infected and infested MANY religious and political traditions — and recognized that even contending against just the WORST of these would be a VERY complex problem.

To such ASININE IDIOTS who might wish to presume or imply that I myself am some sort of "namby-pamby" pacifist — or even an INSANE APOLOGIST for EITHER terrorism OR tyrannies, because I do advocate and engage in many forms both calm and passionate promotions of higher perspectives to overcome the intense passions of many forms of lower ones, and such pettiness as NEARLY EVERYONE encounters in their daily lives, I will state that I have long recognized I have a VERY powerful capacity for FURY when outraged by the assaults of others upon my own or other people's proper dignity and rights — and since EXPERIENCES of earliest childhood, in the very first 18 MONTHS of my life, I have always acknowledged that this should be tempered by my own will and discernment of the proper NEED to FORGIVE others for their forms of ignorance and confusion — even as I FIGHT against their frustrating intentions and delusions — and this I have generally been able to do to an extent that has sometimes amazed those FAR more prone to either panic or cowardice — or hatreds and resentment of those who can produce either of these qualities in themselves.

I will state that since the age of 5 or 6, when I was able to begin to very actively and deliberately study the ideas and expressions and history of the lives of many GREAT Individuals and very GOOD idealists and poetic pragmatists of profound principles, among the heroically artistic, scientific, technological and philosophical endeavors of Humanity there has probably been very few days when I did not reflect extensively on many of the good and great things MANY have done, AND some of the errors or mistakes MANY have made, OR upon MANY mistakes which others have made in their shallow and ignorant assessments of them. Though I am not inclined to entirely ignore or deny the worst aspects of humanity, individuals, and various groups, I have long been far more inclined to focus upon the BEST aspects of individuals and humanity, rather than fixate upon the worst in them — and believe that this is a very beneficial attitude to usually embrace.

There were some things I am planning to declare elsewhere, under various persona, at various sites, which I was very briefly inclined to say here and now — but I reflected upon a few other things, and decided to remain patient and let MANY things begin to be discerned more gradually. Just in the last couple of days I have consulted with others on things I expect to keep me VERY busy in the coming week. I remain FAR too busy with URGENT imperatives to deal with other things I assess as far more immediately and ultimately important to get too extensively involved in disputing many complexities apparent here.

I will take the time to state WE all have MANY persona and many diverse forms of subtle and overt influence — and when people are very constrained to the conceptions of these and seek to constrain the persona and influences of other human beings to very narrow and shallow forms they are most inclined to appreciate and exalt or deride and denigrate there can be disastrous consequences to such disastrous forms of will.

Since the earliest years of my life I have recognized that many forms of absolutist idiocy and stupidity is at work in MOST minds — even at times in my own — and yet absurdist intelligence and wisdom which can perceive beyond absolutist delusions is ALSO at work in most minds, especially so in the minds who develop many diverse forms of Kenotic Awareness, by which they transcend many particular appearances of many things — and this permits humans to attain greater glimpses of true absolutes and actual relational and relative aspects of them and of ALL things than the bigoted views touted by many forms of shallow and narrow absolutism grounded in very selfish and partisan and ideologically idolatrous perspectives and attitudes.

I have much now to attend to — and expect to be gone MOST of the day — and most of most days and nights for at least another week, and probably more. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

I had scanned through various options for tomorrow's QOTD before leaving yesterday — and had selected several as good — among them was this, which I posted earlier today, before responding here, and it is probably relevant here, as well:
We still proclaim the old ideals of liberty but we cannot voice them without anxiety in our hearts. The question is no longer one of establishing democratic institutions but of preserving them. … The arch enemies of society are those who know better but by indirection, misstatement, understatement, and slander, seek to accomplish their concealed purposes or to gain profit of some sort by misleading the public. The antidote for these poisons must be found in the sincere and courageous efforts of those who would preserve their cherished freedom by a wise and responsible use of it. Freedom of expression gives the essential democratic opportunity, but self-restraint is the essential civic discipline.
~ Charles Evans Hughes ~

