User talk:Kalki/2019

Active discussions

This is an archive of past discussions on my user talk page for 2019.

Tulsi GabbardEdit

I used to respect your edits but the page on Tulsi Gabbard is an absolute disgrace. A Hindu Nationalist she supports dictators from Putin , to Assad to Modi, to Sisi in Egypt. She is just a Kremlin tool. She is not anti war in Syria ffs. She supported the terror bombing of civilians when done by regime and Putin. Wake up Kalki. I think you are not the wise old soul I thought.

—This unsigned comment is by 78.147.53.22 (talkcontribs) .
Being very busy with other matters, which often leave me active here only a few minutes a day, I am not so prone to respond to insulting comments or some forms of trolling so rapidly or extensively as I once did, and I could perceive from the start that you seemed very ignorant and confused about a number of significant matters. There are many comments on this page I have declined to respond to, simply as potentially just further wastes of my time, but I am responding now to yours, hoping it will not be entirely futile in making a few points.
I created the article about Tulsi Gabbard, well aware that I did not agree with all of her past or present assessments of many matters, but recognizing she seemed a generally intelligent and notable person, with whom, like most people, I could agree with on many matters, and disagree with upon some. I began the article making note of some notable statements I could generally agree with, and subsequently another editor posted statements by her or about her which they found notable, sought to make more prominent, as did you. I have just now created one for the far more famous and prominent Kamala Harris, and I was somewhat surprised that neither of these notable women had a page prior to my creation of them.
You declare this notable person is "is just a Kremlin tool." I must disagree with such arrogant assertions. I have profound respect for Humanity, and the potentials of most human beings for both virtue and evil, wisdom and idiocy, and I don’t believe that she, nor even so profoundly stupid, reprehensibly motivated and morally infantile a narcissist as Donald Trump is "only a tool" for the even more reprehensibly conniving tyrant Vladimir Putin, though I recognize that he has certainly become such a tool, as well as millions of others Putin has been involved in duping or manipulating. I actually do not desire either of these wretches to suffer any unnecessary distress or harm for the immense harm and distress they have surely done to their nations, and to others, and to Humanity. Yet neither can I honestly say that I wish them any further successes in their attempts at deceiving and tyrannizing others, and for the sake of Humanity, hope that their political reigns will be able to end within a few years, without much greater harm to many. I acknowledge such hopes are rather strained.
Those general statements regarding Humanity, and two of the foremost dangers to it, at this point in history, having been made, I will return to your comments on Gibbard, and note that it is a quite ridiculous falsehood to declare her a "Hindu nationalist", simply because she is a Hindu, or because she has met with people who might be characterized as such, or that she "supported the terror bombing of civilians when done by regime and Putin", or "supports dictators from Putin , to Assad to Modi, to Sisi." She might not be so actively opposed to some tyrants, or supportive of regime change in Syria or other nations as many other conscientious people have been inclined to be, in recent years, for various reasons, but I can understand and accept many aspects of her perspectives and stances against "regime-change wars", though I might not always agree with others. There are some things she has said, done, or believed in the past which I would consider either socially or politically naïve, but few things which I believe are unpardonable or inexcusable errors, especially in comparison to others in the fields of partisan politics, including the meetings with the morally depraved. In the developing alternatives to Trump in the 2020 election, I consider her and Kamala Harris both worthy of note, and though I have relatively minor reservations about both of them, believe them 2 of the more potentially impressive Democratic party candidates of which I am aware, with Harris and a few others as clearly people with more of a developed base of experience and influence, at this point.
I always retain very complex views on the potentials for virtue and evil in the attitudes or actions of EVERY human being, and do not consider any human being totally damnable or saintly, but know that there are attitudes and actions which can be and ARE so, from any perspectives which I would consider sane — and it is ever towards these which I most consistently direct my anger or praise, rather than individual people, in their various states of awareness, ignorance and confusion. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC) + tweaks
A very thoughtful response. But I can't agree with your rose tinted view of Gabbard. 'Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.[1] 'Gabbard said her trip to the region was born from “the suffering of the Syrian people that has been weighing heavily on my heart.”

But in 2015, she was one of just 47 Democrats who sided with Republicans and backed a GOP-sponsored measure that would essentially block Syrian and Iraqi refugees from resettling in the US.

