User talk:Kalki/2010

I have submitted a request for adminship status at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki. Your consideration is welcome.

Kalki · † · ¡¡¡α!!! · 2009 † 2010 · 2011 · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box
… Ω …

This is an archive of discussions which occurred on my talk page between late 2009 and 2010

Kalki Apologia 2009·11·23

File:Burningman 0105.jpg

Let's not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness.
~ James Thurber

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

A mostly casual exposition of a few thoughts and ideas, gathered from recent notes, and deliberately leaving out much of primary significance as to some matters, but providing honest indications of much as well.

The Supreme Ethical Rule: Act So As To Elicit the Best In Others and Thereby In Thy Self.
Felix Adler

I remain just one thing, and one thing only — and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician. ~ Charlie Chaplin

File:CharlieChaplinAndGandhi.jpg

I am an individual and a believer in liberty. That is all the politics I have. ~ Charlie Chaplin

The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

I was taught that the human brain was the crowning glory of evolution so far, but I think it’s a very poor scheme for survival. ~ Kurt Vonnegut

Our awareness is all that is alive and maybe sacred in any of us. Everything else about us is dead machinery. ~ Kurt Vonnegut

The telling of jokes is an art of its own, and it always rises from some emotional threat. The best jokes are dangerous, and dangerous because they are in some way truthful. ~ Kurt Vonnegut

Not traditions, not the outer authorities are the judges,
They are the judges of outer authorities and of all traditions....
Walt Whitman in "Tests"in Leaves of Grass

As I have little desire to retain it and perceive no actual need for me to do so, I do hereby announce I am actually resigning my bureaucrat status effective immediately, and will accept those abilities being removed at the earliest possible convenience of a steward. If that is not enough to placate the punitive impulses of some people, and persuade at least a few people to support my retention of admin abilities, as very well-used ones, then I assume I will end up loosing those as well, which I do believe will result in a considerable inconvenience to myself and others, but something I certainly can live with. I actually do wish to retain admin abilities, merely so that I may continue to daily serve this project in much the same way as I have since January 2004 when I was first provided them. I am worried only slightly at the situation which exists, mainly because I don't wish to further burden anyone in any needless ways. Even so, to say that I am highly alarmed at the prospect of loosing admin abilities here vastly overrates my own dependency on retaining them or continuing in many of my current capacities on this project.

Though I do hope that some people will actually decide to support my continued presence as an admin here, each person must of course decide for themselves what they feel is best course of action or inaction which they could engage in for this project.

Though I seek to present some amusing images and statements here, I am very well aware that the the situation which exists is not entirely amusing, but I generally strive to be neither an optimist nor a pessimist, but an optimizer of what situations actually exist, and to inject a bit of humor into them when possible, and to produce what good I can out of some often very bad situations.

WQ should permit more artistic explorations than WP

Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not. ~ Václav Havel in Disturbing the Peace (1986)

This is not an encyclopedia project, and it has thus far inspired only a few people to be regular editors here. I have been one of the most active from the earliest days of the wiki and would will simply state that I have not abused any of the admin abilities that a few people are insisting I should be now be stripped of, nor deliberately acted in any way that I believe to be of deep discredit to either myself or others. I look upon some aspects of this call as part of the problem — as a sign of mere status among the wikis as providing an increasing presumption of authority and power over others, rather than simply a few more tools to serve the project and to protect it from vandalism.

This wiki might not provide all the supposed prestige of writing up one's own statements for articles in an encyclopedic work, but I assert that humbly gathering together many of the most wise and witty as well as a few of the most foolish assertions ever made, and presenting them in interesting ways is a very worthy endeavor and I hope many other people will eventually agree and become more active here.

I addressed some of the issues in question previously in 2007 as Accountability (talk · contributions) and 2008 as Rumour (talk · contributions):

Some have mocked the circus of controversies generated by my actions and responses to them, and mocked what appears to them to be merely ridiculous assertions made in some of my own responses. Whether others can appreciate my devotions or not, I take pride in being an earnest advocate of Liberty, and various forms of uplifting good humor, and to that end, though I can often be very somber and aloof when contemplating the sorrowfully tragic state of many people, I am often willing to transcend my profound concerns and appear as little more than a fun-loving clown, and seek to be a reminder to people that there are always wonderful mysteries to marvel at, and there are very few absolute certainties that can be relied upon.