I am considering doing a few more things here before leaving for most of the day— but probably won't have time to attend to all of them. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Kalki, you quoted approvingly "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind" on your talk page the day after the Charlie Hebdo shootings. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I quoted the STATEMENT approvingly — and STILL do — but you are FALSELY implying that I am thus IMPLYING approval of the ASININE assaults of intolerant imbeciles upon satirists. Your pointing out the fact that I also used that layout I presented above on my talk page after the event, clarifies a few more aspects of your rather absurd rationale — but hardly excuses it, or your past misdirections or SLANDERS of EITHER myself OR Obama which was the topic of that section then, where I similarly asserted as I do now "The future must not belong to slanderers" — of ANY SORT — whether in the BLASPHEMOUS MISUSE of the NAMES of some religions or religious OR of secular ideals.
I do note that you direct to an edit I indeed made after the attacks, when I posted a statement of Obama in the FULL CONTEXT of what he was stating, after your posted it only partially:
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support. ~ Barack Hussein Obama
And AFTER having made that CLARIFICATION against selectively DISTORTIVE quotation of one portion of the statement OUT of context, I reposted what the just had been posted as QOTD, with the statement:
I have stated many times, that though I am NOT an advocate of initiating any form of violence, I am also NOT what some might regard as a "pacifist", inclined to placidly submit to it — but close my comments with a posting of what had actually been the QOTD layout on the date of this disgraceful incitation to bigotry, which is a reminder that there are grave dangers in this word ALL of them involving BIGOTRY and CALLOUS DISREGARD of Human life and human rights — and not all of them motivated by mystical excuses so much as selfish and social IGNORANCE and CONFUSION.
This all fully accords with my consistent points of view then and now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
Which is precisely the problem. Your point of view is at odds with what Muslims actually think. And I quote: "Ater the abominable Brussels bombings, it's time for us to feel shame and to stop acting as if the terrorists are a rarity. We must admit that they are present everywhere, that their nationality is Arab, and that they adhere to the religion of Islam. We must acknowledge that we are the ones who gave birth to them, and who have made them memorize the teachings of all the Salafi books. We must admit that it is the schools and universities that we established that told them the others are infidels." There you have it. Now it's time for you to change your point of view. Stop blaming problems with Islam on non-existent "bigotry" and discrimination. 03:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nadine Al-Budair asserts A GENUINE devotion to pure Islam MUST REPUDIATE such ERRORS and BLASPHEMY as are widely used in support of terrorism.
In defying and opposing many forms of bigotry, I am quite willing to be labelled as a heretic or an imbecile by various imbeciles who consider themselves orthodox or wise adherents of many forms of faith or scornfulness of faiths.

You declare in a somewhat ambiguous way that my "point of view is at odds with what Muslims actually think", and then quote Nadine Al-Budair in your assertions, who IS a Muslim VERY courageously speaking out AGAINST terrorism and forms of bigotry AMONG those who identify themselves as Muslims on a Saudi television network. I am quite acceptive of the likelihood that my points of view are what MOST BIGOTS within as well as outside of the ranks of those who consider themselves Muslims would declare to be "precisely" a problem — to be ridiculed and scorned — and falsely identified as supporting such OTHER forms of bigotries as they are most prone to scorn. She certainly is NOT declaring that Islam the problem, as you seem to be attempting to IMPLY — she is speaking out AGAINST the long standing identification of such BIGOTRIES as terrorists embrace and promote as properly "Islamic" as the problem. She courageously DOES assert on Saudi Rotana Khalijiyah TV that "The Terrorists Emerged from Our Schools and Universities" — and that there are forms of Salafi jihadist BIGOTRY among those who self-identify as devout Muslims which produced such disposition to terrorism — and that a GENUINE devotion to pure Islam MUST REPUDIATE such ERRORS and BLASPHEMY as are widely used in support of terrorism.

I certainly do NOT doubt or deny that there are many people who identify themselves as righteously Muslims, Christians, Jews, or atheists who are VERY BIGOTED against other human beings of various traditions, and MANY who are NOT. I ALSO do not doubt that ANY and ALL people who identify themselves as righteously anti-muslim, anti-christian, anti-jew, anti-atheist or anti-agnostic are innately VERY BIGOTED — whatever ELSE they might wish to call themselves.