Potentially impressive? With that level of critical thinking about the tragedy of the Syrian War? No way. how tulsi gabbard unites modi assad far right in U S78.147.53.22 21:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Update Wikiquote:GNU_FDL?Edit

FYI: Wikiquote_talk:GNU_FDL#Creative_Commons. While you're there, would you please consider moving the {{Official policy}} template from talk to the project page, and adding {{Policylist}} template to the project page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The requested move has now been done. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Would you please also consider adding the {{Policylist}} template? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This has now been done. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
And thank you for that. (Of course, if it wasn't permanently edit protected then I wouldn't have had to have bothered you.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wp-linksEdit

Hello Kalkiǃ Have you noticed this? w:Wikipedia talk:External links--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

slave tradeEdit

For future reference of context, am making note that the recently contended edits, apparently made by you, and referred to here were on the page for Slavery, and a few others, under various IPs, including, 1.152.109.90 (talk · contributions) 1.152.104.145 (talk · contributions) 121.221.161.58 (talk · contributions), and reverted by me and 1997kB (talk · contributions) on 5 February 2019 ~ Kalki·.

"strongly bigoted drive to focus any and all guilt you can on Arabian traders"? I said no such thing. Speak for yourself. You are the one who saw a picture of Arabs selling slaves and instantly leapt to racism. Sad. --1.136.107.115 03:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It is very sad indeed that your obviously asinine mental and moral incompetence, incomprehension, and flagrant efforts at promoting particular forms of bigotry impels you to declare that I accused you of "racism", which I actually did not (whatever your particular tendencies in that regard might actually be), rather than the particularly asinine forms of ethnic and cultural bigotries that seem quite apparent and evident, without you overtly declaring them to be such. Many, and probably most forms of ethnic and cultural animosities and bigotry do not actually involve self-declared forms of "bigotry", or even milder forms of biases, which are generally found in all living beings.
I can and do recognize wide ranges of obvious, overt, and subtle and camouflaged forms of vitally important or detrimental biases, and I certainly do not seek to severely condemn or oppose all of them, nor even most of them, even those I might personally find noxious and repugnant, but I tend to vigorously oppose those biases which impel individuals to seek to perpetrate and promote particularly pernicious and dangerous forms of bigotry or oppression, and I believe that it is quite evident that such is what many of the edits which you seem to have done in recent days have been inclined to do. Whether others might perceive it as major or minor in significance, the choice you have sought to impose is one I definitely perceive to be both inferior and detrimental.
The image you were replacing was not actually one originally chosen by me, but actually one chosen by a person who was often, but not always, adversarial towards my own choices, and whom I perceived in many ways to often be very ignorantly contentious, closed minded and intolerant in hostility towards many other relevant images on the wiki, but in this particular case, I believe that a good and relevant choice of producing that image and caption combination was certainly made by that editor early in July 2012, and it had remained uncontested as a good choice for nearly seven years, and I certainly believe it was far more evocative, interesting and relevant than the image you were attempting to replace it with, in recent days, as did at least one other active participant on the wiki.
This is but a brief reply to your brief comment and recent activity, and I have several other things to do for several hours. I will probably only have intermittent periods of activity here for at least a few days, though I anticipate I might be able to have a period of more extensive activity on the wiki within the next month or so, and catch up on at least some extensive cleanups I have considered doing for a few years. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 06:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC) + tweak

Continued spamming... User:Michael BoulosEdit

You may want to revoke their talk page acccess, regards. 182.58.251.119 16:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the account generally after the creation of several pages with spam links, after already providing a notice about the impropriety of such actions, and have noted the use of the unblocked talk page of the account for posting of unsourced quotes — but not as yet any further spam links. If any are posted, or other extremes noticed, that last page accessible to that account will likely be blocked. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Posted some spam links, wordpress and another link on his talk page. 182.58.251.119 16:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Change block settingEdit

Hi, please block talk page for Special:Contributions/Michael Boulos because he keep spamming. Thanks. Tomybrz (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes raised the issue above see [2]. 182.58.251.119 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the additional spam which was being posted even as I posted the above declaration, and the account is now entirely blocked from editing here. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

QOTD March 24, 2019Edit

May I ask, what are your thoughts on the QOTD for March 24, 2019? JessRek6 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I note that you selected William Morris previously, in 2006 and 2010, as well as Malcolm Muggeridge previously, in 2013, and Walter Hilton was used previously, in 2007, and Joel Barlow was used previously, in 2011. May I respectfully suggest that as of 2018, March 24 is perhaps more notable for the March for Our Lives anniversary than for their birthdays or days of death. JessRek6 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. Please wikilink AR-15 to AR-15 style rifle. JessRek6 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in some of my editing comments, I left after a bit of earlier activity here on a short excursion, which I thought would be a bit shorter, and had to take a bit more time to review the options than I had thought I would have to before the selection. As you obviously noticed, I extended on your suggestion for greater context, and that is probably about all I will do here for at least some hours. I will be leaving again soon.
I used the most pertinent image I could find on the commons, but am not entirely pleased with the options at this point. I might create a cropped image based on this one before the next QOTD is selected, but probably don’t have sufficient time right now. I have long been extremely dissatisfied with the visual imbalance created in using only one image with a QOTD of the day, rather than the triptych or arrays which I usually created for many years, and such imbalances with one image become extremely apparent in many of both the longer and shorter quotes, but I have been deferring to what I consider rather warped tastes and urges to constrain some of the more creative options available to myself or others for some time now, and don’t have time presently to extensively argue my case against such impositions. I might do sometime later this year, but remain too busy with too many other things to attend much to that matter right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I did have sufficient time to do a crop of the image used, and believe that it works a bit better in the layout than the base image did. I attempted to upload a WebP version of the crop initially, after checking to see that there were WebP images at the commons — but there currently seem to be problems with generating thumbnails of these, and I thus uploaded a jpg of the crop, which is currently being used on the layout. I had intended to leave by now, but might not bother going to where I had initially intended after all. — I have many other things to attend to also. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

