User talk:Kalki/November 2009 Controversies
Village Pump material placed here for reference (2009·11·14) 
Existential questions 
Some of you will recall that last year at Meta the question of Wikiquote's continued existence was debated on meta:Wikimedia Forum/On disbanding Wikiquote over the issue of copyrights.
Please note that the existential question has been raised again, this time at the foundation's Strategic Planning project over the purpose and value of Wikiquote and all of Wikipedia's "sister projects", on strategy:Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions#Supporting Reference Content. The project's Expanding Content Task Force has been specifically charged with answering the question.
Interested Wikiquotians may wish to offer input to the Strategic Planning project, whether or not they have applied for and been granted membership in the Task Force. ~ Ningauble 03:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I almost prefer the time when, despite much less participation and much less software safeguards against vandalism, the most I had to concern myself here was actual vandalization of a few wikis, and not the continual eroding and vandalization of the wiki-process itself.
As with last year's torturously tedious debate prompted by the rather hostile and presumptuous attitude and proposal of a single person, which at the end finally came to a close without a single vote to actually seek the "disbanding" of Wikiquote, despite the evidence of some desire on the part of a few people for such an end, I really don't take this too seriously at this point.
I was about to react with a few words of amused but extreme contempt at the original assertions of the person who prompted last year's debate, as I might to any other troll, when I saw that in some ways more moderate voices were responding to the presumptuous proposal, and with many far more intense and immediately imperative concerns, I decided to stay out of the whole discussion unless I perceived that there was any actual need for me to get involved.
I might actually have some time to get involved in these proposed discussions within the next month or so, but really am appalled at the blooming number of self-glorified discussion-forums that seem to be considered "essential" or "vitally important" by their participants and initiators to everyone else on all Wikimedia projects, because they are presumed to be by these relatively few participants. These areas of the Wikimedia activities seem disproportionally frequented by the most avid lovers of finding new ways of "policy creation" which allow them, or others of very like mind, to assume control over others, and even be placed in positions of authority and command over them. The whole concept of the wiki-processes, as I understand them involves an emphasis on preserving the freest possible collaboration among people, which permits the natural growth, development and mutation of good ideas, with an emergence of their proper influences, and a minimization of presumptive command-control authority-structures to impede that process, but unfortunately these seem to be growing all the time lately, both in numbers and in the presumptions of their authority. ~ Kalki 08:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- You might find your arguments more convincing to other people if you cut out all the random 'emphasis'. I see that there's an intelligent, concerned person there, but others may not be so understanding. 121a0012 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I must say that I am highly amused once more, by what seems to be an all-too-common misuse of words. Your argument here might be a little bit less comical to me, if you actually used the word "random" properly, or rather, not use it at all, as applied to deliberate selections of another person's mind. As it is, I believe the emphasis I use is usually quite proper and appropriate. Others might not, but it is not truly their perogative to decide what I choose to express, nor how I chose to express it.
- Truly, I know well, that though I believe I am generally genial to most people, in arguments over issues about which I have deep concerns, I can often seem "haughty", and sometimes even extremely angry at people with when I let loose a few harsh words regarding their actions or attitudes, and that is one of the reasons why, in the past, I chose not to comment on some issues to the extent I might have desired. You have very little idea how long and how much, and with what pains and sacrifices I and others have long been fighting against the all-too-common impulses of people to find ways to absolutely command or control others in very unfair ways, and fighting for a greater respect of permitting honest influences and expressions of true intelligence and wisdom to develop, amidst those who are all too eager to impose drab, dull, and quite deficient and detrimental regulations upon others. I am not a person who denies a need for rules and agreements, and many forms of self-discipline, but I am a person very much against the ways of people who are regularly going around believing that they know what is best for other people to do, and what rules others should follow and agreements they should accept or absolutely defer to.
You, more than once, have struck me as a person prone to be of that sort, but I know that we all have our peculiar perspectives on matters, and the right to express them so effectively as we can. I have long recognized that no person is perfect in all regards and I certainly make no claims of such nonsense in regard to myself. I do actually laugh at myself quite often, and at both the insults and flatteries people might try to use upon me, but the things I find most difficult to transcend are the concerted efforts that are often made to permanently or severely constrain anyone's proper freedoms.
- Honest expressions will sometimes bring honest contention, but I believe this is usually better than any form of dishonest compromises, based on presumptions of such agreements as do not, should not, or cannot actually exist. I have long recognized that no person is perfect in all regards and I certainly make no claims of such nonsense in regard to myself, or anyone else. I do actually laugh at myself quite often, and at both the insults and flatteries people might try to use upon me, but the things I find most difficult to transcend are the concerted efforts that are often made to permanently or severely constrain anyone's proper freedoms.
- I would actually say that I believe myself, generally, far more acceptive and less resentful of people's differences than most are, despite many things they might do which could frustrate or even anger me, but I absolutely do not deny that I sometimes feel anger at people's actions and attitudes against what I perceive to be others proper rights to experiment and explore their own potentials, rather than be absolutely constrained and limited by what others believe they should be. This is what I have decided to begin becoming a bit more expressive about, here and elsewhere. ~ Kalki 06:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above comments are a restoration of some of my initial responses, which I eventually removed entirely with the comment "removing some comments I made earlier.... I simply should continue in silence about many matters — though I was amused as well as irritated, I was & am rather tired..." Though I continue to be amused as well as irritated, I think it best that my responses remain more visibly recorded and accessible. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)