I will concede that my points of view are at odds with what MOST BIGOTS think — whether they believe themselves righteously muslim, or "righteously" anti-muslim — or "righteously" christian or "righteously" of ANY sort of religious, unreligious or anti-religious philosophies or traditions. I will confess that I have very little timidity or dislike of offending the shallow and narrow sensibilities of ANY bigots — whether those who think themselves virtuously muslim or virtuously anti-muslim or virtuously atheistic or virtuously theistic — I do NOT define or constrain by notions of virtue to such forms of IDOLATRY as they.

Bigotry ALWAYS has VERY PETTY and constrained views of righteousness involving EXCLUSIONS and INDIFFERENCE or OPPRESSIONS towards the excluded. What I, and MANY of the assertors of many diverse traditions of broadly appreciative ideas and philosophies, including those in many schools and traditions of atheism, agnosticism, paganism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Humanism consider genuine righteousness, are NOT idolatries or ideals defined by exclusions of people who embrace or reject certain ranges of traditions of reverence or worship — or words or labels. There are ideals which transcend labels and notions which are used to exclude many or most people of even slightly differing views from consideration, as well as those with very vast differences.

I acknowledge that there are very blindly asinine bigots who consider themselves "good" muslims, "good" christians, "good" jews or "good" atheists — that there are you are presently BEING such a blind asinine bigot that you cannot see that your views are simply an asinine bigotry when you persist in declaring MY VIEWS are one which is "blaming problems with Islam on non-existent "bigotry" and discrimination" — I consider MANY forms of bigotry among MANY sorts of people a major problem — and I do not doubt that they have a pernicious persistence which will not easily fade away with my own or anyone else's criticisms or censures — and certainly will not and cannot fade away with my own or anyone else's approval or concessions to their bigotries.

To refine my assertions a bit more I will repeat and clearly specify some of my assertions even further: I am NOT some imbecile claiming that ALL forms of BIGOTRY are EQUAL as MANY types of bigots OFTEN either DO or imply OTHERS do, in various regards. I do NOT ignore or deny the FACT that there are MANY diverse varieties of forms and levels of fanatical bigotry in different groups of bigots — EACH and every BIGOT and each and every range of bigotry which exists present unique cases of bigotry — something MANY bigots of all sorts are quite OFTEN LOATHE to acknowledge — and are often INCAPABLE of acknowledging so long as they are steeped in various forms of Bigotry which seek to place ALL blame or MOST blame on OTHER forms of BIGOTRY than their own.

I am NOT someone who believes even the foulest of bigots can be considered totally beyond redemption, so long as they retain some forms of rationality, but asserts that ultimate redemption into forms of genuine Righteousness consists in REJECTING all the foulest forms of idolatry and bigotry — and in NOT embracing or worshipping or promoting ANY forms of IDOLATRY or bigotry or insisting that others do so — be they labelled with names considered either spiritually or socially sensitive and sensible or religiously or politically correct. In defying and opposing many forms of bigotry, I am quite willing to be labelled as a heretic or an imbecile by various imbeciles who consider themselves orthodox or wise adherents of many forms of faith or scornfulness of faiths. I once again have taken more time than I would like making clear some aspects of my stances against BIGOTRY — be they considered pro-religious or anti-religious — I must NOW start attending to other things, and be leaving soon. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 08:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I have two concerns mostly unrelated to the main topics raised in this thread that I hope you can clear up for me as it makes communication difficult: 1) It isn't clear why you are attached and clinging to the concepts of bigotry and discrimination when neither is under discussion. We are discussing the criticism of religion in general and Islam in particular. Bigotry and discrimination have no part to play here. 2) You are an internet veteran so I'm confused why you use excessive bold and uppercase when the first thing newbies learn is to avoid this because the reader interprets it as shouting and raving. Surely you know this but you do it anyway. Another editor up above said you don't do clarity, which is extremely odd as that is the very essence of composition in this medium. I've also noticed that you prioritize that which is "mysterious" (more of an emotion than a real thing) over evidence and that which emerges into awareness in a shared reality. I get the sense that you are playing, inhabiting a virtual reality of sorts. This makes conflict resolution difficult. 09:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The BIGOTRY of ASSUMING that ALL MUSLIMS — or adherents of ANY other major religious or non-religious traditions — ARE PRONE to EXTREMISM and TERRORISM — is something I am NOT inclined to label as anything other than BIGOTRY — and I am NOT afraid to appear to "SHOUT" that fact, against persistent efforts to IGNORE or DENY that such IS bigotry. I am certainly AGAINST the bigotry of TERRORISTS and TYRANTS who THRIVE on promoting bigotries in the name of Islam, as well as those who promote such AGAINST the name of it — or of ANY other religion — EITHER sort of attitude can and DOES produce unacceptably STUPID and UNJUST attacks on a diverse range of quite proper FAITHS. I can and DO forgive people for MANY forms of ignorance and confusion which produce many forms of bigotry — but I am NOT prone to excuse or pardon people who persist in forms of bigotry from my making quite clear I am quite willing to SHOUT about it — or FIGHT about it even more vigorously, if that is necessary. I use such emphasis to make clear to those who promote a tepid vacuous stupidity of very PASSIVE indifference that there are people who DO reject assumptions that such stances are ALWAYS wise — sometimes there SHOULD or MUST be shows of PASSION against UNJUST assertions. I generally use SOME but tend to use MUCH less emphasis when I am engaged in normal levels of conversation and am NOT prone to "shout" much when outrageous assertions are not being made by others. I actually have very little time to do many things, before I must be leaving — and must attend to them, before I leave for most of the day. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 10:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks — The very ROOT of all forms of terrorism and tyranny IS bigotry.