subtle vandalismEdit

I have usually only been very briefly stopping in lately, but in only brief scans of various edits have been noticing a few forms of subtle vandalism occurring in recent days and weeks across a few different articles, which I do not have time to fully address right now, but will attempt to more fully explicate and remedy within the next week or so. I only have a few minutes to type this statement in right now, before leaving. I hope to address some of the more obvious of things within the next day or two. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC) + tweaks

After becoming busier with other things than I anticipated, and anticipating attending to even more urgent matters in the days ahead, I find it unlikely I will be able to sufficiently address some of these matters for at least a few days, but retain hope of addressing them within the next week or so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 10:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Toy Story vandal lingers on in the Shrek franchise...Edit

As this remorseless edit will prove to you. WikiLubber (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/April 26, 2019Edit

I haven't really messed much with the QOTD, but it seems intuitive that this should be credited to the fictional character Nick Fury, rather than "the Avengers". I kindof get that it is being credited to "the body of work" titled The Avengers, but since the fictional group is of the same name, it comes off as a little confusing whether it's being credited to the work or the fictional group. GMGtalk 12:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now altered the credit line — I had considered putting Fury's name there, but as we do not currently have a page for Fury, I thought it was potentially confusing in the formatting which might be used in the daily Wikipedia emails which contain our QOTD. I did not have time to start such a page, as I had just arrived home and had to leave to the get to the closest IMAX for their 6:00 showing in 3D, which I had purchased a ticket to a few weeks ago. I might start a page for Fury within a few days, but I remain rather busy with other matters, and am likely to become even more so in the next couple of weeks. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

ProtectionEdit

I recommend our talk pages (including yours) be protected indefinitely against these IP vandals. WikiLubber (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As an admin, my talk page should remain open to anon IPs, despite the hazard of sometimes being the target of anonymous trolls and other twerps. Also being a primary target of such vandals often helps me to become more aware of their activities earlier than I otherwise might, so that I can become more swiftly responsive to them. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC) + tweak
But what else can we do to stop them completely? Block one IP, another with the same MO comes after you. Protecting your talk page is the only way to stop it. Besides, you have not received any legitimate IP messages lately, so why leave your talk page open to vandalism?
But there is one other thing. These IPs always remove my messages without explanation. Why mine in particular when other users have similar reports? WikiLubber (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I have little doubt that you have been targeted by trolls, and many of them, no doubt, tend to find it amusing to cause distress in others. It is the nature of wikis to be somewhat vulnerable to the assaults of idiots, and yet what damage they can do can be recognized as such and swiftly removed. I tend not to be very greatly distressed by what brief nuisances they can be to me with attacks upon my pages, and am primarily concerned with simply not permitting some of the most malicious or detrimental attacks on the main pages of the wiki from occurring without such responses as can be swift and thorough enough to sufficiently and rapidly repair the damages. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 03:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC) + tweaks

Does Wikiquote really need to have a page for Race and appearance of Jesus, just because Wikipedia has one and there's quotes about the subject?Edit

Would I be correct in my belief that a Wikiquote page for Race and appearance of Jesus should be tagged for deletion and that just because Wikipedia has such a page and there are quotes about the subject, that does not mean that it is automatically a good idea for us to do the same? I noticed we have pages for Religious views of Adolf Hitler and Depictions of Muhammad, I don't think adding Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln to Wikiquote would really be an improvement, I've noticed recently a trend of removing quotes shared between similar pages, which I think can potentially lead to those quotes becoming much harder to find. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that there is any pressing need, desire or benefit to having corresponding pages for either of the mentioned Wikipedia pages here. I would expect most others probably feel much the same, and the pages would probably be deleted. I myself am not usually inclined to divide pages out for anything less than a pressing need to do so, such as separate pages for very numerous quotes from prominent individual works or series by an author. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wp-blockEdit

