♘ Kalki · †alk · iota · index · imago · αnima · ! ¡ ! ¡ · Q · Å · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box
… Ω …

Hopefully, there will be more resolutions and progress than futile contentions in the coming year.... One can hope... ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Josette Sheeran

Removed spam links

Removed spam links to organization www.wfp.org diff. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed bloated links from External links sect

[1] = removed bloated links from External links sect, which included news coverage as bare links, and even a "Twitter" account. Let's not make this particular wikiquote page into a social networking and spam resource. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

IF you were here for more than your occasional sporadic bouts of empowered TROLLING VANDALISM of WORK done here, and POSTINGS of INSULTING articles on various LIVING PEOPLE, you might be more aware than you apparently are that MANY of the pages NOW have links to Twitter accounts as often widely quoted resources for information. AS there are OTHERS have already declared SUCH quotes as you have took it upon yourself to summarily REMOVE as entirely appropriate to the page — I am restoring these. IF YOU CONTINUE YOUR SPREE OF DESTRUCTIVE and DISRUPTIVE TROLLING and VANDALISM I believe I will at last be so irritated at your asinine behavior to actually officially CALL for you to be stripped of ADMIN privileges here. Time and time again you prove yourself highly inclined to what I perceive to be DESPICABLE actions and MALICIOUSLY DECEITFUL mis-characterizations of people and their activities. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Kalki has gone ahead and reverted, adding back all the spam links, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to NOTE that Cirt once again here SLANDERS the other editors, living people, and the UN itself by here declaring that QUOTES by a major UN functionary, and links to official documents of UN Humanitarian agencies should be summarily regarded as SPAM. I have NOT, as yet reverted what I SINCERELY regard to be VANDALISM at this point because the hostility between us is something well known to most and I do NOT wish such action to be ascribed by anyone devious or deluded as merely motivated by personal hostilities rather than principles. I will concede MUCH of Cirt's actions might not be PERSONAL hostility to ME or to Sheeran — but from what I have observed of it I do consider it a loathsome form of such bigotry and foully cynical presumption as I have a life-long hostility to. I welcome other editors to make commentary on the relative worth of the page PRIOR to the massive deletions of NOTABLE material, added by various people and their impoverished state at this point, after Cirts MASSIVE deletions. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I am sincerely attempting to refrain from extremely harsh rhetoric at present, and intend to continue to do so, and I will assert that I, like any human being, might occasionally be mistaken about some matters of importance, but I sincerely strive to indicate the TRUTH of matters, as I perceive them to be, in ways I genuinely believe to be helpful and beneficial to humanity. I do hope people will have the motivation to promote a restoration of this page to what I believe to be a fully appropriate state, and contribute to it's growth. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Village pump (January - February 2012)

Cirt's authoritarian misbehavior

Cirt (talk · contributions) is once again exhibiting strongly authoritarian behavior in regard to content others can add and indulging in summary censorship — just deleting an article on Josette Sheeran created by a new user Redcup50 (talk · contributions) and declaring it "spam", and replacing its entry on the main page, which I had just added to the "New pages" section with a recently recreated one for Klaus Kinski, which involved going back beyond the most recent entries. I consider such behavior, along with much else this person has done to be extremely irresponsible and detrimental by any fully respectable notions of Wikimedia policies or human decency, and declared on the new user's talk page:

I do not know who you are, but I am familiar with Cirt as someone who often seems little more than a rogue authoritarian who treats his or her own asinine interpretations of rules as something to obeyed without question or dissent. I believe that he or she has once more greatly exceeded any proper authority he or she has been granted and is simply indulging in censorship, and I encourage you to NOT be too intimidated by his or her belligerent and aggressive hostility to anything that smacks of genuine grace in humanity.

I am requesting that a responsible person with admin tools restore the Josette Sheeran page, which did have formatting flaws to its previous state, to be commented upon by the community, and this overly aggressive action by Cirt be condemned soundly. I do NOT ask that his or her admin tools be stripped, because I am more inclined to encourage people to proper use of their abilities rather than being so asinine as to remove them from people who might yet have ability to learn to use them well, and cannot do too much harm, so long as rational and compassionate human beings remain to counter their often irrational and anti-humanitarian impulses. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I would tend to agree that this is not a clear speedy deletion case, and am restoring it for a proper deletion discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration — I can agree the article has flaws, in formatting, primarily, but cannot agree that it is one that should have even been considered for immediate removal by any truly rational or fair person. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Having restored the article, I have nominated it for deletion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Josette Sheeran. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the actions take above by BD2412 (talk · contributions), thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also like to add, regarding the section title above, that jumping the gun on the deletion of an article that is at best questionable in terms of the motivations of its author is hardly an example of "authoritarian misbehavior". We should strive to avoid needlessly inflammatory rhetoric. BD2412 T 18:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately you and I both know all too well that this is a common tactic of the editor who created this subsection. Perhaps you could leave a similar comment at the user's talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is "jumping the gun on the deletion of an article" that might at WORST, be questionable in terms of the motivations of its author, be regarded as anything other than ANOTHER example of authoritarian misbehavior? There was zero discussion, zero warning, and instant ABSOLUTIST judgment about an article on a NOTABLE person and quotes of that person as something to be labelled, to the satisfaction of DUPES of authoritarian behavior and LABELS, as "spam." Similar tactics have regularly been used by this person against me and to some extent against others, and I am not going to pretentiously play footsie with words about someone I HONESTLY tend to regard as behaving like a conniving sycophantic fascist. I of course COULD be wrong, and the person might be honorably motivated to ACT so apparently dishonorably for genuinely honorable reasons, BUT unlike conniving sycophantic fascists, I do not seek to silence or censor honest opinions about behavior, which MIGHT be wrong. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)+ tweaks

I agree with deprecating the rhetoric here. It would be better to simply list this sort of case under the article title at Wikiquote:Deletion review. Requesting review of an administrator's general conduct is an entirely different matter. I also endorse the undeletion to allow deliberation about the article because it was a bit of a stretch to classify it as spam or "unambiguous advertising". ~ Ningauble 19:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that the rhetoric used by the individual that created this subsection was inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberal use of images

Where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? // You know the score, pal! If you're not a cop, you're "little people." // The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary.