The very ROOT of all forms of terrorism and tyranny IS bigotryEdit

I would like to make an observation: you are intentionally injecting irrelevant concepts of bigotry and discrimination into a discussion about the criticism of religion in general, in particular the terrorism and tyranny of Islam based on its relevant source documents which claim Islam is the only true religion, and even make the claim that this is final and cannot be discussed on penalty of death. I will also observe that your insistence on shouting and raving is a form of violence intended to silence critics of religion, in the same way that Islam preaches death to the infidels and those that doubt or question it. Are you aware that you are doing this? There is wisdom in recognizing and acknowleging delusion, which we all suffer from time to time. 11:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You are stating my use of a form of EMPHASIS on my assertions is "a form of violence intended to silence critics of religion, in the same way that Islam preaches death to the infidels and those that doubt or question it" — are you aware how FANATICALLY STUPID and ABSURD an EXAGGERATION and DENIAL of various ACTUALITIES that actually IS? Am I attempting to "silence" you or declare you worthy of being killed for displaying YOUR forms of fanaticism and stupidity in INSISTING on the appropriateness of YOUR bigotry — and equating my indications of passionate opposition of it to preaching "death to infidels"? What a far less than "quaint" way of obliviously rationalizing your attempts to diminish my efforts to simply respond to what began with the asinine declaration — of someone with a stance of intense opposition of ANYTHING Islamic: "You don't seem to know anything about Islam, Islamic culture, or Islamic values." THAT was hardly something which supports the assertion that my assessments are "intentionally injecting irrelevant concepts of bigotry and discrimination into a discussion about the criticism of religion in general" — they are responses to criticisms of ME and of ISLAM in PARTICULAR — in a very marked display of VERY IGNORANT and very presumptuous prejudice and bigotry. INDEED: "There is wisdom in recognizing and acknowleging delusion, which we all suffer from time to time." SOME MORE PERSISTENTLY than others. I actually know a great deal about MANY varieties of Islam and MANY other traditions — I actually am QUITE aware of MANY deficiencies and flaws in MANY of them — including similar assertions towards intolerance that exist in other religious scriptures of other traditions. Because I do not adhere to some form of BIGOTRY appealing to you, it seems that I am NOW assessed as not merely knowing NOTHING — but of actually advocating or desiring the death of those who disagree with me!
I am quite aware of MANY forms of promoting atrocities and oppressions and DECEPTIVE double-talk in regard to "justification" of them, within and beyond various religious and political traditions. I certainly do NOT embrace unjust oppressions nor promote them — nor seek to focus upon any of these which do exist in many texts as TYPIFYING the attitudes or actions of ANYONE who identifies themselves as members of traditions which contain some scriptures with such flaws. I certainly am NOT an absolutist "literalist" or "legalist" in regard to presumed perfection of ANY of the scriptures of Humanity — but I accept all the major texts as including much which is good and beautiful — and MOST also including many diverse examples of such deficiencies, flaws, errors and ugliness as are inherent in many forms of human discourse. All attempts to treat them as totally perfect or totally worthless or totally evil in ways that they are NOT are efforts I consider very misguided efforts toward evil — but not all of them as extremely ridiculous, noxious, dangerous or persistent as some which primarily are works seeking to promote or justify hatred of human beings and human societies. I have met many representatives and adherents of MANY of the major religious traditions, and many diverse forms of atheism and agnosticism, and usually have gotten on well with most of them — and I would say that most have certainly been inclined to get along well with others without demanding abject obedience to their particular traditions, no matter what examples of such opinions might be found in the scriptures or ranges of evidence which they are most prone to accept. I really don’t have much time left to spend here as I must leave within the hour — and have not been able to attend so much as I had desired to, to many significant matters, because of the time I have spent attempting to clarify many things here. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Ah, the "ALL MUSLIMS" straw man, and countless other fallacies and false equivalences. (Kalki never disappoints!) My advice to the IP: don't expect Kalki to entertain or rationally consider the points you are actually making. He loves to pontificate, insult and feel superior to others, but lives in a very fragile bubble. I think you got it right, that Kalki himself tends to be bigoted towards anyone who upholds enlightenment ideas and values, mainly because he perceives them as a threat to his own childish beliefs ("mysticism"). (I mean "childish" literally – Kalki often tells us he came to them at a "VERY" young age.) But don't take it personally – he calls all sorts of people "bigots" (not just you or me) quite gratuitously in many different discussions. Ctrl+F "bigot" just to get an idea of his obsession. (He's probably fighting some inner demons.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We are all imperfect and in possession of flawed characters. There are two points I am interested in discussing in this thread: 1) the communication style used by Kalki which makes it difficult to correspond effectively, and 2) the arguments made by Kalki which have serious logical issues. Let's not focus on personal attacks. Now, to your point, DanielTom: I quickly reviewed the talk archives to see if what you claimed has merit, and it appears you are correct. Kali misuses the terms "bigot" and "bigotry" so much so in past discussions that the term has become all but meaningless. This is an unusual set of circumstances. If I had to guess, I would say that Kalki abuses these terms as a form of defense and as a rejoinder to anyone who questions and criticizes religion. This is, as far as I can tell, manifestly dishonest and unhelpful behavior. I would like to therefore ask Kalki to stop using the terms (and any and all related words) for the remainder of this discussion. 21:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

undo blockEdit

Kalki, I don't have the energy right now to explain to you why your block of an admin was a mistake (even from a tactical point of view), but I must say that I do not believe punctuating citations is a blockable offense. And I don't think you can say that your blocking of BD is the implementation of community "consensus" because such a penalty was never even considered by the community. Pls undo the block while you still have time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I was about to unblock him when I saw your notice with the edit summary "I believe he is capable of reasonable deference, as am I — and will not proceed in IMPOSING an UNPOPULAR styling upon the pages of the wiki." But I tried twice, and it said there was no such block — so I am not sure what is occurring in this regard. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't realized the block must have expired even as I was trying to end it — I had also been busy with other things while it was on, and time passes quickly, especially when you are doing much, and I must be leaving soon, for at least a brief time. I had clearly intended the brief 1 hour block to simply be an act of clear objection to what I believe to be improper disregard for what had repeatedly been rejected by a clear consensus of most who had commented upon the matter. So it goes. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 02:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of the Radical centrism pageEdit

Hi Kalki, thank you for your comments about my additions to the Radical center (politics) page, which you placed on my User talk:Babel41 page. I was not sure where to placed my response to you, so I've added it here AND there. Please feel free to respond in either place.