Hi Kalkiǃ Got a block at en-Wikipedia for linking to Wikiquote. I think it's unfair. I'd be glad if you could look at my wp-talk pageǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The block was not for "linking to Wikiquote", it was for "Personal attacks, inability to get the point, blocks on four other wikimedia projects suggest AGF has run out a while ago". see my response to the identical post at User talk:GreenMeansGo. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue does seem to be far more complicated than "linking to Wikiquote" — and the practice of using quotes for captions which is entirely appropriate on Wikiquote, is plainly not appropriate nor recommended in the articles of any of the Wikipedias. I perceive that the indefinite block might possibly be overly harsh, but I do not know of all of the contentions involved in past disputes and such warnings as may have been given. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can remember no official warnings have been given.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) - Let's look how this episode started, simple and clear: my main work at en-Wikiquote has been categorizing. Doing this I've checked the categories at English Wikipedia and at the same time that the links are there. Also have I added many missing categories to Wikipedia. Recently there was many new Indian related articles at Wikiquote, and I linked 'em as usual, there's nothing wrong with it - without any special interest in India. Now, someone didn't like that and managed to prevent me linking India-topics. Afterwards this in my opinion strange decision had to be justified by digging unessential stuff I've written during three years.--Risto hot sir (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

PurposeEdit

Hi there, can you take a look at the page purpose? There's been a lot of reverting and counter reverting. Which person and edits were right? Thanks --2001:8003:4163:AD00:4115:73AD:8179:56E1 21:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The issues involved on that page, and on contentions on many other pages are complicated, and I do not have the time, at present, to sufficiently address many of the most significant of them. I will probably make an attempt at doing so within the next month or so, and perhaps touch upon some of them within a few days, but I am currently extremely busy with many other matters, and do not have so much time as I would wish to address many of the issues here. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Any chance you could lock purpose and Zionism, or tell Rupert to stop reverting me? It's getting a bit silly over there. --1.152.109.28 10:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of TyciolEdit

Hello, Kalki, I'm pretty sure that https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Unihoof and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.231.171.12 are both Tyciol, an ArbCom banned editor, seeing as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unihoof shows that Bbb23 has blocked them as a sock of Tyciol and the IP was blocked as a CheckUser block around the same time by Bbb23, as this shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.231.171.12. Also, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ranze is a sock of Tyciol, as this shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ranze. I'd block them all to be on the safe side myself, seeing as Tyciol and his socks are alt-right and are adding biased quotes on here and writing hit pieces on people they don't like. --78.148.173.39 22:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

In past months I have noticed remarkably increased numbers and severity of edits by those with obviously partisan agenda, among the narrow and often shallow ranges of ideological opinions and affinities commonly labeled "right" or "left", often using various IPs, but with similar styles, as well as various user names that might be sockpuppets or simply like minded people, but I simply have not had sufficient time to examine many of the contentions going on among them, let alone find and address all the abuses which I have little doubt have occurred, and continue to occur. I probably will become somewhat more active here within coming weeks, and perhaps sort through things a bit more than I currently have had time to do. I am generally reluctant to block users without incidents of clear and obvious vandalism or other abuses, and I have not even had time to examine all the links you have provided above, and I do not actually block people because I simply disagree with various ideas they seek to promote, but only when I perceive them to be clearly ignoring or rejecting established policies. I recognize that more subtle trolls and vandals are often harder to effectively deal with than the more overt ones, and I simply do not have time to examine all the issues presented by some of the situations above today. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Immigration and Immigration in the United States.Edit

Someone moved a bunch of quotes off the immigration page to Immigration in the United States and I figured you could better explain why we can keep these quotes on the basic immigration page as well as the more specialized one. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I generally dislike the needless creation of many overly specific theme pages, but this page seems to have initially been created in response to a great number of quotes that did indeed deal specifically with issues of immigration in the US, including various contentions about various policies or proposals, rather than general commentary on immigration. I actually do not see much reason for any of these to be on the more general page, though any quote largely dealing with more general issues of immigration, rather than focused primarily or entirely on specific contentions about US policies, practices, or proposals could probably be appropriate there as well. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on your over 117,777 contributions to Wikiquote.... that's allot of energy!Edit

Bravo Kalki! Om777om (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the VFD for Inceldom ever going to close or will the debate last forever?Edit

