User talk:Kalki/2012

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search


The links do not work anymore. Can you update them with the new hadith links.--Cmmmm 19:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure which links you refer to; there are many links on that page, and I am not sure what new Hadith links you might have in mind; updating any external links should be no problem for any registered editor, if the the links are not blacklisted for some reason. ~ ♘☮♌ Kalki (talk · contributions) ⊙⚡ 19:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The links belong to the site and I can not do this. Please update this links.--Cmmmm 19:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC) They changed their entire website and now all links go to their central site and not to the hadith.--Cmmmm 19:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I will probably attempt to update any links requiring it within a few days. ~ ♘☮♌Kalki (talk · contributions)⊙⚡ 19:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This is just a further note to myself, as I have been toying around with my signature today, attempting to develop some ideas I have had in mind quite a while. I think this version might be my final one for today, and I like the ambiguities involved in using a dark horse image in white on a gray background for the white knight connotations amidst a presentation of rather cryptic and enigmatic symbols… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki (talk · contributions)⊙⚡ 19:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please update the links now because wikipedia will be stop working in the next 13 hours!--Cmmmm 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have obviously neglected attending to these, but quite honestly tracing down and updating obsolete links I wouldn't normally follow anyways is not something that has ever struck me as one of my most pressing concerns here. Now that I am reminded, I might do something with them soon — but whatever might occur with Wikipedia today, there are MANY things of higher priority I must attend to, and am just briefly checking in here now, prior to leaving, at least for a short time. ~ Kalki··☳☶ 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I finally got around to doing some work on this, but I have only stripped out many of the dead links, and did not make much effort to replace them with different online links; I retained Book, chapter and verse citations, which should suffice, and that is about all I am likely to do on these anytime soon. I have made no effort to update some of the cites which used obsolete templates, because the template itself would need to be updated, if possible, and I am not sure that this could easily be done. ~ Kalki·· 13:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


Can be the Earth a theme also? --Wiki Wisdom 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I believe most of us tend to use the category "Theme" primarily for pages for which we haven't thought up more specific categories, and it is probably a bit too general to be considered optimal for that page — but I myself usually do only very rudimentary category work with pages, and let others handle expanding those to the extent they are inclined to do so. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki (talk · contributions)⊙⚡ 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks


Thanks for your message. I'm glad to have found an way to share the results of my obsession with collecting quotes. :)

—This unsigned comment is by Peter1c (talkcontribs) .
I'm always glad to encourage others in such obsessions, as they usually permit a broad range of concepts to be encountered, and I believe the more extensive one's encounters and perceptions, the more profound can be one's penetration into matters of utmost importance. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki (talk · contributions)⊙⚡ 23:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Greetings Kalki. I wish you would not unlink redlinked author names, or make them into links to Wikipedia. With respect to Hoyt's quoted authors at least, the redlinks are a reminder to me that pages likely need to be made for the person in question. I may not get around to those soon, but I will eventually. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For the convenience of readers, I have always been inclined to link names of people who have pages on Wikipedia but not here to those pages, and to remove bracketts from names of people who have neither, and yet have some scholarly or professional expertise or personal familiarity with the subject or person their quotes are being used for. I doubt if I will curb that practice much — but I will try to bear in mind they might have some relevance to secondary works familar to a few people, and perhaps do some checking on other occurences of the names here. ~ Kalki··☳☶ 03:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As it turns out we have a page on William Wycherley; the name was misspelled (or perhaps given an alternative spelling) in Hoyt's, resulting in the red link. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kalki[edit]

Thanks for the compliment. Do you think all the quotes will be removed because they're too long?--11614soup 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that. I shall certainly strive to prevent it, should attempts be made to do so — one can hardly delve into much of the subtlety and somber and humorous profundity of Søren Kierkegaard's thoughts without quite a few long quotes. ~ Kalki··☳☶ 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