Hello Kalki. You reached me even before I had a chance to reach you and thank you for initiating the Radical centrist page, which I hoped to do soon.
I could not disagree with you more about your elimination of the "One quote per author" and "Multiple quotes per author" sections. I feel it made the content of the page much more immediately graspable. It's an unusual move on Wikiquote, I know. But I am rather unconventional too, like you, and I think it works here.
I do not understand your specific objection to any of the people quoted here. To say you make your "own determinations" is great, but it is not an objection to others' informed additions. If a person is publicly recognized in credible publications as a source on radical centrism, then that should be decisive, whatever you (or I) might think. King and Ventura were recognized as radical centrist governors by John Avlon, a highly creduble source now quoted on this page. Tanenhaus is a prestigious editor who wrote a major article on the subject. Halstead-and-Lind, Miller, and Satin have written well-received books for major publishers on the subject (and Miller has written several articles on r.c. as well). They all merit extensive quoting about r.c. on a page devoted to r.c.
I was surprised to find certain people quoted here, such as Knight and Lafferty and Roosevelt, whom I do not believe have ever been described in the mainstream radical-centrist literature as radical centrist. But I appreciate the imagination and sensibilities of everyone (you and presumably others) who has chosen such quotes for this page over the years. I would not eliminate them (unless the people quoted were wildly inappropriate), and neither should you. The page is somewhat different from how Id have assembled it, and now it is somewhat different from how you assembled it. But that is the beauty of Wikiquote, is it not? It pushes our boundaries onward and upward, no small gift in these times.
From the sublime to the mundane: Your Michael Knight, R.A. Lafferty, and Jesse Ventura book quotes are not supported by page numbers. Do you still have access to those books? If so, would you please supply the page numbers? Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I wish to make clear that I certainly did NOT have ANY objection to the inclusion of quotes ANY of the people you had added — I had ONLY been objecting to creating individual sections for them — something which I believe has been done on only a few theme pages, and something I am not inclined to encourage abundantly — but I can and do accept them, and again assert that I don’t really have any strong objections to them.
As to the your inclination to retain the "One quote per author" and "Multiple quotes per author" sections, I simply assert that such distinctions are not necessary to note with explicit section headings, nor in accord with general practices here. USUALLY there are several quotes in sections about individuals before we create a section for some of their works, and even on the very few theme pages where similar sections have been created for individuals, there is no absolutely prescribed "breaking point" of any specific number of quotes — but MORE than two or even three or four would be closer to the norms in creating separate sections even on most pages for individual authors.
As to the more mundane requests for page numbers, I might do a little work on that eventually, but have very limited time to spend here, for at least a few days, and more likely more. I do welcome your contributions and thank you for them, and am glad to find someone interested in more broad ranges of social philosophy than those constrained and corrupted by many forms of formal partisan politics. I will probably be around for at least about an hour more today, but am not sure how much time I will be able to spend here beyond that. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
PS: I generally tend to continue dialogue where it begins, but am usually willing to accommodate other people's inclinations or habits also. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, Kalki, and thanks especially for taking the time to provide these clarifications and explanations. I understand (and appreciate) your perspective much better now. Finally, thanks for catching the typos in the Halstead & Lind excerpts. I was sure I'd spell-checked them; sorry. I have just re-examined the other excerpts I provided (Avlon, Miller, Satin, Warren) and believe they are now typo-free. Carry on! - Babel41 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice quote of the dayEdit


Nice quote of the day today !

Thank you,

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


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

  • Thanks, but these will need some sourcing; Wikiquote requires quotes have citations to verifiable sources. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Easter QOTDEdit