I've complained about the discussions at Vfd being slow before, but I think having votes that last years when the template suggests they should last a week is kind of needlessly confusing, why not just change the amount of time for voting to close to a more realistic month, or a year, or just get rid of the recommended time limit all together if so many votes go over it? I haven't looked too much at what Wikiquote used to look like, and really should have done so by now, however I assume the general amount of activity has gone up over time rather than down, and that even in the past when there were far fewer people editing, that votes rarely tended to go on quite this long (fifteen months). Can I just withdraw my nomination and concede defeat or something? This seems to be a discussion few people are interested in taking part in (it's a bit squicky), and those that have don't seem to have anything new to say, it's been over six months since the last post. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have relatively rarely gotten involved in Vfd matters, save when I happen to notice some nomnation of a page I believe worth retaining, and I actually do not regularly even check in on the page for VfDs, let alone become part of the procedures. I do not see any strong reason to remove the page, and if that is the closing which seems appropriate to most, I believe the VfD should be closed, and the page kept as an appropriate one. ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I will not withdraw the nomination, though I don't expect any further conversation to actually occur, if it should, it'd be worth hearing why people think this is important to add. I do hope though that we don't end up having pages for the various slurs, designated by their first letter, or any other hateful phrase like Rhineland bastard or race traitor, which Wikipedia seems to think are good ideas to have pages for. I'm surprised mental cripple isn't a Wikipedia pages yet, it seems to be a relatively popular phrase used by officials in certain Asian countries. It would be interesting to compare all the current pages that are for terms not included in "The Dictionary", and I would like it if more people chimed in on the discussion as to whether they think words/phrases/memes that originated on the internet or in pop culture, such as inceldom, trigger warning, Twerk or Fo'Shizzle will ever be added to Webster's, (to quote Leonard Nimoy completely out of context from his guest appearance on The Simpsons, "The answer, is no.") CensoredScribe (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not generally have any strong obsession with focusing on the particular terms people use to indicate or obscure various notions or ideas, and am well aware there are many diverse reasons they use, misuse or abuse various terms and notions or expectations regarding them, and fail to discern many nuances or major distinctions in the ways others use, misuse or abuse such — or decline to do so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Img of Tross on soldierEdit

I request as an administrator for you to please arbitrate the page for soldier and at least provide futrther explanation as to why Peter1c is correct; at your convenience, I know you often have a lot of stuff to do and I'm in no particular rush. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Peter1c seems to be adding images to the talk pages of other users, which I'm guessing we shouldn't be doing?Edit

 
I have not reached my final form.

Um...would you please give me some advice on how to handle this strange situation developing with Peter1c, assuming it is now officially a problem. I imagine adding the basis of the MTV2 logo to Peter1c's page captioned as it is on my user page would correctly be construed as harassment or a threat, given it was inappropriate for the page for abortion. CensoredScribe (talk)

I am not sure why CensoredScribe interpreted this image as a threat. (Threat of what?) I know nothing about the characters in this fictional universe, so the image may have conveyed something unintentional. If so, I apologize. The quote was intended to convey that we are all still evolving. My husband is more familiar with anime and thought CensoredScribe would appreciate this quotation, which he thought might be relevant when I explained my debates with CensoredScribe. I know nothing about the characters in this fictional universe, so this was probably a bad idea. Sorry about the misunderstanding. The quote was intended to convey that we are all still evolving. I am sorry it conveyed something different. Regarding the appropriateness of placing the image and quote in the section where debate was still going on, I don't understand objection. Regarding ongoing discussion with CensoredScribe, I am doing my best to understand CensoredScribe's motivations, so we can work with CensoredScribe. My understanding is that consensus is: theme pages require a standard of relevance and many of CensoredScribe's additions on theme pages do not meet quotability guidelines and standards of relevance. If my understanding of consensus is wrong, of course I will alter procedure. CensoredScribe for some reason interprets quality control as unwelcome, but this is part of the project. This is not a fandom website, and I have repeatedly indicated to CensoredScribe that if he wishes to make contributions without editorial review and subject to review by consensus of the community, he would be better off with fandom websites. I would sincerely like to understand CensoredScribe's position better, but at present I don't understand the motivation for low quality additions which do not improve the quality of the project. Even if we leave aside the question of quotability, many of the additions fail to meet standards of relevance to the page topic. I am very sorry to see this conflict. My aim is to uphold consensually agreed upon editorial standards on Wikiquote. If I am misinterpreting the consensus on this topic, I sincerely apologize and will alter my procedures accordingly. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been asking for arbitration regarding this issue for some time now, an actual graph of unacceptable edits over time compared to acceptable ones, or just a tally to a certain number of unacceptable ones. Peter doesn't seem to understand that other people might interpret a two headed dog the wrong way, that's okay, I was referring to what I might do, I understand topic sentences are not your thing Ryu- I mean Peter. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing we can't sell our accounts for money, right?Edit

Hypothetically if we thought another user quit and sold their account, what would be the correct way of making that accusation, assuming that's actually against the rules? If selling our accounts isn't a problem, I'm guessing we still aren't allowed to let Wikiquote serve as the auction house or the street corner to paste a flyer, correct? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Another IP vandal...Edit

IP user 98.214.101.235 is constantly adding categories that are absolutely wrong to certain series.