Kalki, just a question: what is your criteria for labeling a particular author, work, or quote as as absurdist? With some it's obvious (e.g. Kierkegaard, Camus, or Newton), but others not so much (e.g. Whitman, Baum, Carroll). I'm not necessarily questioning these designations, but when I look at some of the authors, works, or even individual quotes you've attached to this philosophy, I don't really see the connection. For example, how is The Wizard of Oz associated with absurdism? I know it is certainly an allegorical and often fantastic tale, but I'm not sure how it fits with the tenets of Absurdism. Again, maybe I am wrong, but could you explain the connection with this and others you have grouped under this banner? Thanks. ~ UDScott 02:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually do welcome your expressions of skepticism, and can agree that they might be valid in many ways, but will make just a brief reply at this point, as I feel a more extensive response would be appropriate within the next month or so, but don't have the time to compose it now, and would like some time to reflect on how much I wish to present about some matters of profound absurdity and absurdism. I do recognize some of the designations would seem a bit strained to some at this point, and will refrain from adding such to some of the more dubious candidates which I might consider until after I have presented a more thorough justification. For now I simply will present the current intro of the page for Absurdism:
Absurdism is a philosophical stance which implies that the efforts of humanity to find or absolutely define, limit, express or exclude the inherent meanings of anything, including existence, are absurd because the qualities of communicable information available to the human mind, and relationships within Reality makes any certainty about such impossible. Philosophical schools of absurdism explore the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals, once becoming conscious of the Absurd, can or should react to it. Like Existentialism it was strongly evident in the thought of Søren Kierkegaard, but was more expressly developed by Albert Camus in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus and works of Absurdist fiction, as a repudiation of assumptions found in athiestic nihilism and theistic existentialism as well as authoritarianism. It has far earlier expression in some significant statements of ancient philosophers, including Socrates, Laozi, and Zhuangzi. In many ways it relates to the discipline of semiotics, stances of extreme skepticism even to the point of strong agnosticism, many forms of mysticism and art, and has specifically given rise to works in the genre known as the Theatre of the Absurd.
I recognize that this packs in references to much information that many people might not be familiar with, or confused about. Before creating the page, I browsed the article on Wikipedia, and actually consider it to need much further work, and a rather atrociously confused mess on many points, though I do rather like the graph currently on that page (though I see that it has been sometimes altered in ill-informed ways). Where some might treat the label of Absurdism as merely a brief historical "fashion" in the arts and philosophy to be applied only to those schools and forms of it which arose primarily in Europe after World War II, I have preferred a much broader definition than that, which declares it a philosophical stance — and thus one that can sometimes be applied to those who are significant presenters of such stances — whether they themselves tend to abide in such or designate themselves such or not. Clearly such application to Kierkegaard can be justified in ways similar to those used to apply the label Existentialism to his thought, though there often should be definite qualifications made. I can perceive that some might find such use confusing for a time, as Absurdist perspectives and semiotic disciplines such as I and others embrace often can be.
The current intro on Wikipedia begins:
In philosophy, "The Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible," but rather "humanly impossible." The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.
I can accept all of that as adequate, but believe the lack of cohesion or clarity evident at some places on the rest of the page is rather disheartening. It goes on to state:
Absurdism is very closely related to existentialism and nihilism and has its origins in the 19th century Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, who chose to confront the crisis humans faced with the Absurd by developing existential philosophy. Absurdism as a belief system was born of the European existentialist movement that ensued, specifically when the French Algerian philosopher and writer Albert Camus rejected certain aspects from that philosophical line of thought and published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. The aftermath of World War II provided the social environment that stimulated absurdist views and allowed for their popular development, especially in the devastated country of France.
This too is adequate and to some extent accurate, but in ways that could be very misleading to many. I can agree that "Absurdism is very closely related to existentialism and nihilism" — but would emphasize in many ways it can be considered a FORM of the first that sometimes but not always incorporates or refers to aspects of the later. But to say that "has its origins in the 19th century Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard" is actually to absurdly restrict it far too much, and give the quite brilliant Mr. Kierkegaard a bit too much credit. In my initial intro to the WQ page I softened this to "Like Existentialism it has origins in the thought of Søren Kierkegaard" and then even further qualified that to its current form. I would insist that the stance he took, at times, has it's base in Reality itself — NOT in any particular expressions or manifestations of his particular genius.
I believe Camus recognizes and asserts much the same thing when he declares: The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. I consider this absurdly PROFOUND and those who seek to qualify or mitigate it by restricting it to a few historical manifestations which have occurred somewhat absurdly misguided. I believe that the absurd, in this context, clearly can be related to many of the absurdly profound statements of Socrates, Laozi, Zhuangzi and others, and even to concepts of human genius and to the Tao itself — though it would be rather absurdly authoritarian to insist upon disclosing upon what authority such assertions can rest, I will remark in a rather absurdly silly and humorous sort of way.
I actually have already done MUCH more work in relation to that page and its related category pages than I had initially intended, and know that I should prepare a more extensive revelation about my own views on the Absurd and Absurdism before applying the label quite so extensively as I am inclined to do. I will just repeat that I obviously am not restricting the designation to some of those who have historically been most associated with the label, or those who have been active since the seminal essay of Camus in 1942. Despite the rather dark associations absurdism tends to have,with many, because of many of the dark gloomy influences that were clearly evident in the aftermath of World War II and the depths of the Cold War, on the artists who worked with it in various fields, I actually assert that there is DEFINITELY a bright side to it which often gets ignored, and does occur in some of the works of Tom Stoppard, Terry Gilliam and the other Monty Python artists — which I myself hope to make more plain, in statements such as this:
Working with Knowledge and Science is Technology. Working with the Absurd is Art and Magic. To work and play with them all is Life.
I believe humanity has a NEED for ALL of these, and a greater appreciation of that fact.
I fully agree with the brilliant artist-magician Alan Moore when he asserts the following statements in a 1998 interview:
I think there is too much darkness in magic. I can understand that it is part of the theatre. I can understand Aleister Crowley — who I think was a great intellect that was sometimes let down by his own flair for showmanship — but he did a lot to generate the scary aura of the magician that you find these sad, Crowleyite fucks making a fetish of. The ones who say "oh we’re into Aleister Crowley because he was the wickedest man in the world, and we’re also into Charles Manson because we’re bad. And we are middle-class as well, but we’re bad." There are some people who seek evil … there are people who seek it as a kind of Goth thing. That just adds to the murk to what to me is a very lucid and flourescent subject. What occultism needs is someone to open the window, it’s too stuffy and it smells. Let’s get some fresh air, throw open the curtains — I can’t go for that posturing, spooky guy stuff. …The more I look at most of the art movements, it’s all occultism, when you get down to it. The Surrealists were openly talking about being magicians.I see magic as a vantage point from which one can look down on the rest of consciousness. It’s a point outside normal consciousness from which you can look at normal consciousness, it’s a point outside beliefs from which you can look at beliefs. All beliefs are reality tunnels, to use Anton Wilson’s phrase. There is the Communist reality tunnel, the Feminist reality tunnel, all of which seem to be the whole of reality when you are in the middle of them. The whole universe is based on Marxist theory if you’re an intent Marxist. Magic is having a plan of all the tunnels, and seeing the overall condition in which they all work. Being aware of different possibilities.I don’t distinguish between magic and art. When I got into magic, I realised I had been doing it all along, ever since I wrote my first pathetic story or poem when I was twelve or whatever. This has all been my magic, my way of dealing with it. … I believe it was Wittgenstein who said a thought is a real event in space and time. I don’t quite agree about the space and time bit, Ludwig, but certainly a real event. It’s only science that cannot consider thought as a real event, and science is not reality. It’s a map of reality, and not a very good one. It’s good, it’s useful, but it has its limits. We have to realise that the map has its edges. One thing that is past the edge is any personal experience. That is why magic is a broader map to me, it includes science. It’s the kind of map we need if we are to survive psychologically in the age that is to come, whatever that is. We need a bigger map because the old one is based on an old universe where not many of us live anymore. We have to understanding what we are dealing with here because it is dangerous. It kills people. … Organised religion has corrupted one of the purest, most powerful and sustaining things in the human condition. It has imposed a middle management, not only in our politics and in our finances, but in our spirituality as well. The difference between religion and magic is the same as what we were talking about earlier — I think you could map that over those two poles of fascism and anarchism. Magic is closer to anarchism.
I do NOT seek to discourage or dissuade any person from their traditional paths of faith, or traditions of science, and KNOW that virtues DO exist in MOST of these, as well as many flaws and deficiencies which are appalling and distressful. I believe an active recognition of the reality of bigotry in MANY of the most overt and disguised forms is NECESSARY in this time of immense transformation which is occurring in the world.
MOST of my life, taking a cue from the great Augustine of Hippo who declared: "Love the sinner and hate the sin", I have declared to myself such short admonitions as this: HATE BIGOTRY — NOT THE BIGOTS. I would actually on reflection be inclined to extend that to "HATE ALL BIGOTRY — NOT ANY BIGOTS — however foul they might be", but the shorter form is more memorable and easy to recite in times of contempt and distress at witnessing the subtle or overt activity of various forms of bigotry.
I do NOT hate bigots, nor seek to promote hatred of them, NOR retaliation for their often very real and deplorable crimes — but I do encourage a spirited and vigorous opposition to their efforts to oppress others, whenever it is morally possible (which, unfortunately is not always the case, no matter how desirable that might seem). What I hate quite earnestly, when I am not in states of profound transcendence of ALL idiocies, is the idiocy of BIGOTRY itself, in ANY and ALL forms, whether manifested by "right" or "left" political wings of various social factions, or by theists or atheists, gnostics or agnostics. Since I was a VERY young child I discerned that it was NOT any particular group of people or forms of Religion or Sciences that were to blame for the WORST of humanity's problems: it was the nearly omnipresent BIGOTRY that existed — and which people seemed so HATEFUL of in others, especially those of other social groupings than their own, and BLIND to in themselves.
I truly hate and DESPISE this form of absurd moral BLINDNESS, and have done my best to find antidotes for it in humour and in art, but I know it is not going to be fully remedied by any one prescription of some form of medicine or treatment for all. But the closest thing I think humanity can ever come to such a universal panacea is a very broad and tolerant absurdism, which MANY of the Mystics and true Magicians throughout the ages have embraced and promoted in various ways, in many traditions.
I believe a very broad, general and profoundly ethical absurdism, NOT bound to tightly to any particular political or religious creeds, which, despite all discouragements and obstacles, absurdly embraces and promotes Joyous Universal Love and the artistic magic they permit is even more vitally and morally important than even the very best forms of anarchism which have ever been developed — but I recognize that BOTH can be very dangerous to those uninitiated into many of the subtle and overt influences one must consider and deal with as a living human being in private or in extensive association with other human beings. I believe a LOVE of humanity and a WILL to develop Absurdly Angelically Anarchistic Alliances among people rather than asinine authoritarian autocracies is what is needed in this world. I believe that anyone very familiar with my actual life and careers in various fields of worthwhile endeavor would be able to testify that I have been a diligent and self-sacrificing worker in more ways than most could easily appreciate. I do not claim to always be of what many would consider saintly disposition — but I truly do earnestly strive to serve virtue and truth in such ways as to make my life worthy to be counted among the those deserving of blessings.
Now, as that about completes my short answer, full of digressions that will seem absurd to some — I rather expect some people might not be eager to be burdened with what I was considering as a long one. So it goes Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svg Dont panic.svg
Absurdly yours and ALWAYS Absurd, Kalki··☳☶ 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
OK, despite all of the above, I still do not feel you ever fully answered my question - and I feel that the issue is growing. I'm not sure where you will stop, but at the rate you are going, this page will become one of the largest here. And yet I am still somewhat confused on the criteria for inclusion, both in general and on a more specific level. The first refers back to my original question regarding what selection criteria are applied for people or works to be included - as I said, some are obvious, but others are not. Only by the broadest application of Absurdism would some of these be included (and that often seems be a stretch on your part to apply this theme to them). On a more specific level, I mean that even if I accept that a given work might be worth inclusion, why does that automatically mean that any quote (whether related to Absurdism or not) could be included? As an example of this, take The Green Mile. I would again say that the connection to Absurdism is tenuous at best, but even if I accept its place here, how is the following quote even remotely about the topic at hand?