Who *knows* what EVIL lurks in the hearts of men? THE SHADOW KNOWS.

First, "liberal" in this sense means "abundant" / "unrestricted". I was viewing the Nineteen Eighty-Four page, and I've noticed images that don't belong there. These images are File:AthensRiot5.jpg, File:Fotocollage.jpg, File:Castagno_dei_Cento_Cavalli_Jean_Houel.jpg, File:Andersonvillesurvivor.jpg, and ~~File:Barnhill_(Cnoc_an_t-Sabhail)_-_geograph.org.uk_-_451643.jpg~~. They don't have anything to do with 1984. File:AthensRiot5.jpg is also used in on the Blade Runner and V for Vendetta (film) pages, which isn't an entirely accurate, fair, or neutral portrayal of the Athenian law enforcement. These images were added by User:Kalki, who appears to be banned from Wikipedia due to sockpuppetry. --Michaeldsuarez 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Jura farmhouse have anything to do with 1984? what about [2]. Sayerslle 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I've crossed it out. Sorry. --Michaeldsuarez 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Image_use_policy doesn't contain any information on how images should be used, so perhaps this is the opportunity to work on that. --Michaeldsuarez 21:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with these above comments by Michaeldsuarez (talk · contributions). Thanks for raising this issue here. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The current BLOCK on me at WP was INITIATED by accusations by Cirt, which I considered quite ludicrous and slanderous, and plainly provably so to anyone who thoroughly examines matters, but which I chose NOT to contest, because I was extremely inconvenienced by his or her blocks upon me at the time, and which I have not since chosen to contest, because I have had far more important matters to attend to, and when I strike at EVIL or STUPIDITY of any kind, I aim to so thoroughly shine the light of TRUTH on matters so as to NOT allow it to be mistaken as anything OTHER than that, by any genuinely fair and reasonable persons. I have currently delayed my exit from my current location for several reasons, and might stick around a little longer, but have a few things I must attend to beyond making observations and comments here. I will probably comment on the matter of the images soon, but not till I get back, or change my access location, and might not do so for a few hours yet. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Note: @Michaeldsuarez — I've gone ahead and removed the inappropriate image use from pages Nineteen Eighty-Four, Blade Runner and V for Vendetta (film). -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the problem seems to be everywhere. Take File:Darwinek-bnw.jpg for example. It's an image of a Wikipedia user's shadow, yet it is on Alan Moore, God, Leo Tolstoy, and others. --Michaeldsuarez 14:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I had to attend to a few things of far greater urgency and simplicity than responding to this rather ridiculous and perhaps somewhat suspicious set of circumstances of assertions and responses to them. Before I go into addressing in detail some of the legitimate expressions of concerns raised by others, I will elaborate a bit on a few of my own. I am a person well aware that authoritarians and their collaborators, cronies, and even some of their more innocent dupes, will quite often seize upon any excuses or the very slightest of any apparent advantages over others to suppress any possibility of ideas other than those they most wish to promote or impose from being considered or even thought about — and treat as a sufficiently "clear consensus" (or at least a chance for further show of arrogant and brutal conceits which others should automatically defer to or be punished), that which provides any apparent justification to their will to condemn, punish and constrain the expression and efforts of others to communicate and indicate truths they do not want indicated at all, in significant ways they wish to establish or maintain ABSOLUTE control over. It is ONE of the most reliably evident of the major characteristics of authoritarians that they seek to do all they can to suppress or totally eliminate any signs of views or opinions which might rival or contradict those they wish to promote, and actively punish or belittle the attempts of others to express these.

One person who for some ODD reasons or other and rather obtuse levels of discernment, with a username which has done NO editing here in YEARS, quite SUDDENLY, in the midst of my once again OPEN and PUBLIC disputes with Cirt, happens to object to images as have existed on HEAVILY watched and used pages for MONTHS or YEARS, and Cirt immediately seizes upon such an opportunity as a chance to IMMEDIATELY and radically LIMIT, constrain and ERADICATE another irritating sign that other people MIGHT possibly be able to UNDERSTAND actual circumstances and symbolic and metaphoric relationships more than he or she and other like minded people might, or might wish others to be able to — and ANY such truths or opinions as he or she or they do not find flattering or appealing to have revealed or indicated.

This person now objects that "the problem seems to be everywhere" — indeed, I believe it IS — THOUGHT, IMAGINATION, and PASSIONS and INTELLIGENCE outside the control of authoritarians and UNAUTHORIZED by their mania for claiming ownership and control of things which NEVER truly have been or ever will be entirely within their possession or control.

It is of nearly utter indifference to me whether the antagonists who are my adversaries at ANY point in time, and who I actually and honestly tend to consider to usually be ignorant, confused and very often quite pernicious adversaries of the ideals of liberty, truth and justice as well, be any member of any social or anti-social groupings, or whether they be male, female, old, young, rich, poor, deliberately malicious and vicious or merely pathetically misguided and mistaken in many more understandable or pardonable ways — I do actually tend to pity ALL of them, even when the times come when I believe that I must strike vigorously at many forms of their false conceits or foul presumptions.

I know many people used to rather casual and careless discourse about many things do not like my attempts to be meticulously precise and elaborative upon many peculiar points of truth and Reality which they would prefer remain obscure to themselves and others, but it is a lifelong habit of mine to be as precisely honest as I can be, when I believe I morally can be. I actually considered saying MUCH more than this which would have clarified much more than I chose to do so now — because it would have left some people who read it in far worse states of distress and confusion about many things than this relatively simple declaration does. I know MANY people can be quite EASILY confused and distressed by MANY of the more unusual or unpopular aspects of truth, and though this does NOT motivate me to DENY them, or IGNORE them, it does often motivate me to be silent about MANY of them, when I believe I morally can be. Thus, I save many of those revelations which I conceivably could have made for a later time, when I believe more people will be more ready to recognize and accept the truth and importance of them, and not be too distressed at some of the more troubling implications of some of them.