Examples:
It refers to Alvin and the Chipmunks (1983 TV series) as a Cartoon Network show, but that series was cancelled BEFORE Cartoon Network even existed!
It refers to certain anime series as American TV shows, but none of them are!
It refers to some anime series as cancelled shows, but virtually none of them are!

I request that this user be blocked indefinitely and that all of its edits be undone. There are so many, I cannot do it alone. WikiLubber (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Koreans and Korean language...Edit

I've been adding quotes to the various Korea pages recently and was wondering whether one I found would be appropriate to add to either the pages for Korean language or Koreans, or perhaps Korean immigration to the United States, to go along with Immigration to the United States? I know I've expressed a lack of interest in hyper specialized pages, and I doubt you are interested in helping me find quotes about snowboarding.

  • "Chloe can be really famous in Korea," says Hwang Hyeran, one of her reps at Seoul-based SEMA Sports Marketing. "There is much interest in her and much potential for her to have Korean sponsors." If his daughter wins Olympic gold here, Jong believes her Korean marketing potential could reach the millions -- not to mention her haul back home.
    Tonight is about unlocking that potential. She plans to address the nearly 50 reporters waiting for her in Korean, a language she speaks fluently but never in public. "Korean is such a complex language, and there's a respectful and a casual way to say things," Kim says. "The last thing I wanted to do was offend anyone as soon as I got to Korea."
    Her father believes that using the Korean he taught her will convey respect for the media. "It will show them she cares about her heritage," he says. "Then they won't ask why they should promote a Korean-American snowboarder instead of a Korean athlete."

—This unsigned comment is by CensoredScribe (talkcontribs) .

The above anecdotal excerpt from an article on a particular person doesn’t strike me on the whole as a very notable quotation of itself, on any general theme. It's use in full is something I do not actually perceive to be very appropriate for any theme page, as it is clearly primarily focusing on several aspects of the life of the person "Chloe Kim", and not actually on any particular "theme" beyond a few in specific relation to their very incidental correspondence to aspects of her life and interests. Beyond it's use on a page for that person, which is its primary focus, the rather small statement within it that "Korean is such a complex language, and there's a respectful and a casual way to say things" could perhaps be acceptable on a page for the Korean language, but I would assert that it is probably not a major statement of note, as probably not entirely original and rather mundanely descriptive of a fact common in many languages. The whole excerpt's very obscure and indirect relevance to any page for "Korean immigration to the United States" is something that is so strained as to definitely make it inappropriate for such a page, let alone creating such a page for such a quote. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC) + tweaks

"Proving notability" and locating the original sources of quotations.Edit

I was wondering if you might be willing to look at say, the last 5 edits I've made and review whether they have "proven notability", as Peter1c calls it, the particular word "proven" seems to be absent from any rules and guidelines listed on Wikiquote and appears to be something this particular editor has added into comments as some kind of requirement only they know the actual definition of. In particular, the revert to the abortion page seems a bit off, as I generally haven't had quotes from The Atlantic reverted before, and the additional commentary provided by the author is not included in the excerpted book, and does not really work without the quotes the article's author is commenting on. I assumed being in The Atlantic was that proof, however I've been wrong plenty of times before and thought seeking clarification from an administrator appropriate. Peter1c also seems not to mind any of the quotes added to force-feeding despite lacking any such proof, which suggests some form of bias is involved.
I'm sorry if I've been pestering you recently, I know it's incredibly annoying from having had it happen to me recently with one user's apparent concern over my editing patterns for theme pages, (concerns being something I also have for their use of images, such as on the United States page, which others have expressed on the talk page); if there is another administrator you think would be interested in arbitrating the abortion page and explaining the fault in my reasoning behind including The Atlantic article over the original source, I will relay this message to them in hopes of a faster response. I know UDScott is interested in fiction as well, and appears to have somewhat more time for addressing minor concerns such as these, so they would be the better choice for asking why some quotes from Blade Runner and The Boondocks are appropriate for theme pages, while others are not; however given the contentiousness of this topic and your comments on partisanship increasing in recent months, I thought you best to handle arbitrating this particular highly contentious topic. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If I request that you ban me, could and would you be willing to do so.Edit