"Your name is John Coffey."
"Yes, sir, boss, like the drink only not spelled the same way."

I think the page is a good idea, but I fear that stretching to make it apply to so many authors or works has become more an exercise of your personal viewpoint and opinion rather than an objective application of a theme - which is not a precedent I would like to encourage on the site (I imagine much worse applications of this principle than yours, but yours is more obvious than others might be and is thus the subject of my queries). ~ UDScott 20:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to see your note a few minutes ago, and these are just a few spontaneous comments, and I truly am taking into consideration many things to present in the next few week and months on the profundity of the perspectives of Albert Camus and others on many things. And of course I never FULLY answered your questions or addressed all your concerns, and I doubt if I or anyone else ever could — and whatever responses I make will clearly seem absurdly ridiculous to many, but I tell you now, some of your assertions actually seem absurdly ridiculous to me — even though I can understand and sympathize with some of them, to some extent, I actually find them hilariously unappreciative of the depths and breadths of heights of Absurdist Awareness, throughout the ages — which Camus himself emphasized was something universal and not limited to him or the developments of Existentialism which had occurred since Kierkegaard or himself. I will attempt to present far more that might make more sense to you in a more clearly rational and logical way in the coming weeks, but I make no promises as to when or how — currently I am juggling MANY activities here and elsewhere, and though I do expect to remain busy here, and consider this project important in many ways there are some matters that I know are of far greater importance I must soon address. ~ Kalki··☳☶ 21:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I too am getting a sense that the net is being cast too broadly here. Bear in mind that if a category or theme is construed too broady it loses significance and impact. The ultimate reductio ad absurdum is that a concept which encompasses everything distinguishes nothing, and has no meaning in the information-theoretic sense. ~ Ningauble 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to emphasize that I actually agree with many of the observations BOTH of you make, and yet find some of them absurdly unperceptive of a great deal — but I probably will trim out some of the material I had been adding to that page soon, including the John Coffey quotes from King's work, which I actually retained only on a whim, and can agree don't convey much to most people. I also certainly do recognize the page can't keep growing at this rate — but while I take into account many things to add or remove, I intend to keep it as interesting as possible for a broad range of people actually inclined to celebrate absurdism, rather than those who are more inclined to embrace the Curse of Grey Face. Though I confess to being an absurd absurdist, I am actually NOT a discordian, by the way, but as I have indicated before, I do appreciate their humor, and would like to make this place more conducive to anarchists and other people of true integrity — and less to those authoritarians who are inclined to believe their examples are such as most people should follow, or MUST follow, if they have the sufficient power or numbers to impose obedience on the weak and timid. By the way, everyone is fully welcome to outdent their own comments at any point and not feel they must slavishly indent them more than my rather facetious signatures. So it goes… Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svg Dont panic.svg Swirlyclock.png Sahasrara.svg ~ Kalki··☳☶ 21:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
Apart from all the rest, in what way do my questions (or those from others) that may disagree with you cast me in the role of being authoritarian? I am not asking in any attempt to "impose obedience" but because I just do not understand the connection of your selection of quotes to the theme topic. I have never tried to impose my opinions on others here (acting only when there is consensus about a particular way of doing things - and I in no way think I know it all about how this site should run - I in fact am more ignorant than many others here). But if you feel more comfortable automatically falling back into the role of being attacked by administrators who just want to establish meaningless rules and stifle freedom, so be it. That was not my intent (this is where trying to rationally discuss things with you gets tiresome and exasperating again by the way). ~ UDScott 21:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I truly do NOT intend to give you or any other person any profound disrespect — but any attitude of profound disrespect for either absurdism or anarchism and adherence to their most ethical imperatives does tend to irritate me — as I confess to be an absurdist, and sympathize highly with the genuine anarchists, though many of those who embrace that NAME are inclined to behave far too much like authoritarian idiots or nihilistic nitwits from my perspectives. So I hope you can see, that I do believe an ABSURD patience is something I believe is appropriate on the part of most — and it is something I would NOT demand from anyone — though I might HOPE to inspire such in some. So it goes… Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svg Dont panic.svg Swirlyclock.png Sahasrara.svg ~ Kalki··☳☶ 21:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Quote of the day[edit]

Sorry, I didn't realize that the old suggestions were still valid and I had to put new ones to the bottom. Nemo 10:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Your suggestion was welcome, and I ranked it somewhat higher than you did, but hadn't even noticed it until after making a selection and layout for this year on that date, which would have remained the top ranked quote. ~ Kalki··☳☶ 13:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Theological concerns[edit]

My Dear Kalki,

I am unable to be especially active here -- I have been so on Wikipedia, but time is never enough. But I drop by from time to time to see what progresses in articles of interest. I saw, then, that you took up a fine reformation of the Pantheism article, and so I wondered if you might do the same for the Pantheism and Pandeism articles in your future concerns. Pandeism, especially, presents some oddities, I feel, in picture selection and overall organization, with the three sections. Deism I may tend myself -- if the time ever presents itself!!


DeistCosmos 08:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I take it you were commenting on my relatively minor work on Panentheism, in your first comments on my recent work. All of these articles can use further work, but there are many others to attend to as well, and I do what I can, when I can. There are still a few things I began work on last month that remain unfinished, and I hope to complete those soon, before tackling whatever else arises in the weeks ahead. ~ Kalki·· 08:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

VP discussion[edit]

Wikiquote:Village_pump#Liberal_use_of_images. --Michaeldsuarez 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Thankyou for the welcome and for looking over my first quote article. :) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said Kalki...[edit]

I think I discovered what the firestorm was all about...and like I said, some one didn't get it. But the quote of the day will no doubt continue, and no matter how hard you try, stuff like this will occasionally happen. All the best...--Oracleofottawa 02:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am just getting back online, from another person's home, and probably will only do a few things here before leaving, but thanks for the encouragement. I am sure there are many things upon which we would probably disagree rather strongly, but I sense that you perceive what GENUINE civility consists of. THANKS. ~ Kalki·· 02:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Greetings and blessings[edit]

Thank you for the message. --Michaeldsuarez 16:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am well aware my rhetoric about issues I care about deeply can be very harsh at times, but I truly have no personal animosity to those I must disagree with to any extent, for any reason, and often try to make that clear. ~ Kalki·· 16:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

48 hour block[edit]