That was almost perfect (except for the missing source – why is it so hard for you to add "John 20:17, KJV"?)... Happy Easter. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now added a line indicating that this passage was in the Gospel of John. I had considered doing that on this page, and on some recent quotations of Jesus, but thought in needless so long as citations were available on the page for him. I will note that I usually DO include short references to works, when they are on separate pages — but I have sometimes neglected to do so in works where quotations are included on the author's page, rather than on a separate page. I do not believe extensive and elaborate citations are necessary on all special presentation pages, so long as they are linked to source page with sufficient citations.
In reference to your implying that this is an approach toward "perfection", I would assert that there are MANY necessary limited and provisional and often quite demonstrably false or fallacious notions of "perfection" at work in many contending ways and I am not inclined to address many of them at this time. Indeed many of my present aims include NOT wasting very much of my valuable time attempting to address many aspects of what I perceive about many things in extremely intellectually and morally constrained environments. In a few months time, I might be ready to elaborate more extensively on some of the particulars of such statements.
Though I had been considering some options of quotes and images which might be used on Easter, off an on for a few days, I did not actually make a final decision until minutes before I posted, and had to leave again soon after that — and decided that quote would be the simplest and most appropriate option of a few I had considered... and instead of choosing between 3 acceptable images to use with the quote, I decided initially at least to go with presentation of all 3 historically notable representations of the declaration of the statement, and added the symbol of a Christian cross as a minor detail. This obviously was found to be intolerably offensive breach of expected submissiveness to the "obviously superior judgement" of others in regard to such options, and all but one notable image was removed, and I have not contested this action, beyond making a few very slight remarks as indicate how ridiculous and contemptible I find it.
I had typed slightly more than this, but will temper myself from indicating many of my own perspectives a bit, and simply wish a Happy Easter for you as well — and may the Holy Sprit of Awareness, Life and Love of ALL grow stronger in all Humanity, in the months and years to come, among people of all traditions, named or unnamed, which embrace and promote such ethical imperatives as have been exemplified by the saints and heroes of many diverse faiths. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

Could you please give me some constructive rather than destructive writing advice?Edit

I would like for you to please explain in very simplistic public educator like terms, what your definite problems are with me; using a list of bullet points one or two sentences so that it is easier for me to understand and quantify what your constructive criticisms and advice are. I've gathered from my time with you and Peter1c that the use of analogy and colorful pop culture metaphors is also a problem anywhere other than TV tropes or those odd academic journals about how Buffy The Vampire Slayer or Star Trek are about feminism. Wittgenstein similarly hated anything but literal descriptions so there be no comparing something to a television show.
I wasn't using the reddit post as the ultimate source, I hypothetically iff trying to add that (which I cearly wasn't) would read and used that woman's actual book that she wrote about the subject. I must assume than that what incoherent meant was the single line where I said that's someones daughter; which I would better define as incredibly obvious factual statement akin to the sky is blue. I don't know what the proper name for the logical fallacy of an emotional appeal such as that would be, I considered memorizing all the logical fallacies at one point, they were called out constantly at Rationalwiki. I've been reading the ignorant words of too many politicians, forgive me for this pop culture analogy but looking for quotes from George W. Bush and Donald Trump is like when Huey watches too much BET to see if it will rot his brain.