I'm worried about the impact I'm having on the mental health of other editors, including some administrators, and how they might deal with their potentially turbulent and confusing emotions, and as such would like to tend my resignation to you, pending your approval or rejection of that proposal and dismissal or admission of my founded or unfounded concerns. I really don't want to edit somewhere where the vast majority of people dislike me and will potentially deal with their existential crisis by lashing out at easier targets, be they on or off wiki. I'm aware that I could just walk away and never come back, but that would not alleviate the concerns of said editors the way that a block or ban would. Considering my record, it would not be difficult to justify in a discussion, assuming those are needed. I believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one and that this sacrifice would be for the greater good from a Utilitarian perspective. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I am presently in the midst of several simultaneous activities, and shuffling my attention between them... and expect to be doing so for a couple of hours, before leaving again — and I now return my attention to this project and your assertions: I would suggest simply taking a rather extensive wiki break, and in the future, whenever you return, to be more carefully selective and considerate in minimizing or diminishing statements with little or strained relevance or significance, rather than prolific and often rather loosely focused in your contributions.
I will probably not be thanked in rejecting your present offer to voluntarily be blocked, as a missed opportunity for eliminating or diminishing many recurring nuisances. I actually can agree with many of your more avid critics that there are problems with your additions and some of your apparent attitudes, and that many of your contributions have often been far more problematic or even detrimental than beneficial, having either strained or little clear relevance to theme subjects to which they are added. I myself have been moved to make some criticism of them, especially of their often very casual and improper formatting, but have usually declined to do so, even after composing some comments on the matters, out of awareness of much of how complex and time consuming many of the issues that eventually need to be more thoroughly addressed actually are, and how little time I have had to deal with them.
As I have stated, I would suggest a present reduction of activity, and a more careful consideration of how to add but a little at a time, which is very clearly relevant, rather than including much, which might have very little or no clear relevance. That is about all I will state for now. Now I am on to a few other activities... ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Hi Kalki. About the Andromeda thing we can talk later on email. I'm kind of a professional astronomer, and we're all serious about myths and constellations and stuff. My email is astronomy.service@my.com. Bye! Anyways, read my talk page, and the Andromeda talk page. Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC) To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoting science journals doesn't make this an encyclopedia, any more than it does for Today in Science History.Edit

I've been having some issues with Peter1c, since, well, I forget exactly when this started, (last December after quoting Inuyasha on my user page I suppose is when their "concern" got really bad), however, now things are getting a bit out of hand as I am no longer allowed to add sentences from science journals, just "real" literature and the occasionally accptable obscure website for Jewish women that is definitely less famous than a random article from a major newspaper or magazine. Would you be able to suggest an admin that would mediate this situation, I'm concerned if any of my additions from science journals are in fact welcome here, it seems odd to wait this long to mention this was an issue, it's been nearly a year, should I be worried about Genetics, Evolution and Eating disorder being left to the more knowledgeable literary authors instead of scientists and journalists? It's not like I hate literature, I just don't add alot of it, but is Wikiquote relly supposed to be just for the humanities and not for including Carl Sagan's somewhat lengthy commentary on science, or worse, including actual science journals? At 700 some words, I have to assume the science page is an example of complying with LOQ, so long as none of the quotes is contiguously longer than 250 words, give or take a dozen or two. I don't think this particular user has ever added an academic journal in the time I've been here, or ever. Have you, or anyone else you could direct be towards, added any I could use as an example before? I could use your help with something I've added hundreds of quotes for already, it's easy enough to delete for Peter1c or anyone else who cares enough to do the clicking, I can't imagine it would take more than a day or so to look through my history for 10,000 byte additions and revert them all without bothering to read any of them. but I'd be happy to do it myself if that's the consensus among the admins and other editors. I gave this offer to Peter but received a typically vague response when I asked how this list of bullet points would be applied by them to the page I just asked them about: I don't trust people who won't answer a direct question, particularly when asked repeatedly, it's like that Seth Meyers segment the other day with Mike Pence as a malfunctioning robot.
I've ended up working with Peter1c on creating pages for media studies, which was rather unexpected, I'm confused why the references on the page for medical drama are some how more acceptable than the ones Peter has been deleting since around yesterday, I've been told motives don't matter, and I agree, but this is getting kind of creepy, I've asked why they keep coming bak. Would it be possible to get an interaction ban imposed, I'm tired of being told about my mind and soul, I'm concerned for the bodies of anyone listening to Peter1c but I don't think my mentioning that is particularly constructive for building an encyclopedia, and I try and respect the beliefs of others by not imposing my own on their talk pages. I prefer keeping to myself as I don't feel the need to chit-chat and being provided a seemingly endless series of links to articles that say nothing about science journals being non notable, what does that even mean in terms of Impact factor?
Also, I imagine there's probably some sort of rule about sexually harassing other users, correct? I've never seen any definition provided on Wikiquote of what the verbal form of that might be considered nor have I ever seen users flirt with each other in an acceptable form either, perhaps it's never occurred before on Wikiquote outside of vandalism accounts. I told them I consider Plato a rape apologist, the next time they do that I'm quoting the dialogue from rape and incest survivors on their talk page, seeing as I know the canned response I will get for adding the statistics from Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars.
I imagine the next development will be that I'll add another 20,000 byte article for a mental illnes, it will get reverted and I will simply quit, at which point, problem solved, I guess. This doesn't seem to be an issue for Peter regarding my Tupac quotes, an unaired MTV interview must be a notable, quotable source, unlike anything on PubMed. (Last updated: CensoredScribe (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC))