Kalki, I have blocked you for 48 hours for your continued use of rhetoric debasing other editors as authoritarian. Please do not take this personally. I would suggest that in the future you address your comments to the issues at hand, without casting aspersions on the motivations or personalities of those with whom you disagree. For example, if someone removes a quote or an image from a page, initiate a discussion on the talk page to explain why that particular quote or image is appropriate for the page. There is no need to address the motives of the person removing something if a good argument can be made for the thing itself, irrespective of motive. If some action has been taken pursuant to a policy with which you disagree, initiate a discussion at the village pump about the policy itself, and how and why it should be changed. Do not attack the motivations of those with whom you disagree; if you believe they are making bad arguments, point out the flaws you perceive in their arguments. Also, please bear in mind that I do not hold Cirt blameless in this matter, and will deal with him. I would advise you to avoid dealing with Cirt on anything but the most professional level, as I am sure there is much you can do here when your current block expires that would not have you running into him. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'M BACK — briefly, but must be leaving soon. I have now begun to be far too busy on SEVERAL MAJOR projects where I am FAR less constrained than I have come to be here, and believe I can have immense IMPACT in a very short time — the next few months seem very opportune at MANY levels of my lifelong Absurdist endeavors. I confess I still have fondness and devotion for this still worthy project, as corrupted and decrepit as it is increasingly becoming lately through the infusion of authoritarian influence, sheer venality and lust for what is simply convenient and SEEMS "obvious" or even necessary to the dull, and the BANALITY of evil, to anyone who has eyes to see and heart to feel the ways of Justice and injustice.
It seems that I will have to place MOST of my wit and rhetoric out of the reach of censors here in coming months and apply my absurdly potent wisdom and comically Magic skills at many forms of "artsy" art and "crafty" craft for the benefit of others increasingly at other places where it is more appreciated, and people can work and play unimpaired by the presumptive deniers and mockers of the most sacred principles of Humanism, Universalism humanity and the ALL: FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION of TRUTH and TRUE OPINION.
I probably will NOT be active here EVERY day for a while, but will still attempt to serve it in ways that have not as yet been impaired, and check in on it on MOST days. I know this sudden mostly spontaneous flow of words is a bit dense, but so are many aspects of my thought processes in both highly amusing and sometimes tragic ways. I don't believe it is either NECESSARY or proper nor even POSSIBLE to MAKE meanings plain and evident to all — but it is nearly ALWAYS best when one is DEVOUTLY HONEST and as fair as possible, even with the dishonest and deluded.
I might have more to say later today, and at least start on some work I had requested the opportunity to do… but will attempt to do some final tweaks on a couple things before leaving within the next hour or so. PEACE, LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING — was about to sign off with that, but am reflecting a bit more: ain't it so ABSURDLY FUNNY how differently people can use different words — Some artists of unjust oppresson and destruction, denigration and suppression, LACKING in many forms of understanding "make a desert and call it Peace." Others make deserts bloom, well guided by love of truth and powers of absurdly magical DEVOTION to ALL. I aim to be an artist of the second sort, and some of my talents and accomplishments of previous years are such as I believe I will be able to make far more EVIDENT to many in this coming year. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 19:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
I am just BRIEFLY checking in here, and MUST be going again soon, but would like to THANK and BLESS many of my adversaries with SINCERE appreciation of them for their criticisms and condemnations of my opinions and talents and my rights to EXPRESS them (or, even upon a VERY limited scale, to even INDICATE them here in very subtle or obscured and highly subdued ways). I truly LAUGHED far harder and far longer and for FAR more reasons than most of you will ever be able to surmise — and amidst all the laughter and the sorrows and the pity for others which I have felt, MANY epiphanies have come, and MANY of my LONG DELAYED activities and efforts to contribute ELSEWHERE have begun to be increased and already bear rich fruit which I intend to share with MANY eventually. I truly am in a state of HECTIC WORK on MANY things, and expect to be for MONTHS — and I EXALT in that. THERE IS MUCH GOOD I CAN DO FOR OTHERS ELSEWHERE AND I INTEND TO DO IT — AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTOLERANCE AND HOSTILITY TO MY ATTEMPTS TO DO SO MUCH OF IT HERE. There are far more important tasks to be done than I have ever yet attempted here, and now I have more time and opportunity to do them. I harbor no resentments towards even the worst of my adversaries on ANY matter, let alone those I believe are only slightly in error on a few things, and I TRULY wish you all : BLESSINGS. ~ Kalki·· 17:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Bhagat Singh[edit]

Revision history of Bhagat Singh shows me that you contributed significantly to it, which included sourcing several of the quotes. I believe that published works by Bhagat Singh are now most probably in the public domain. If I am correct in holding this view, they should probably all be uploaded to wikisource. A related document is the Manifesto of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, which I believe is most probably in the public domain too. If you have access to The selected works of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, if it contains the manifesto, and you believe that the manifesto does fall under public domain, please upload it to wikisource. Thank you. Regards--Siddhartha Ghai 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not own a copy of this work, and have not done much investigation of what might be available or in the Public Domain on the internet. More material by the author would be welcome here, even if that is not found. ~ Kalki·· 18:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Please see Wikiquote:Village_pump#More_eyes_helpful_at_deletion_discussion. I believe you've talked about issues of censorship before, you may feel that this applies here. Thanks for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am just briefly checking in here and am about to leave again. As I have state elsewhere I expect to be VERY busy with OTHER things for MONTHS, at the very least. I THANK YOU for your message and ANY sincerely benevolent or helpful work you attempt here or ANYWHERE. I have honestly treated you at times as a person with MANY impulses and inclinations I considered contemptible, BUT have NEVER presumed to JUDGE you ENTIRELY so — as some far more prone to ASSUMPTIONS than I might possibly have assumed.
Unlike I believe you have often failed to do in the past, I sincerely am WILLING to welcome ALL sincere and honest dialogue, even MUCH I might find rather distasteful or somewhat EMBARRASSING. I want to make it CLEAR to you and others, while I have the opportunity, that there is NOTHING I find SHAMEFUL in being HONEST — as many seem to do.
I hope that further dialogue between us can occur in the months ahead, and will be more civil and fair than it has in the past — and we can both begin to understand MORE of the points the other make, and more of the actual MOTIVATIONS of each other than has occurred in the past.
Though I would NOT have created such an article myself nor WISHED it created, and honesly neither would I greatly mind its removal, I do believe it actually can and DOES serve as an educational example for many, RUDE and CRUDE as it might seem or BE to the sensibilities of MOST.
Even if it fails to survive, and might be used to push through rules and strictures I find appalling, I expect that more patient and insightful perspectives will triumph eventually, and much that is truly false and foul in the past metaphorically purged away or cleansed and disinfected by the light of truth and wisdom.
I wish to help provide sincere Blessings to you, even if you cannot understand all that I mean or say. BLESSINGS. ~ Kalki·· 20:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
Thank you, Kalki, I'd love to engage in some constructive dialogue with you. Perhaps we can embark on a collaborative project together to improve a page on Wikiquote, or create a new one, together! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we both believe that rather unlikely any time soon, but I expect that eventually many might be suprised to learn how much I and former adversaries have often gotten along, once some severe misunderstandings have been clarified, and various agreements reached. ~ Kalki·· 05:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

February 19 and 20 QOTD updates[edit]

