User talk:Kalki/2018

Active discussions

This is an archive of past discussions on my user talk page for 2018.

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

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

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

Amazing user pageEdit

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

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

Abraham in the Idol ShopEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regular Show Season 9?Edit

Excuse me, these vandals keep vandalizing the Regular Show Season 8 page at Wikiquote. That is because, one of these vandals at Wikiquote, wants to get Regular Show back, by giving the show a ninth season. Can you help block that vandal, so he didn't vandal ever again? 207.225.26.200 18:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

slow downs?Edit

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

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

VandlismEdit

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

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

Thank youEdit

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

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

Vandalism noticeEdit

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

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

Even More VandalismEdit

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

Please block Jedi3Edit

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

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

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

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

Category:Japanese poetsEdit

Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

82.118.230.58Edit

82.118.230.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This anonymous user added a spam page advertising his company. When I marked it for speedy deletion, he removed the speedy deletion notice, and proceeded to add more to the article. Please block him. J.A.R.N.Y🗣 11:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove boldface from most "Last words"Edit

Hello. Can you please weigh in and give your opinion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Boldface in all "last words"? There, I'm proposing to remove boldface from most quotes in Last words, Fictional last words, and their subpages. Details and reasons are given in the discussion itself. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

130.185.239.34Edit

130.185.239.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This anonymous user has added multiple articles that contain only advertising spam with no actual quotes. Please block him. J.A.R.N.Y🗣 22:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:AbbrEdit

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

04:24, 27 June 2017 Kalki (talk | contribs | block) deleted page (Mass deletion of pages added by 124.239.251.55)

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

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

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

What censorship at Talk:IndiaEdit

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

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

MonsterHunter32Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Jedi3's disruptive editsEdit

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

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

  • User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claiming Template:Remove doesn't allow for removal of quotes and mandates moving and discussion. But I found out he hasn't read it properly. Templat:Remove itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. It says: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.
Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked.
  • What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.
  • While User:Jedi3 talks about "Bare-minimum", he doesn't stop to the do the most disruptive thing: Edit-warring. What's more he resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6].
  • He has also made some utterly false claims of "blanking", even though my removal of his quotes didn't involve more than 1 or 2 quotes and removed only a small part of the article. Some of his utterly false claims of "blanking" are here, here and here.
  • There is nothing wrong in checking another editor when they are being disruptive like User:Jedi3. And what I actually said was me categorically proving I never censored him. I was checking whether his edits are non-notable and non-memorable. "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • I already suggested at talk:India, let's discuss all quotes one by one at the relevant article talk pages. He refuses to do so.
  • Jedi3 keeps on smearing and making false allegations of "censorship" just because I disagree with many of his quotes being relevant. That too me telling it plainly I have only removed non-memorable/non-notable quotes: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • After Daniel Tom reverted me at Talk:India for removing Jedi3's vandal comments of baseless accusations and taking the issue to an entirely unrelated article while the actual discussion should have been at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles where I actually removed his quotes. His actions were very similar to Jedi3 by baselessly accusing me of censorship despite me discussing and compromising despite the quote being not notable, I asked him not to take sides with jedi3 over any ideolgical affinity. I told DanielTom about this [7] and also tried to prevent another edit-war at Talk:India like it happened on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I also told him the same at his own talk page.
  • After Kalki reverted me twice at talk:India and warned me, that was my last revert. I didn't start edit-warring and reverting like Jedi3. At User talk:Kalki#What censorship at Talk:India I asked him to effectively moderate and enforce the rules by blocking Jedi3 for his consistent disruptive editing. He kept saying he didn't have time but I pointed out I already made Jedi3's disruptive edits clear and if he moderated then this place would have been a much better place as i believe Jedi3 is not fit for here. I asked him to act against Jedi3 as the latter kept edit-warring right after after being warned and blocked by UDScott.
  • Jedi3 has no problem in making false claims about quotes. Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source, even though it isn't about Martand temple. He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic. He made up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.
  • Jedi3 tried to justify his edit-warring claiming he had no choice as "I wasn't discussing". This despite me telling him that I already tried to discuss. I never said there will be no discussion ever. All i said was I couldn't discuss all of them at once. I have already asked him to discuss the quotes one a time.
  • Just a Regular New Yorker laimed in his comment that quotes canot be removed if they are sourced. He doesn't seem to have read tyhe policies.
  • Except Wikiquote:Wikiquote, WQ:Q and Template:Fame saying this is for notable quotes. And the Template:Remove Jedi3 keeps talking about itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning." I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES?
  • Jedi3 points to the comment "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...." Except I never said such a thing. But I do dislike is Jedi3's disruptive edits and him not giving two hoots about notability.
  • "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion " Will Jedi3 say it is Kalki claiming so about me removing his unrelated vandal comments at Talk:India which had nothing to do with India. I had even explained this to him in my only revert of his unlike jedi3 who still edit-wars after being warned or blocked. And I have repatedly said I don't remove any quote I found notable: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."
  • Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes aren't even near to what he claims. This is aside from the fact that especially a user merely calling something as notable or poignant or witty doesn't make it notable. But then again he doesn't even care about the dictionary meaning of the words he's talking about. From Oxford dictionary Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Anyone who reads a dictionary can understand he's making it up about any of his edits being eloquent, poignant or witty etc. yet he makes the same claim at Talk:India yet again despite already being made aware his quotes are not near what he's falsely claiming them to be.
  • All policies say this website is about notable quotes. Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced. WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Not to mention the quote itself being notable criteria mentioned by it as well.