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Block.Edit

Thanks for the block you gave Christy0496. A lot. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protecting my talk pageEdit

Hi Kalki. Can you please semi-protect my talk page due to nonsense and vandalism? Thank you. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for this. The second thank is for blocking Showmehowtonelikeyou, who vandalised many talk pages and seeing my warnings on his talk page insisting I had done the vandalism and making edit summaries like “Too bad there’s no admins stopping me lol” and “You’ll never win this war” and all kinds of mean things. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem with the semi-protection. I set it as only temporary at this point, but could always extend it. There remain a few very infantile people who waste much of their own time and other people's in vandalizing pages in various ways that most 6 year olds would be mature enough to refrain from doing. So it goes. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, mind protecting it again due to vandalism again? P.S. I think the new vandals are the same contributor as Showmehowtonelikeyou. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 08:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now set it to semi-protection for 3 months. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 08:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 08:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The same vandal is now replacing my user page with old contents; can you block that IP? Thank you! ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 08:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now permanently semi-protected your user page. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 11:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I know it’s late in the USA but may you please semi-protect my user talk page permanently? Thanks.Blessings. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 09:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I have now semi-protected your talk page permanently. There remain some idiotic twerps who believe it an impressive thing to vandalize wikis in ways most 6 year old children would realize is disgracefully immature. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation pageEdit

Hi Kalki, I made the page Watership Down be a disambiguation page. Did I do this correctly according to how Wikiquote works? Thank you, ↠Pine () 02:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That is an acceptable way to do a disambiguation page. Since there is no page for the book, one could also make a redirect to the film, with credits to the author of the book prominently in the intro (or, perhaps somewhat less conveniently, to the author's page, with some prominent linkage to the film page). ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 07:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Anastas MikoyanEdit

Could you unlock Anastas Mikoyan? It's been indefinitely locked since 2015 for no reason I can see --2001:8003:4085:8100:71DF:F2BF:7413:91E7 18:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now turned off the protection from anon edits that had been placed on that page in early 2015. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish you would remove the rap lyrics about guns.Edit

I find it somewhat odd that no one here seems to question removing anti-gun quotes from DC Comics or The Venture Bros., (visual mass media), yet tweet long rap lyric), some of them probably even from Warner Records, were fine, up until I removed them just now.
I know guns are for weak people isn't long enough or pithy enough to be a quote we can add (there's no other quotes that express that sentiment. Would you happen to know any quoteable enough ones you would be willing to share? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC) (revised CensoredScribe (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)) P.S. Ningauble quotes themselves on their user page, can I quote Irritable of Contents from Uncyclopedia on various topics or would that be different and auto-blackball me from ever becoming an admin here as well? I still don't want your awful, thankless, job, but would like to know it isn't off limits.
Also just to let you know I won't be reverting Peter1c any I think I'm taking a break from this place until I decide to add the rest of the psychological disorders, I'll make sure to check Eating disorder to see what ultimately becomes of it before I do, if it remains the same after another year than I'll assume that despite some editing being required, the addition of another 200 Pub Med articles will not be instantly reverted. Until than... CensoredScribe (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I will leave many of my own responses to this word salad unstated here — but I will note that I did just revert some of your recent edits which included massive removals, some of quite famous quotes, among others which might arguably be culled as minor or trivial. There are MANY things occupying my time right now, and I certainly don’t have time to stick around and sort through many of the messes which have been building up here in recent months and years. I have to get going now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Would you please mind explaining why the above paragraph I just wrote is "word salad" so I can do better by you next time? Is there something semantically incorrect about what I said that made it difficult for you to follow, I noticed the image you removed on firearms was of a type of boat called a broadside, it's not a tank, which makes your edit summary a bit "factually inaccurate". Not that I really care that you made an error, you seem to find them far more amusing than I do, despite also making them.
I imagine having your signature in a post three times is pretty annoying for most people, so I won't do it again if I ever update a message. This isn't an online news article where it is a formality to note both when the article was originally published as well as when it was last updated, when other users like Peter1c have revised their messages on my talk page, signing every update with your signature isn't customary. CensoredScribe (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I have only a few minutes to check in here today, will be gone until sometime tomorrow, and do not expect to even have a chance to check in here on my iphone but perhaps a few times in the next 24 hours or so. I do not have time to make any full replies right now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Kalki/2019".