If I'm citing a medical journal do you want the same level of referencing that Doc James wanted for AIDS? Do I have to include DOI? When do you need a retrieved date? I'm pretty sure everything else you normally want. I've also been omitting a lot of information like interviewers names, often because I'm not finding the original source just a book using it as a reference. Peter kept asking for evidence of notability or quotability so I figured presenting it as a quote established that. If you would prefer I can try harder to track down the original source of the quote, and provide a nice easy to check version available on the internet; which basically means referencing it twice and I don't see being done on the abortion page.
I will gladly clean up all the bare URLs at one point, it's become my Augean stables in terms of untidy problems. The bare urls aren't really on the theme pages as much as for entries of pop culture inside the about sections. To be fair though a lot of those anime and video game and comics articles are categorized as in need of clean up and less people seem to care about those articles because they are just pop culture. There's a few thee pages with a a lot of bare urls but it's stuff like movies, animation and comics but not countries or an emotion. I didn't add too many interviews to biographies because I mostly did historical figures and know how to reference books better than websites that often omit titles authors and dates.
In conclusion I'll clean up my bare urls. As far as coherence, than please specify in a way a stupid person like me can understand. I look up long descriptive sentences to try and understand the correct usage of commas. I would appreciate any help that can relayed easily, I want to get along with everyone, I'm not going around calling people names from an art critics dictionary of put downs and or using stand up comedy heckler slams. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I have been sporadically checking your recent edits, most of which remain very problematic, and considering ways to respond to them. At present I am VERY busy with MANY other concerns, and intend to respond to some other comments on my talk page and be gone MUCH of the day. I will probably respond more extensively to this request within the next day or so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
That's cool, I'm in no rush. I just wanted to finish comic book, politics and science quotes. I have a lot of psychology video games and animation quotes lined up to be properly cited in full, but it's approaching finals so I'm going to let that wait. I'm hoping whenever you get round to it, that your critique isn't too long and closer to a couple or paragraphs than a couple of pages. I'm better with bullet points, and it was an acceptable format for answers in one of my exams so it doesn't seem to barbaric a request. A gigantic lit of bullet points would ultimately be more scathing than another format as well, like the Evil Overlord List.
1: Your use of colons for listing items could benefit from this site Grammar.
2: Try either this example, "There are basically two ways to write: with a pen or pencil, which is inexpensive and easily accessible; or by computer and printer, which is more expensive but quick and neat."; or that example "Some people write with a word processor, typewriter, or a computer; but others, for different reasons, choose to write with a pen or pencil.". Semicolons
3: Your use of arcane Victorian adjectives for obfuscated feeling/excessive reliance on baseball and boating metaphors in conversation, makes it difficult to understand what you are talking about.
4: You wander off topic when each contested post would be better as a separate paragraph of your defense couples with a link to said revision. Also my talk page isn't the place to beg for help in your edit war, use the articles talk page for those deeply interested in the subject or the village pump.
5: This obscure women's pro wrestling figure/serial killer doesn't have as much as a magazine interview/news report; and hardly anyone reads magazines/news papers nowadays; at least a circulation of 100,000 units in absense of a wikipedia page for the author would suffice. Further more, as this is now the 4th time that you've posted youtube comments or web forum posts as being quotes, [1] [2], [3; the next time you will be blocked.
6: You never use any opening paragraphs that summarize all that statements you are about to make as a list.