I believe you skipped the February 19 update and I have a special request for February 20. This February 20 is the 50th anniversary of the first American to orbit Earth, John Glenn and Friendship 7. I think a quote by John Glenn is appropriate. See my suggestion for February 20. bystander 10:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I did forget to update the suggestion page for the 19th, but the presentation page was updated. I can agree that the one you have just suggested for the 20th is probably better one for the 50th anniversary of such an event than the one which had been selected, and believe I will alter that selection while there is time for me to do so. Thanks. ~ Kalki·· 15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the change on the 20th, but there is still no QOTD on the 19th for 2012. ~ bystander (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The most crucial page, which involves the main page display, had been updated — but thanks for reminding me again to update the suggestion page. ~ Kalki·· 19:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ram Dass[edit]

Thanks for your message. Can you tell me what the procedure is for copying a picture from wikipedia to wikiquote? Thanks :)

Actually all the images we use here must be uploaded to the WIkimedia Commons, following the uploading procedures there. If it is not yet in the Public Domain or licensed under one of the available Creative Commons licenses, there can be problems getting proper permissions. ~ Kalki·· 02:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much[edit]

Kalki, thanks very much for this compromise, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am always willing to compromise where satisfactory agreements can be reached. I hope that can be the case on many other issues that exist between us in the future. We obviously have very divergent perspectives on many things, and I generally welcome the presence of many opinions — so long as those with what seems to me to be very narrow ranges of them, which have not yet been subject to thorough scrutiny and comparison with others, are not inclined to impose automatic deference to their will upon the behavior of others. ~ Kalki·· 19:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop following me around[edit]

I do personal attacks only on people who specialize in personal attacks. ~ Al Franken
Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. ~ Al Franken
  1. I edited the page Al Franken. diff
  2. You showed up to the same page less than 60 minutes later. diff
  3. You have never edited this page before, ever. I checked.

Please stop following me around. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

OMFG. I AVOID you AS MUCH AS I CAN as a BLATANT PESTILENCE to any one with serious and devoted optimism or not constrained to some odd agenda which I perceive to have little sincere or genuine benevolence, and to be able to avoid you ENTIRELY without abandoning this project would NOT displease me. Yes, I edited a page you had edited less than an HOUR after you edited it. It was a page needing cleanup since 2009 and all you had done was post a few links to it. There was no sign of further activity going on and you had certainly posted NO {{Inuse}} notice. I saw it need a cleanup, thought it would only take a few minutes, and DID it. I didn't even notice you had begun editing while I was till AFTER I was DONE. You have since pared down the page to conform to such dull aesthetical IMPERATIVES as YOU seem satisfied with and desirous of IMPOSING — and I am NOT going to BOTHER with the deprecation of Franken's GOOD HUMOR your particular dull, drab DESCRIPTIVE caption has done, at this time. UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE I HAVE MUCH BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN GO ABOUT HARASSING OTHERS. May you find blessings in something better to do than finding something else RIDICULOUS to be ACCUSING me of once more in your TYPICAL fashion, and may you HAVE A HAPPY SAINT PATRICKS DAY!!!! Irish clover.jpg ~ Kalki·· 05:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks


Care to provide a free use license for this file? (I'd recommend "Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0") Otherwise, it'll be deleted. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. A Wikiquote:Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License licensing notice has now been posted for it. ~ Kalki·· 19:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Now moved to Commons. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just leaving, and still intend to, but I checked and their is currently no such image at the commons. Your rapid deletion of it here after I had just provided a viable license for it seemed a bit hasty — but I do not consider the matter all that great a problem, from my perspectives, and I MUST be leaving now. Have a nice day. ~ Kalki·· 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's there, check again please? -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For some reason the servers miight not have yet been displaying it when I checked on it shortly after your upload. It is there, but again I believe it is hosted in archives elsewhere, and is a rather minor concern to me. ~ Kalki·· 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

VERY BUSY (for at least a few days)[edit]

As I have indicated somewhat at times, I am currently VERY busy and expect to be for much of the remainder of this week, and perhaps longer, as I do much work in collaboration with others elsewhere, and though I certainly should be able to find some time to drop in here daily, it might not be for long. There are of course many things presently occurring here, I would like to further address directly to counter some present trends but attention to addressing very similar but in many ways more dangerous and significant trends elsewhere are keeping me rather busy. There are only so many forms of confrontation, exploration and development anyone can handle at once.

I am preparing to leave now, might make a few brief checks in here later today, but expect to be very busy MOST of the next several days and do not anticipate a chance to even check in here for much of them. ~ Kalki·· 19:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As I anticipated, I have been very busy — and expect to remain so for some weeks or months to come. Though I will try to check in here most days, and usually expect to be able to do so, I do anticipate a far more reduced presence here fror at least a few weeks. ~ Kalki·· 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for adminship closed.[edit]

Dear Kalki, I have closed your adminship request as unsuccessful. I am sure that this will not discourage your continuing record of excellent contributions to this project, and I hope you take to heart the concerns raised in the discussion. If you do so, I am confident that you will succeed in your future endeavors. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No big problem. So it goes… Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svg Dont panic.svgSmiley.svg Swirlyclock.pngSahasrara.svg ~ Kalki·· 03:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Usurpation request for User:Osiris[edit]

Dear Kalki,

An editor has put in a usurpation request for User:Osiris, which you have previously registered. The requesting editor is using that username at simple English Wikipedia. Is there any particular reason why this usurpation request should not be granted? BD2412 T 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I noticed that you have not edited here since March 26, which is an unusual length of absence for you. I hope that you are well. I am fairly strongly inclined to go ahead and grant the usurpation request, as I am hard pressed to see a reason why this particular username should be held in abeyance any longer. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I will not object to the usurpation request. Though it is a name I am likely to continue to use elsewhere, for various reasons, and there are certainly many reasonable objections I have to the general circumstances by which I have agreed to be restrained from using my alternate accounts here to benign and beneficial purposes (as I insist I always have done, despite the accusations and suppositions of a few), and I would almost certainly have done MUCH more with that name, had I not been so constrained, those constraints being in place, and likely to remain so for some time yet, there are no reasonable objections I am likely to be able to make in the coming weeks to such actions. I am far too busy with other things of great urgency and importance to take much concern with some of the procedures that are going on here, and have gone on, and the editor seems to be a responsible one whom I hope and expect will use the name honorably, for honorable edits and interesting contributions, as I would have. ~ Kalki·· 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Congratulations from it.wikiquote[edit]