NOW, to get to some of the specifics of some of the issues which were raised by others, as IS CERTAINLY a manifestation of their valid and proper rights: I don't think any person of any genuine intellectual and moral integrity who has actually read the book would have much trouble in recognizing the appropriateness of having booted militarily ranked police in relation to the concept of the "Thought Police" and "the two minutes Hate" designed to be simultaneously cathartic and corruptive to the common consciences of most people. But I will concede that the self-appointed thought police that OFTEN arise in various social endeavors would of course find ANY such capacities or intellectual associations in others rather objectionable.

The complaint was lodged that these images "don't have anything to do with 1984." I am sure MANY things can be said to not have anything at all to do with 1984, and actually and sincerely believed to have NOTHING at all to do with 1984, yet have MUCH to do with the THEME of that work. I certainly prefer to have "liberal use of images" than the liberal use of force and suppression of any use of images that rather shallow and dull minded people might find irrelevant or even confusing and objectionable because they have so little capacity of imagination or association of anything not literally and legalistically having to do with some specific persons or works of literature — and who might not wish to allow others to have the liberty of adding images that might actually have MUCH to do with the subject or theme of the QUOTE itself.

The image used in the first example cited is that of booted riot police. I wish to emphasize that I certainly do NOT have any innate hatred of people who happen to be either police or protestors — but I certainly can and do have reservations about WHAT some self-appointed police choose to police — and some presumptuous protesters choose to protest — like actual THOUGHTS or EXPRESSIONS which do not conform to such shallow lame-brained passionless forms of cowardice and timidity which those endowed with the most shallow and narrow forms of minds and mindlessness like to promote and imply are the desirable norms, among people so habitually repressed or suppressed in many ways that they remain too cowardly or dull to actively and effectively respond to such bullying and indulgence of others greater capacities to do harm often permit them.

Through my assertions and actions in life, I wish to provide examples to people that there are legitimate and fair ways to police and protest about things which do NOT involve the more brutal and relentlessly cruel and merciless forms bullying and resorting to authoritarian pretensions as MANY do. That is about all I will say now. So it goes… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

@Michaeldsuarez, yes, I agree with you that the problem is everywhere, perpetuated by the same user in question. I've removed the inappropriate image use from pages you cited above, Alan Moore, God, and Leo Tolstoy. -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That such image use is considered inappropriate by any one is once again something I find not only ludicrous but contemptible. There is obviously an attempt to censor and suppress and eradicate many forms of ideas and indications of thoughts opinions and assertions here, and I invite any person who is not a coward or a dupe of authoritarian pretensions to weigh in and make their comments here. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: @Michaeldsuarez, this just in: Kalki (talk · contributions) has refused to wait for discussion here, instead choosing to disruptively violate consensus and revert the inappropriate images back to the pages. Here are the six diffs: diff diff diff diff diff diff. Note: I've removed them a 2nd time, but I won't be reverting Kalki again. Thoughts on this behavior by Kalki? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a TYPICAL DISTORTION of Cirt once again — YOU IMMEDIATELY JUMP ON A CHANCE TO REMOVE INFORMATION objected to by ONE other person — and label that "CONSENSUS" — I label it BULLSHIT. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

After attempting to have another admin BLOCK me, now Cirt is once again trying to suppress IDEAS , remove quotes and SLANDER information links to quotes provided at a UN agency as SPAM. As an endorser of the sentiments and principles expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I acknowledge it is his or her right to do so — and my right and MORAL DUTY to call such highly distortional CRAP what I believe it IS: SLANDER and signs of sheer malice and MALEVOLENCE. For some time now I have thought of Cirt as little more than a pathetically DEVIOIUS empowered TROLL-VANDAL and someone who DELIGHTS in the harm they can do to MANY far NOBLER than they, rather than anything remotely resembling a genuinely responsible and fair admin. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I am about to leave, perhaps for several hours but wish to note that I have NOT, as yet reverted what I SINCERELY regard to be VANDALISM to the Josette Sheeran page at this point because the hostility between me and Cirt is something well known to most and I do NOT wish such action to be ascribed by anyone devious or deluded as merely motivated by personal hostilities rather than principles. I will concede MUCH of Cirt's recent actions might not be PERSONAL hostility to ME or to Sheeran, nor a pathological desire to defame others — but from what I have observed of it I do consider it a loathsome form of such bigotry and foully cynical presumption as I have had a life-long hostility to. I welcome other editors to make commentary on the relative worth of the page PRIOR to the massive deletions of NOTABLE material, added by various people and their impoverished state at this point, after Cirts MASSIVE deletions. I am refraining from engaging in an edit war — but truly desire consensus to be developed which I hope will acknowledge the WORTH of the NORMALLY formatted rather than the quite aggressively stripped down page. So it goes… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR. I have long felt that both Kalki's use of unrelated images on WQ pages, and his or her tendency to launch into histrionics whenever anyone so much as questions his/her practices, are inappropriate -- the former because it's not what WQ is about, and the latter because it is highly destructive to the communal editing process of any wiki. 121a0012 05:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have long felt that people should always have a right to express their honest opinions, and thank you for expressing yours clearly and honestly, though I must confess I of course very strongly disagree with your assessments about several significant things, and believe that any attempts by anyone to lay down too tight a set of strictures of what other people can do or attempt to do in presenting quotes and ideas is highly destructive to the communal editing process of any wiki. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 05:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Now with the comment by 121a0012 above diff, we're 3:1 in agreement that Kalki's image usage (and responses) are inappropriate. Hopefully we can proceed from here with removal of the inappropriate images. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- OMFG! : Outstanding Magnificent Fair Graciousness! Where does all the time go? What extraordinary levels of will against patience are being exhibited here. I must assert that having a sudden shift of 3 to 1 imbalance when this issue has been presented less than a single day, to suddenly decide an issue to remove images that have been on the pages for MONTHS or years with tacit approval is once again jumping the gun on the urge to diminish destroy and eradicate the information available to people's minds. I must insist that I believe that a fair and proper exhibition of patience and magnanimity would permit a response period of at least a week on the matter. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 05:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to weigh in here. We don't have, so far as I know, a set policy on the use of images in articles. Common sense suggests (to me at least) that having a few images on a lengthy page is generally a good thing, as it breaks up what might otherwise appear to be a wall of text, but that images should be used sparingly enough that they don't detract from the quotes themselves. I always try to add an image of the subject to a biographical article, or to a theme article on a specific thing link Pigs or Roses. As it happens, I've added a lot of images to the page on Flowers, because it has subsections covering a lot of different kinds of flowers. I also don't think that an image needs to come from media relating to the subject of the page, if the image is appropriately evocative of the subject matter of a given quote. The sort of abstract things that Kalki tends to use seem to me to be fine for that purpose, although I would certainly agree that Kalki overdoes it at times. That's a matter of personal taste, not policy. Disputes over whether a particular image is appropriate to a particular page should be taken to the talk page. I would be interested in seeing a list, if someone can generate it, of the Wikiquote pages having the largest number of images, or better yet the largest number of images in proportion to the text on the page. I think such a survey would be useful in delineating a more practical editorial policy on the use of images. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU —VERY MUCH — for a very lucid and composed critique of the situation. I obviously felt that the accusations of the use of these particular images as "inappropriate" because some particular people seemed to have some difficulty realizing how they related to the subjects of the quotes or the pages on which they have been used was a rather extreme one. I have on a very few occasions entered into disputes with others on particular talk pages of particular subjects regarding the best use of images or best images to use in the past, and sometimes the disputes have gone as I would wish, and sometimes they haven't, and sometimes there are mutually acceptable compromises which are reached. I continue to abhor any mandates about nearly anything, and whatever policies eventually develop, I hope they can retain the form of loose guidelines open to compromise and responses to particular situations. Thanks MUCH again. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks : PS: I still encourage ALL others who might be concerned about matters to weigh in with their own particular opinions, whatever they might be, and bid everyone to speak with as much frankness as they are inclined to. I don't wish the discussion to be considered ended AS IF there were a definite consensus of most concerned in the matter, when there is not.