CensoredScribe (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not had time to fully analyze your recent assertions or additions, let alone respond to them extensively. I anticipate being extraordinarily busy in the coming week, and know I am very unlikely to do much more than glance in here on most days for at least a week. I am presently intent on doing at least a day or two of QOTD work, before moving on to other tasks, and beyond that might not be editing here much at all for at least a week or so, with probably occasional checkins just to check against obvious vandalism. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

DJ Many Transfer To CommonsEdit

Can You Help Transfer This Picture Of DJ Many Over To The Commons It Has Been Approved For A Transfer But I Don't Know How...

DJ Many WhoSayEdit

The DJ Many Quotes Are On His WhoSay Account, WhoSay Is A Celebrity Only Social Media Platform That's Invite Only. He Also Verified Those Quotes By Posting Them On His Verified Twitter

I am not sure the image is actually eligible, as there would be more info involved in posting things there properly than I currently have, and I definitely don’t have time to check on things regarding it or the quotes right now. I am extremely busy with many other concerns which I have to get done within a few hours, — and then will be leaving for much of the day. I expect to be extraordinarily busy for several days yet —if it has not been posted to the Commons within a couple days, and it appears to be definitely eligible, I might handle the matter then. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 09:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And I ask you, where do we go from hereEdit

Am I the only tower lock for me to lean on? I've been seeking for tunes evasive and shy. Drink to the men who protect you and I? The Pen Backers have been hurting me and my family. They are changing history. My digital actions speak louder than my words. I have important documents and information. I have been digitally suppressed. I was given the copyright to a book of collected (stolen) writings of John Cornford. I love David R Jones. Both were geniuses. Both were looking for answers. Both were first. I have the archer and the ~ and I have the chalice brothers. I have Schmidt and I know you have seen ELGAR. I hope you know. They won another grant. I see where the manuscript is. 1,400 or so documents. My data is constantly being blocked or suppressed or censored. Jonathan Galassi Michael Schmidt Carcanet Press Farrar Strauss & Giroux. They are up to no good again and they have the Esperza Brothers and Sterling Campbell and a host of hallowed holes to hide their dirty laundry in. Kethertomalkuth (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

you should be ashamed of yourselfEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kent Hovind and Ken HamEdit

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mentioned youEdit

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

Urgent messageEdit

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

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

special QOTD (II)Edit

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

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

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

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

Image policyEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Michael Scott Gallegos" reviewEdit

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

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