Hello Kalki. I just wanted to congratulate for your beautiful user page. Of course, to arrive at the real discussion, it took a little time. I contribute primarily on it.wikiquote, but only recently! He joins to my congratulations the administrator of it.wikiquote Spinoziano too. Just a nice page! Gnome3-smile.svg Raoli (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation of the ideas and evocations presented primarily through textual and visual quotation and contextual relationships which are not always obvious to those who fail to exercise their imaginative capacities in ways beyond norms which are easily appreciated, and among whom there is often simplistic agreement to suppress such imaginations as can perceive interrelationships that are often very complex and clearly and explicitly beyond all symbolic expressions. People generally do not like to be impelled to think beyond their ordinary comfortable and shallow ranges of interpretation — which they are not prone to even consider interpretation at all — and as humanity has long borne witness to, far too many of such dunces and dullards are inclined to form confederacies to suppress and constrain the expressive abilities of those who do. So it goes… Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svg Dont panic.svgSmiley.svg Swirlyclock.pngSahasrara.svg ~ Kalki·· 11:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Be the change you wish to see. (M. K. Gandhi) SMirC-thumbsup.svg --Spinoziano (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Henry James[edit]

Vandalism seems to be coordinated via 4chan, see b/res/395083358. --Tryst (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote of the day template[edit]

Hi. I'm considering writing a "Quote of the day" template to standardize the output. It looks like such a template would need a few parameters:

  • left image (optional)
  • quote
  • author
  • right image (optional)

Are there any other parameters needed? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, but I perceive no need of any further standardization of automated templates, and generally prefer not to use them, beyond such instructions as these for each Quote of the Day:

{| style="background: {{{color}}}" | align=center | [[File:IMAGE|211px]] <br> [[File:OPTIONAL IMAGES|211px]] | align=center |   | align=center | QOTD <small> <p> ~ [[AUTHOR]] ~ </small> | align=center |   | align=center | [[File:IMAGE|211px]] <br> [[File:OPTIONAL IMAGES|211px]] |}

Checking these in the edit pane of this section will reveal the way they are generally formatted as I actually use them. I have already regularly used the above form (or slight variants of it) for many years with the brief exception of a few recent weeks where I simply saw little need or usefulness in doing so, as I was not even inclined to bother with adding images and arguing with the often inane opposition and even contemptibly ridiculous hostility to their use by a few people. Even when not involved in activities beyond those of semi-social cyberspace, I usually have FAR more important things to do with my time than that.

As of the First of May, I have resumed using the above templates, despite still not bothering with the adding of images, as I perceive it slightly helpful to some formatting concerns, and probably will continue to do so. IF it is in someway useful to others in ways of which I am not yet aware to have such standardized templates as you seem to be suggesting, and can be convinced it will be helpful generally, I will start using them, but until such time, I will probably stick to simply using the above form, or slight variants upon it. ~ Kalki·· 12:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a potential advantage to parameterizing the template: it would enable bots to extract the quotation and citation for use at an external site. A couple years ago there was a bot at Wikipedia for displaying Wikiquote's QotD on user pages there, but it broke down and was abandoned because it could not consistently pick out the quotation and citation from the rest of the markup. I don't know if anyone is currently interested in doing this again, or if this may have been the reason for MZMcBride's inquiry. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I was working on such a script (for daily-article-l) and it's easy enough to extract the content using the rendered HTML, but the HTML is a bit goofy. When I dug deeper, I noticed that the wikimarkup being used is less-than-ideal. Putting aside the template issue, the code is relying on a weird table layout that uses empty cells and cells with only non-breaking spaces in them.
The benefits to using a template are: standardization, easy updates to the code, and dynamic code (e.g., you can simply not output table cells if an image isn't specified instead of outputting empty or largely empty cells). Right now, if you want to make changes to the look (styling) of every quote of the day, it requires individual edits to each page. This seems very bad to me. I think once a template is written and implemented, it'll be much nicer to use than the current code.
I'm not asking you to do any additional work. :-) I see that you've been doing the quote of the day for years and I don't want to get in your way or interrupt that. (This is why I came to you specifically to ask about template parameters, by the way.) I do think implementing a template is a very good goal, though, for the reasons I've outlined. I'm willing to help out with the standardization of and migration to a template, if there aren't strong objections from the locals. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I will examine anything you choose to develop along those lines, and start using them if there are no significant problems with doing so. ~ Kalki·· 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I created Template:Quote of the day and updated May 6, 2012, May 7, 2012, May 8, 2012, and May 9, 2012. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just briefly checking in, and all seems to be simple and straightforward enough — I will henceforth use the template in my work with QOTD selections, unless any significant problems arise, which I do not anticipate at this point. ~ Kalki·· 18:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC) + tweak