Re. DB2412's idea for a quantitative survey: I am not aware of any way to do this that would not be very labor intensive; but I believe I do know which page has the highest ratio of images to quotes: it is the Main Page. ~ Ningauble 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez is correct in observing, as has been raised many times in discussion, that Wikiquote lacks a policy on how images should be used. I also agree with 121a0012's feeling that the resulting liberality encompasses much that is extraneous to Wikiquote's purpose. I have mixed feelings about the issue:

Objectively, many pages include such large quantities of image data that, for users with modest dial-up connections such as mine, they take quite a long time to load. However, I am aware that my situation places me in a minority because I observe that many popular websites have chosen to write off potential customers who lack access to high-speed bandwidth.
Subjectively, many pages appear to me to be cluttered with imagery that is, at best, only tangentially related to the subject and text of the page. However, I am aware that, according to the principle of six degrees of separation, everything is related to everything.

The foregoing remarks only amount to "I don't like it" with respect to convenience and aesthetics. For purposes of policy formation we might consider, as 121a0012 says, "what WQ is about."

Wikiquote's purpose is to compile a comprehensive collection of notable quotations. It is fitting and proper to include quotes expressing a wide variety of "thoughts, opinions, and assertions". It is highly desirable to collect quotes exhibiting a "capacity of imagination or association" through "symbolic and metaphoric relationships".
Kalki has stated and demonstrated an interest in expressing "thoughts, opinions, and assertions" through "symbolic and metaphoric relationships" using images in association with quotations when they "have MUCH to do with the subject or theme of the QUOTE itself".
In contrast, Wikiquote has a longstanding practice of firmly deprecating original commentary and interpretation within articles, however much it may have to do with the subjects or quotes, when it is expressed using text rather than images. Insertion of such text is usually reverted quite promptly.

Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess.
— René Descartes

I have a vague impression that we are dealing with something that might be accepted in moderation but could be intolerable in excess. I like to see pages enlivened with a little illustration, I do not like to see pages cluttered with superfluous distractions, and I believe it is highly inappropriate to use Wikiquote's pages for personal commentary and interpretation. I have the very distinct impression that drawing distinctions between acceptable illustration, superfluous clutter, and unacceptable editorializing is too subjective to be formulated in an explicit policy. I dread the prospect of case by case discussion in the absence of any policy (even without detailed analysis of the philosophical outlook, intellectual capacity, and moral fiber of the discussants) because it has come up very many times and almost always results in a single regular contributor shouting down a newcomer rather than any actual community deliberation. I lament that there is no such thing as common sense that might govern the issue. I apologize for going on at such great length without actually offering a policy suggestion. I am still thinking about it. ~ Ningauble 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ningauble is correct, this type of image usage really is intolerable in excess.
Ninguable is also right, that the length to which Kalki extends pages through image additions and the like, makes pages so large as to be quite difficult to load for those with slower internet connections — and we should try to accommodate all readers and editors.
And Ningauble is also correct, that we should not allow image usage in this fashion by Kalki to use Wikiquote's pages for personal commentary and interpretation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And Ningauable is ALSO clearly even MORE correct in asserting that "drawing distinctions between acceptable illustration, superfluous clutter, and unacceptable editorializing is too subjective to be formulated in an explicit policy" and that there is MUCH reason to "lament that there is no such thing as common sense that might govern the issue". This rather nullifies what I consider the rather foul-spirited spin Cirt seems to be placing on things, which implies dictatorial judgments and active coercion, which he or she seems to be very comfortable with and eager to promote should be the primary and preferred procedures in dealing with the issue. Blessings to ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
Regarding Cirt's comment #1: That is not what I said. "... vague impression ... could be ..." does not equate to "really is."
Not. Even. Close.

Regarding Cirt's comment #3: That is not what I said. Parts of my remarks could be used in support of that position, and other parts could be used in opposition to it. It is not a position I stated, and the exploration of conflicting ideas was my unambiguously expressed intent.