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

Jedi3 starting edit-warring againEdit

Jedi3 has again started edit-warring despite being warned several times even by admins. I ask you to please block him since he has abused the chances given to him. It is clear there is no chance of his improvement. Just today, he edit-warred on 7 different articles: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Enough is enough, I request he be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

GoodallEdit

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

-Jane Goodall

Is she referring to the book by Dawkins?

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

What exactly is she arguing against?

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

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

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

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

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

Births.Edit

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

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

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

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

Descriptive text for video games.Edit

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

QOTD: 2016 Apr 16 & 2013 Apr 15Edit

The 2016 qotd for April 16

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

is also shown as the 2013 qotd for April 15

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

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

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

My reasons are genuineEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Please take actionEdit

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

Here are his reverts, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

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

He actually made 6 reverts, another one without any reason : [20]. Why don;t you do anything? he has lied multiple times, but I don't want to edit-war.

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [21], [22], [23]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [24], [25]

Some false claims of "massive blanking" despite only one quote being removed: [26], [27], [28].

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [29]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [30], [31]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MonsterHunter32s mass censorshipEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find it extremely objectionable when you are making it sound like it would be fair if both of us are blocked with the same block length. i find it very objectionable when making it sound like there is any equivalence between the actions of a vandal who indiscriminately mass censors sourced quotes without explanation on talk [32], and another one who constantly discusses the censorship on talkpages before doing any reverts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THis is what another editor said:

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

Please block edit-warring and misleading Jedi3Edit

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

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

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

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

WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Also it clearly says, "It is the quote itself that must be notable".

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

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

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] and [38].

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

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

Jedi3 again resumed edit-warring today. Already two reverts made the last time I checked: [39], [40].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But here is what many pages of Wikiquote rules say:

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


  • First, If you want to discuss one at a time, you also need to delete one at a time. Simple as that. Monsterhunter is using this one-by-one. as an excuse, so that he can refuse to move all the other censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning. We both didn't talk at Somnath during this time. You were also not editing the talkpage during this time. We stopped discussing at almost the same time, the discussion was going nowhere, because you as a rule refuse to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that he was wrong, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. That is why I asked others for opinions from other editors. That is standard procedure also at wikipedia in such cases.
  • Second, the exceptions to the rule would obviously only be clear vandalism. So it does not apply to your censorship. That was explained to you many times already and it is misleading if you bring up this point again and again.
  • Third, you almost never moved deleted quotes to the talkpage, and added full reasoning on talk. Often I had to start moving the quotes to talk. see the table here [41]
  • Fourth, The examples given have nothing to do with the massive censorship. He is always using this as an excuse to avoid discussing the censorship. Some of the examples were mistakes, which happen to the best of us, some others are just misleading and misrepresentations. But they are all unrelated to the massive censorship. --Jedi3 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief block of massive posting actionsEdit

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

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

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

Please do somethingEdit

Kalki, please do something.

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

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

At the very least this rule should be enforced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't remove quotes because of biasEdit

If you want proof that I am not removing quotes because I don’t like them, here it is: Recently, I added quotes that criticised Aurangzeb: [42], [43].

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

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


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

Wikiquote:WikiquoteEdit

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

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

Making the use of descriptive texts across work pages uniformEdit

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

Quoted in MuhammadEdit

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

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

Lauretta Bender, LSD and schizophreniaEdit

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

NPOV PolicyEdit

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

Page protectionEdit

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

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

Request for adminshipEdit

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

24.156.198.139Edit

Need help with disruptive IPs...Edit

Peter PanEdit

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

Thomas and Friends-related articlesEdit

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

Being busyEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill HicksEdit

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

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/2442166Edit

Hi. Let you look at the last 3 edits:

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

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

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

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

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

==External links=="

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

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

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

Maybe you should resignEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP vandals 74.70.79.191 and 67.187.116.140Edit

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

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

Book of the DeadEdit

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

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

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

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

First page. What do you think?Edit

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

Recent vandalismEdit

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

DawnbreakerEdit

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

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

More vandalismEdit

Hi--there's more. [44]. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Merry ChristmasEdit

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


Return to the user page of "Kalki/2018".