I just enjoyed this page thoroughly, thank you for making it, it's profound. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 20:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation, on that ongoing page of personal presentations of carefully selected quotations. I wish you would consider more the profound amount of work and thought that has gone into the presentations that are currently being censored and removed from many pages as so-called "irrelevant" images lately. I genuinely and sincerely find many of these removals, and the newly created "official policy" created by a few people used to justify them, to be works of rational and moral incompetence, and will gradually make some case for why exactly I believe that in the days and weeks ahead. As I stated at the village pump, and elsewhere, I have been very busy, expect to remain so, and do NOT expect to have so much time to debate the matters as I would like until perhaps early next month. I hope to be able to engage in respectful and enlightening dialogue with you, and do like your selection of a username. May you go with PEACE, LOVE and UNDERSTANDING. So IT goes… Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svg Dont panic.svg Smiley.svg Swirlyclock.pngSahasrara.svg ~ Kalki·· 18:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
I understand that you've put a lot of work into the illustration of pages here, and it's really appreciated. My personal view is that some images are overused on this site - pictures such as File:Arco iris circular.JPG, while beautiful, simply don't need to be used on over a hundred pages. In some places we could do with more variety. In having a larger set of images to illustrate articles, we can only enhance the viewer's experience. I feel I have perhaps been hasty in removing pictures from articles, instead of replacing them with other suitable ones. For the time being, I'll stop the removals and re-illustrate some pages. I feel it's better to have images which have both literal and symbolic reference, rather than pictures with only symbolic reference. You are free to disagree. Peace be with you, now and always. --User:Tryst (talk to me!) 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I have always been willing to accommodate differences and disputes in fair ways as to which of the available images are best for certain quotations, on the relatively rare occasions there have been such. The most vigorous of disputes have generally been with people who generally seem to wish to drastically reduce or eliminate the use of images entirely, without replacing them — and would rather have no images at all rather than one they do not seem to understand, or have any inclination to wish to understand, or have available for others to understand. MANY of the MASSIVE amount of removed images have CLEAR and STRONG direct relevance, often in many ways, as some well informed people would know. The recent adoption of what I consider truly ill-devised rules are something that seem to support a massive gutting of this project of MUCH well-considered and long accepted work, and reminds me of the effects of permissions to behave in harshly controlling ways found in the psychological experiments of Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram. There are many images I have used many times in many contexts, because I believe them appropriate in many contexts, but I have always accepted and even welcomed changes to these if clearly better ones in many contexts are available. Though I generally think most my selections actually are quite appropriate and were made with what, to my knowledge, were the best images available at the time, in some cases I have always recognized the likelihood that better images might eventually be found. In some of the cases I have had time to check I believe it takes a very poorly informed body of knowledge or an impoverished imagination to fail to see the relevance and worth of most of the images. I am only briefly checking in right now, and have to leave soon to attend to a few other things. I will try to sum up more of my thoughts on these matters by tomorrow, when I expect to be leaving on a trip, if I am not further delayed by other concerns. ~ Kalki·· 22:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 4, 2007[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 4, 2007, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 4, 2007. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Nard the Bard (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm Back[edit]

Unfortunately in some ways, due to a few unanticipated developments, I had to alter my plans, and did not attend the Wikimania conferences in Washington as I had intended to. I have been busy attending to many other things, but expect to be able to do more here within a few days, though I remain intensely occupied with other concerns. I shall gradually consider what comments and activity would be appropriate here, in light of recent developments, but even when I have time to use the internet, I have begun to attend to a few other projects of less restricted nature far more than this one, and that might be the case for some weeks or months yet, if not actually a permanent state of affairs. I have a great deal of contempt for much that has gone on here lately, and I do intend to make that very plain, eventually, and state at least some of my reasons for it. I continue to believe that this is a VERY worthy project, worthy of far greater work and invitations of people to contribute than have thus far been provided, but I do expect it to progress rapidly in the future, and look forward to contributing to it more myself, even though my time and means to do so is somewhat restricted at present. ~ Kalki·· 22:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) + tweak

Choice of quote of the day[edit]

I think your tireless work for the quote of the day is commendable and I esteem you a lot for being able to always keep up with it, but don't you think that you exaggerate sometimes? You seem to be invariably choosing your own proposals, not even the day of the suicide of one of the perhaps ten most important Italian writers of the 20th century deserves an exeption. --Nemo 12:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you gave no answer and the 27th is tomorrow, so I've changed the quotation myself; I hope you're ok with it. Thanks, Nemo 10:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes, and do NOT have the time at present to make a more comprehensive response, as I am about to leave, but I will note that I do NOT invariably choose my own proposals, although as someone who has worked diligently on the pages my suggestions are often but not always the most numerous, and usually among the highest ranked. I have nothing against the author you seem intent on commemorating with a disregard of policies and practices, and there are numerous quotes I could suggest by him which I find much more appealing than the one you chose to improperly place — and which I gave a low ranking as a romanticization of suicide. As you wish to commemorate his suicide, and as his birthday is that of Leo Tolstoy I believe the chances of quotes of him being used might be better on this day than that one, and I might select a few others myself which I could actually support, some of them perhaps even dealing with suicide, but I have a generally hostile attitude towards the romanticization of suicide or ANY form of needless homicide, or needless harm to others — or their liberties and proper rights — which is one reason I am so fierce in my reactions at times when they are being disregarded and ignored — I will perhaps make futher commentaries along these lines later — but must be leaving now. ~ Kalki·· 14:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
Appalling answer: "disregard of policies and practices", "romanticization of suicide"? Thanks for showing that it was only about your own opinion, Nemo 08:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Your particular opinion on this particular matter has been noted as such. ~ Kalki·· 14:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighter (talk · contributions)[edit]

It's a sock. I just had a private checkuser done, and it's weakly tied to Zarbon. He is subtle with these sock & meatpuppets, may as well permablock him too. I'd do it myself, but am not a sysop on this wikiquote. Yusername (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with the use and misuse of alternate accounts, and I do not automatically presume that ANYONE is entirely or merely who they might present themselves to be, or that what they claim is true actually is so, and do not promote undue trust of ANYONE or any assumptions. I often keep my own opinions in reserve as to who is most respectful or considerate of the rights and limitations of others, but I will probably impelled to make some of my ideas along such matters more plain soon, as though I spend nowhere near as much time on this project as I once did, I perceive increasing abuses and errors occurring which I believe should be clearly addressed. ~ Kalki·· 14:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
So you won't stop him? I see... a shame ;(
—This unsigned comment is by Yusername (talkcontribs) .
Though for many years I was an admin, if has been many years since I have been one, and do not currently have blocking abilities in regard to anyone — only the ability to indicate truths as clearly as I can to people often not very interested in truth, but on gaining some momentary or illusory advantages over others in various deceitful or obscure ways. ~ Kalki·· 14:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
Just as an aside, Yusername is a sock, and has absolutely nothing to do with Deskana. EVula // talk // // 22:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation of that, but I was well aware of the likelihood and near certainty of it after a brief review of a few edits, which was one of the reasons I was so terse in my responses. I had no wish or ability to get into a further dispute at the time, as I had to be leaving, and simply acknowledged some of the truths of various matters, rather than explicitly indicate the dubious levels of alliances and associations apparently being suggested or implied. ~ Kalki·· 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)