Regarding attribution of opinions to me in general: Please bear in mind that quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold can be regarded as a personal affront. It took me the better part of a day to compose my thoughts, and I do not appreciate having them misrepresented. ~ Ningauble 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ningauble: My apologies if I misconstrued your remarks. That was obviously not my intent. No hard feelings. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that BD2412 has it about right. When I have time, I shall try to add photos to all the articles I have created. On canvassing, it is true that Kalki has mentioned this discussion on my talk page. I had assumed that this was what talk pages were for. Emphatically, that is not why I made this comment. The Village Pump is on my watchlist and I would certainly have made the same comment regardless.--Collingwood 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Michaeldsuarez for pointing out Wikiquote:Image_use_policy and its possible room of expansion to include "information on how images should be used". I agree we need such a revision. Occasional discussions on here Village Pump as well particular article talks seem to me to suggest such necessities: for years those discussions have gotten no practical results and in my observation there has been no clear consensus about this issue. Such an addition of Wikiquote:Image_use_policy will be expected to accord with our major policies, like Neutral Point of View, since we show our readers those images as a part of our project, a part of the sum of human knowledge reconstructed in respect to NPOV: not a collection of quotations with images which certain individuals make deliberately on their preferences.
Not from intimidating name calling, but from productive discussion between fellow volunteering contributors, I expect to see a new revision of Wikiquote:Image_use_policy. --Aphaia 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have agreed that Michaeldsuarez has made useful observations which merit further discussion, and on his talk page I had already apologized with sorrow for the fact that what I believe to be his honest and sincere criticism was seized upon as an excuse to precipitate SUDDEN and UNDISCUSSED removal of significant forms of INFORMATIVE imagery from many pages. I HOPE that many people will have far MORE patience than has yet been exhibited by many, and will at least BEGIN to take into account SOME of the considerations of Semiotics, "STRONG" Agnosticism, Absurdism, Humanism, Universalism, and genuine regard for MANY diverse Points of View which have LONG guided me. I hope that some people will begin to consider far more clearly and extensively what I have long perceived to extremely ignorant, confused, and nearly always significantly deficient arguments and perceptions which I have usually attempted to be gentle with — and only occasionally become extremely HARSH with — but of course one's forms of harshness usually receive the most attention and notice from many who are prone to be harsh in rivalry or in opposing ways, and are sometimes quite astounded that there are people who could oppose them on any significant issues and survive and prosper or be right or valuable in ANY way. BLESSINGS to ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Agnosticism presents a good microcosm of this issue. I don't see what the image to the right has to do with agnosticism; I suspect that most readers will not either, and that the presence of the image will therefore serve as a distraction to the contents of the page. The first image on the page, showing an observatory, is at least somewhat connected to the quote about the cosmos. The second image is of an historically significant agnostic, captioned by a quote by that person. The third image is a Taijitu, a variation of the Yin-Yang symbol, which has nothing to do with agnosticism. The fourth image is the one to the right which I mentioned above, a hospital ship with a rainbow in the background. BD2412 T 21:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rainbow is something that is treated as a symbol of MANY things — Diversity, Divine presences, divine covenants and such — and thus works well with the quote it was used for concerning agnostic ambiguities. The Taijitu symbol is one that is ambiguous enough to use in many diverse ways, and was used here with the statement of Thomas Henry Huxley: "Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe." I thought the quotes significant enough to be of use with images in making the page more visually interesting, and for reasons that I wouldn't expect to be obvious to all or even to most I did select a couple images with but tangential relation to some of the ideas of the quotes. If you can come up with better images for either of these quotes you are quite welcome to change them. Blessings. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Our goal is not "making the page more visually interesting", it is conveying quotes. Making the pages look nice may be a good thing to do, but I think the connection between the images used and the subject matter of the page as a whole, and individual quotes on it, should indeed be "obvious to all or even to most". We should not use images in the first place merely because they are ambiguous or abstract and could refer to anything, and not at all if they embody a specific cultural meaning that is distinct from the meaning of either the page or the quote. BD2412 T 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalki has canvassed for this discussion after consensus went against him

Note: Please see Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Canvassing_violations_by_Kalki. After 3:1 consensus against Kalki, above, developed in this discussion, Kalki chose to violate canvassing in an attempt to influence the outcome of this page. Further discussion and responses from individuals he posted to will be questionable, after this point in time where there was a 3:1 consensus against Kalki's use of inappropriate images on quote pages. -- Cirt (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I made what I consider to have been a properly gracious and fair response to this complaint and accusation on the Admin noticeboard, and invite all who are concerned with the matter to read it to the extent it is to their convenience. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard‎‎ (January - February 2012)

Disruption and incivility by Kalki

Please see Wikiquote:Village_pump#Liberal_use_of_images.

There is a discussion raised by Michaeldsuarez (talk · contributions) about inappropriate image use by Kalki. I removed the images as part of the discussion at Village Pump.

Disruption: Kalki (talk · contributions) has refused to wait for discussion at Village Pump, instead choosing to disruptively violate consensus and revert the inappropriate images back to the pages. Here are the six diffs: diff diff diff diff diff diff. Note: I removed the images myself a 2nd time, but I won't do so again, pending discussion at Village Pump, and I made a statement to that impact there: my comment.
Incivility: Kalki has used inappropriate language and incivility directed at another user, instead of polite and civil discussion (recent example: "YOU IMMEDIATELY JUMP ON A CHANCE TO REMOVE INFORMATION and label that "CONSENSUS" — I label it BULLSHIT.") Note the use of CAPS, and bolding in that thread at Village Pump, etc.
Prior warnings: Note that one thread up on the very same page at Village Pump, Kalki has been warned for his inappropriate rhetoric. Admin BD2412 stated: "regarding the section title above, that jumping the gun on the deletion of an article that is at best questionable in terms of the motivations of its author is hardly an example of "authoritarian misbehavior". We should strive to avoid needlessly inflammatory rhetoric." And admin Ningauble said: "I agree with deprecating the rhetoric here."

At this point in time, Kalki's participation is no longer constructive. Indeed, it is only disruptive and incivil in nature. Kalki has shown he refuses to participate constructively without disruption, and in a civil manner.
A block is in order here on the Kalki account.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course if people are so cowardly and obtuse as to accept this load of crap as anything other than a load of malevolent crap, someone might actually block me temporarily — but once again, Cirt actually saw NO NEED of ANY form of CONSENSUS to develop before REMOVING images that had been on WELL USED PAGES for MONTHS or YEARS, at the rather obtuse objections of ONE person who has NOT EDITED IN YEARS who provided him an opportunity to have a ruse to begin attacking my considerable work here. I RESTORED these pages to their LONG EXISTING CONDITION, and it is Cirt who is being quite SMUGLY disruptive. There are no words for the censure this contemptible person deserves, and so I will simply say I FORGIVE him or her his or her STUPIDITY — and even his or her will to do EVIL and SLANDER others — but I cannot PARDON him or her from BEING someone I consider truly DESPICABLE. ONLY they themselves, can do that, through a bit of self-examination which seems something the most VILE slanderers are MOST fearful of actually doing, or having any one else do. I stand by my actions and my sentiments as truly moral and ethical, and my passions as well. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

This project has over 20,000 pages now. I would think that there's ample opportunity for the two of you to contribute without running into each other. If you can't figure out how to get along, I really wish you would just try to avoid interacting. That said, Kalki, you need to tone down your rhetoric. You can't go around calling people authoritarian or accuse them of having a will to do evil over content disputes. That goes beyond the constraints of a civil community. You are too easily provoked into excessive responses like the one above. Don't be, and others won't provoke you. BD2412 T 19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@BD2412: A third-party user raised an issue with Kalki's inappropriate image use at Village Pump. I commented there. I then removed the inappropriate images. Kalki reverted, and responded with incivil rhetoric. Let's see the forest for the trees here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding complaint #1, my observation as events unfolded is that it was Cirt who began acting without waiting for discussion to reach consensus, by removing images minutes after the discussion was initiated. The complaint itself is internally inconsistent in that failing to wait for discussion to reach consensus and violating the consensus reached in discussion are mutually exclusive characterizations of the events. It is my opinion that the discussion had not, and has not yet, reached a consensus; and that Cirt's removal of images might fairly be characterized as contentious editing.

Nothing in this remark is intended to excuse or justify any subsequent edit warring by either party. ~ Ningauble 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ningauble: Two (2) users commenting at Village Pump found the image use by Kalki inappropriate. I removed the images. No other party commented at Village Pump. Your assessment is inaccurate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact, less than 30 minutes had elapsed from when the issue was raised (21:01–21:29, UTC), and only three people had expressed opinions on the question in that interval. In my opinion, administrators should display a greater appreciation of what does and does not constitute an established consensus. Of course, if you were unaware that the matter might still be considered open for discussion then "contentious editing" might not be the most apt description. ~ Ningauble 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. – It is unsurprising that there has been little comment yet about the image policy, or lack thereof, given the amount of distraction that predictably arises from poking Kalki.) ~ Ningauble 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ninguable, it was Kalki who reverted against existing consensus at that time, and Kalki who used inappropriate rhetoric. -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to item #1, which has nothing to do with Kalki's rhetoric but, rather, has to do with failing to wait for discussion to establish a consensus. You cannot have it both ways: if Kalki failed to wait for discussion as you say, then you also failed by acting first. It takes more than two comments to establish consensus to change something that has had longstanding tacit acceptance. ~ Ningauble 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, Ningauble, that consensus is against Kalki, and still is. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding complaint #2, I agree with BD2412's remarks. I have said on several occasions that this sort of histrionics is counterproductive and disruptive. ~ Ningauble 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ningauble: I agree. And yet Kalki continues the inappropriate behavior. With zero repercussions for Kalki. What we are to learn from this is that this sort of histrionics is counterproductive and disruptive, and yet at the same time acceptable and tolerated. That seems quite odd. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding complaint #3, I do not believe it is quite accurate to characterize the quoted remarks as "warnings". Speaking of my own words, it was not my intention to express or imply a threat of consequences. ~ Ningauble 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ninguable: Understood, my apologies about that characterization. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Additional inappropriate rhetoric by Kalki

After above issues raised, Kalki has continued inappropriate rhetoric:

Are there zero repercussions for this behavior by Kalki? Can others see from this model that there are no problems with also behaving like this? Would there be nothing wrong if I also started to use this sort of rhetoric? -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that Kalki's rhetoric has gone over the top and has devolved into a string of personal attacks. These are content disputes, not a basis for making these kinds of attacks. I also think that where these comments are made in edit summaries, they represent an inappropriate use of that function, since they go far beyond describing the actual changes made to the pages in question. At this point, I would endorse blocking Kalki for a cooling off period of a day or two. BD2412 T 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I truly wish things had gone otherwise — but I believe the time HAS come for repercussions for the OBVIOUSLY malicious TROLLING and VANDALISM of Cirt, which has gone on quite long enough with impunity. I am going to OFFICIALLY request that he or she be DESYSOPED — I have NEVER done such a thing before, and I am no longer familiar with many of the procedures involved, but I believe that he or she is continually little more than a disruptive and malevolent presence here — and truly hope that one day this person will be more responsible and less hostile to the GOOD which dwells in ALL people — even those who are extremely misguided and deluded. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, such a threat by Kalki appears to be retaliation in nature, especially made directly after a third-party admin (BD2412) has suggested that a block is in order for Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to acknowledge that a few people have objected to the passion of my rhetoric in the past few days and of the past few years at times — but I believe I have NEVER done ANYTHING which is immoral or actually violates the mandates of this or any other wikimedia project, though it sometimes oppresses the expectations or sensibilities of some. I implore people to further examine the circumstances in which I have spoken — and to ALWAYS be PREPARED to LEARN more from others, rather than to suppress and remove information, or seek to remove their right to effectively SPEAK in public forums of some significance. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kalki, Wikiquote:No personal attacks is policy here. Accusing others of trolling or malevolance is pretty clearly a personal attack. BD2412 T 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, Cirt my response was something I composed IMMEDIATELY after your first comments — but there was an edit conflict, as there was in my last post because of your last comments. I am NOT calling upon you to be blocked or prevented from editing — but I truly believe a DESYSOPING of you is ENTIRELY appropriate, whether others can reach consensus to block me or not, and is NOT "retaliation" but simply weariness of having to put up with your regularly use of Admin privileges and prestige to more effectively intimidate and slander others. I have stated in the past that of ALL the admins I personally have encountered on ALL the wikimedia projects you are the person LEAST worthy of having such tools or prestige available to them. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweak

Proposing to desysop Cirt is rather pointless, at best. Looking over Cirt's contribution history, there is a substantial body of good edits (particularly the rescue of Jean-Luc Picard, and his work on My Life in Orange and the Campaign for "santorum" neologism page) and productive, appropriate use of the admin tools. On the other hand, I note that Cirt has not blocked you, but has instead sought consensus of the community on this matter, which is an entirely responsible way to go about addressing the issues he raises. BD2412 T 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, BD2412, I appreciate that, very much. Indeed, I hope another third-party admin will take action here with regards to Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I continuously am responding to previous remarks now— "Accusing others of trolling or malevolance is pretty clearly a personal attack" — I assert that saying such accusations are an "unacceptable attack" IF SINCERE is rather absurd, for that would mean that the implications of your statement are clearly an unacceptable "personal attack" — but I reject such specious logic and see no need to forgive you for sincerity, and hope you can see there is no need for me to beg anyone for expressing mine. I have said before that I am an Absurdist — which makes it very easy for me to FORGIVE errors and ACCEPT fair will in others — but what I sometimes do with vehement passion is attack forms of foul and life diminishing error. I truly believe that I am attacking hypocrisy and foul absurdities with acknowledgement and some assertions of fair and beautiful absurdities which most people are too shallow or narrow minded to regularly perceive. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Kalki, that's not enough. The inappropriate use of the edit summary space for attacks must stop. The incivility and baseless accusations of "trolling", "vandalisms", calling another user a "troll" and a "vandal", must stop. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I had been inclined to post this (and once again had an edit conflict)— but the above aggression makes me pause — but I will post it all the same with the remark that "use of the edit summary space for attacks must stop" quite rightly applies to calling quotes of a major UN functionary and links to UN sites SPAM. THUS, I will withdraw my request for desysoping of Cirt at this time. I will concede it was made in ANGER and frustration, but certainly was NOT in mere "retaliation" for past actions. I believe that if one looks at things from the broadest perspectives most people would agree with me, but don't wish to push anyone to such limits at this time. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Unfortunately this still doesn't address the issue of Kalki's inappropriate rhetoric. There is nothing to say that he won't do this again in the near future. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: Kalki's still doing it, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OF COURSE, I am maintaining that there is a need for HONESTY rather than hypocrisy — and I am quite aware that many people are inclined to pander to people's desire for appearance of security and calm and peace rather than have core issues honestly addressed which might resolve MANY of the actual causes of conflict and hostility in genuinely fair ways. I will concede that I am a person very prone to passionate and sincere rhetoric rather than disimulating hypocrisy and feigned geniality, and I am quite aware many people are often prone to find that offensive, frightening and even dangerous, especially those who regularly feel severely threatened by those most willing to be honest. I will try to diminish the severity of some of my rhetoric, but I certainly will NOT make any promises to suppress my inclination to honest and sincere assertions forever. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks + PS : I truly will try to refrain from commenting very passionately on these issues for at least few days, but again, I make no promises that I will do so entirely. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Kalki has neglected to redact or cross out with <s></s> any of his inappropriate comments and inflammatory rhetoric. In fact, the he has continually added to it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely have NO inclinations to cross out sincere comments I continue to believe to be probably true and certainly justified and valid from my perspectives. I accept that in some ways I might be wrong or excessive, and I accept that you might not be able to perceive or appreciate many forms of the reason, logic or expressions I have used, but I have NOT attempted to FORBID you in engaging in YOUR forms of rhetoric and expression — nor even to constrain you from them at all, save where that consists of automatically deleting anything you do not agree with, wish to have considered or KNOWN by anyone, or BLOCKING someone who dares to engage in a dispute with you — as you HAVE already DONE with ME in the past. SINCERE BLESSINGS TO YOU with HONEST AFFIRMATION of your worth as a UNIQUE human being who I am sincerely attempting to better understand and appreciate. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweak

From Kalki's statement: "I sincerely have NO inclinations to cross out sincere comments I continue to believe to be probably true and certainly justified and valid from my perspectives." — unfortunately it appears this inappropriate behavior will continue to go on, as he repeatedly says he has done nothing wrong. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As I stated ELSEWHERE, where you have persisted in attempting to find allies in your apparent will to diminish some of my freedoms or otherwise punish me for persisting in HONESTLY disagreeing with you, "I truly hope that you will grow more enlightened to the grace within other people and not continue to project ASSUMPTIONS of DARKNESS and extreme malice or ill will where it actually does NOT exist." Blessings to you — may the day soon come when you recognize me as an HONEST friend. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to hear comments from admins and not Kalki on whether Kalki's rhetoric and refusal to redact inappropriate attacks constitutes need for repercussions for Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I too would like to hear comments from others and not Cirt on me and Cirt and whether my rhetoric is inappropriate, and Cirt's continued rhetoric and apparent will to find someone as an ally in suppressing, erasing, or deprecating information, or threatening people with punishments if they do not RETRACT or disavow their HONEST opinions is appropriate behavior for a fair and just human being. Blessings to all with Truth and Grace for all who are wise — and even absurd fools like me. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
- I actually WILL state I possibly HAVE made some errors in some of my previous statements, and I believe there CERTAINLY must be deficiencies of MANY types in nearly ALL of them. I know that such is characteristic of nearly ANY statement a human being CAN make, thus I will not burden anyone with too many details, but this is something I am willing to concede — but I do NOT consider an insistence or expectation or demand of others to retract any particular statements they had sincerely expressed is appropriate behavior for ANYONE. Blessings to All. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Sigh, I see that Kalki will continue to respond here until he has The Last Word, so be it. Hopefully there will be repercussions for Kalki so Kalki will learn not to repeat such inappropriate behavior, rhetoric, and attacks in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing violations by Kalki

The Village Pump discussion at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Liberal_use_of_images is not going Kalki's way.
He has responded by canvassing violations.
Kalki has posted a plea to four (4) users' talk pages, with a link to the Village Pump discussion (where currently 3:1 consensus is against him):

This is not acceptable behavior in the middle of an ongoing Village Pump discussion where consensus is against Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You continue to cite a discussion that has JUST BEGUN, as if a consensus of involved participants in this project had been developed, and it has NOT. Also, the rules you are attempting to cite as something I have violated are Wikipedia rules, NOT Wikiquote rules. Similar policies and guidelines here might be appropriate to develop for this WIki — but have never actually been established because there are so few people involved here regularly that development of formal procedures has never been a top priority for MOST of US — and I for one have always promoted a respect for PRESERVING informalities of procedures, so much as possible, and promoting far more free and informal relations. Even emulation of those policies developed at Wikipedia in relation to its VAST community are such as I do not believe I have disrespected so grievously as Cirt would like to portray me as having done. They state: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

I approached four people — ONE, whom I had strong reason to believe agreed with me on the issue, and 3 others whose specific views are at this point STILL not known to me or anyone else, and who I approached because they were very active in recent weeks and two of them had been involved in recent community discussions, and I believed they might have worthy opinions on this one.

Though I have made no actual searches for evidence of this, I confess that I am genuinely suspicious that general complaints and cross-wiki slanders which I believe Cirt is strongly inclined to make of me might possibly be involved in the sudden surge of interest and involvement against me on this matter here, even if he or she did not actually canvas anyone for this particular issue, but whether that is the case or not, I am not making accusations that he or she DID such a thing — only that I remain very suspicious of MANY of his or her motives, and continue to maintain that he or she has engaged in what I consider extensive and vicious slander campaigns against me in a cross-wiki manner for years.

I repeat that I bear Cirt no particular animosity, and do not know very much about him or her — but I do strongly disagree with MANY of this person's assertions and claims and have made clear that people should have no qualms here against stating their genuine opinions on matters, and NOT feel obligated or be coerced to agree with those that I or anyone else might be prone to agree with or support.

Though I have long refrained from explicating MANY of my own views over my 8 years of work here, to allow greater awareness and appreciation of my particular forms of perspectives to develop in anyone interested in understanding my views, I have recently begun to openly declare myself an Absurdist — something I could arguably be said to have been since my very early childhood. I have GREAT respect for MOST human perspectives, but embrace ABSOLUTE subservience to NONE — and I do NOT promote any political or religious ideologies which WOULD promote any form of absolute subservience of anyone to anyone else. Although I can usually accept MANY of other people's beliefs or strategies as perfectly valid and acceptable for them, I usually discern great problems and innate EVIL in seeking to make any such ways MANDATORY for others. In the spirit of forgiveness and tolerance and promotion of diversity and Justice, Unity, Liberty, and Love of Truth and Grace, I wish everyone greater blessings in their lives, through the growth of Wisdom among us all. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Two points regarding this complaint:

Wikipedia's WP:CANVASS is not policy here at Wikiquote. I think it is unnecessary because this community is several orders of magnitude smaller. Broadening general participation at our Village Pump is a Good Thing™ because it usually has too few voices to assess or formulate broad community consensus.
As I remarked yesterday in an earlier thread on this page, it is completely inconsistent to say that discussion is ongoing and that consensus has been reached at the same time. Please be patient.

~ Ningauble 18:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So it would be alright for me to go ahead and also post to four (4) users asking them to come to that discussion at Village Pump?
I did not say consensus "reached", but did mention that Kalki chose to take action, canvassing, after he saw existing consensus at the time was 3:1 against him. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with posting on a small number of user talk pages to inform those editors of an ongoing discussion, unless the editors themselves object to it. I would object if such posting was done to a large number of pages (let's say a dozen or more) without a reasonable basis for believing that the editors contacted had a reason to be interested in the discussion. WP:CANVASS allows this also. I agree with Ningauble that bringing more voices to our discussions is a good thing. As for the consensus issue, I think Ningauble's point is that there is no such thing as "existing consensus" until consensus has been "reached". BD2412 T 19:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I guess in the future I will also feel free to post to multiple user talkpages in the midst of an ongoing discussion as Kalki has done. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Help please, what can be done about ongoing inappropriate rhetoric by Kalki ?

After stating on this very board above that he would change, Kalki has again used inappropriate rhetoric and attacks, diff.
Read: "foul-spirited spin Cirt seems to be placing on things, which implies dictatorial judgments and acive coercion, which he or she seems to be very comfortable with and eager to promote"

Please, help me, advise me, what can be done about Kalki's continued inappropriate rhetoric on this project directed against other users??? -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More of the same = "the strategies of the totalitarian Ministry of Information in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four at altering the genuine records of the past will CONTINUE to be employed here by some, with apparent impunity and pride. I consider it lamentable that understandable reaction to a symbol ABUSED by authoritarian autocrats has been used to justify acts of extremely authoritarian behavior here.".
After previous comments at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Cirt.27s_authoritarian_misbehavior, two admins said this sort of rhetoric was inappropriate. And yet, Kalki did it again, repeatedly. -- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Kalki is referring to the Nazis as having been authoritarian autocrats, and is saying that it is unfortunate that the Nazis brought this negative connotation to the previously benign swastika. However, Kalki also seems to be suggesting that our imposition of policies designed to forward the presentation of quotes on this project is similarly authoritarian. If there is no objection (other than Kalki's own inevitable objection) within the next few hours, I'm going to block Kalki for 48 hours so that he can reflect on the difference between authoritarianism in Nazi Germany and the establishment of policies on one of the millions of websites available for the posting of these sorts of collections of images and ideas, and the civility incumbent in avoiding such comparisons. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OF COURSE I must assert my "inevitable objection" and HOPE that OTHERS will as well. IF my rhetoric is in ANY ways disturbing to ANYONE, if it is in anyway FALSE, or considered FLAWED — such deficiencies should be POINTED out in REASONABLE arguments and debates — and NOT my own or ANYONE else's RIGHT to engage in rhetoric SUPPRESSED, deprecated and taken away for ANY amount of time by COERCION. I assert that TRUE and genuine CIVILITY promotes FREEDOM of SPEECH and NOT suppression of speech — and if ANY criticisms of evident BEHAVIOR, or ATTITUDES is to be taken as a "PERSONAL ATTACK" then what is left to be "Free" about but MUTE DOCILE CONFORMITY? Please note the taking away of the right to speak is FAR more a personal attack on people, than harshly criticizing their actions and attitudes are — no matter WHAT rhetoric or comparisons might be used. It may be a pain to others for me to quote Thomas Paine, but I believe it is my proper RIGHT to do so: "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." ~ ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)