Humorous Direct Action

I know my voluminous messages are not entirely welcome — but believe me, in recent days I've actually cut and rejected the use of far more observations than I am presently using. No matter how elaborate or simple my expressions with words, I usually remain dissatisfied with most of them in many ways. The sooner I can feel more comfortable being relatively quiet, and letting the quotes and images I use do most of the communicating I do here, I think the better it will be for everyone.

It know it might not sound very modest of me, but if having a profound and intense commitment to Liberty, a richly developed imagination, keen intellect and a very complex sense of wit and humor that defies and opposes many drab conventions and expectations are attributes that most people involved here feel is too alarming a blend of qualities for an admin to have, I guess, I will have to accept that. "So it goes...."

You could be part of a fighting force armed with ruthless love and fully trained in the ancient art of clowning and non-violent direct action. ~ CIRCA

Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it. ~ Henry David Thoreau

Let me try, I'm a genius. ~ Doug McKenzie, in Strange Brew

I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow...~ Mikhail Bakunin

Some might call many of my views that of an anarchist, and I don't absolutely reject the label, so long as it is intended to refer to those who reject the supposed rights of people to command or control others. Mahatma Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau, as well as the noted anarchists Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Voltairine de Cleyre, and Emma Goldman promoted such ideas, in various ways. I wish to clearly state that I reject and repudiate the ideas of anyone calling themselves anarchists who seek to initiate any form of destructive violence, absolute social breakdowns, or needlessly confrontational strategies, though I also reject and repudiate such stances of absolute pacifism as would leave oneself or others overly vulnerable to those who would initiate destructive violence and confrontations.

I am far more inclined to encourage forms of non-violent Direct action, of people motivated by faith that "right can and will produce new forms of might" rather than political action (where various groups or factions often work in rivalry or opposition to each other in concerted ways, meant to constrain or control others by some form of "established might makes right" rationale, and often primarily based upon group affiliations, rather than explicit principles), but I do not seek to violate or oppose any political procedures when they are truly fair.

I don't expect all people to be able to fully appreciate my particular sense of humor and my sometimes radical defiance of many forms of presumed authority, but I assert that neither I nor others deserve to be punished for it, as I have not deliberately aimed at harming anyone, nor ever deliberately taken such actions as I believed would lead to more harm than good for anyone.

I have resisted the impulses of others to presume to treat restrictive policies on myself or others mandated only by their will as if it had the same authority as policies mandated by the general community. That is precisely what I feel many people who have been becoming admins, bureaucrats and checkusers in recent years increasingly believe they have the right to do, in defiance and rejection of the earliest principles propounded in the complex blend of pragmatic policies with which the earliest projects initially began, and which minimized any establishment of hierarchal authority. I realize that some hierarchal order always has and must always must probably exist, but I do feel that the indulgence of presumptions of authority to dictate to others what they must do, that are not clearly approved by the community in general should be minimized.

I actually began to become more vocal on this matter just a few days before the current controversy about me became public here:

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. ... 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. ~ User talk:Kalki/November 2009 Controversies (26 October 2009)

As I've indicated, recent events have actually diminished some long developing options for me elsewhere, but due to my responses to some situations, have actually opened up some powerful new ones which I anticipate taking full advantage of in the months to come. In many ways I will probably be impelled to be much more swiftly revelatory about many things than I would otherwise have been. I do not consider this an entirely good thing nor a safe one, but it is what I expect, and it could actually permit me to be more swiftly helpful to many others in many ways.

I am for those that have never been master'd,
For men and women whose tempers have never been master'd,
For those whom laws, theories, conventions, can never master. ~ Walt Whitman in Leaves of Grass

I am he who tauntingly compels men, women, nations, crying, Leap from your seats and contend for your lives! ~ Walt Whitman in Leaves of Grass

I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject. ~ Henry David Thoreau

There are always impulses within most people to be either uplifters of others, or down-casters of them, and I choose to be an uplifter to the fullest extent possible, through what indications of awareness and appreciation I can honorably present to them.

While I am making a few appeals here, I might as well make another appeal to vandals to take note of many of the things which I and others have said, in previous remarks over the years, and please begin to refrain from your paths of needlessly and unjustly insulting or disturbing others. I hope many of you can eventually redeem yourselves with a greater sense of respect for human society, and find far more productive and useful paths of activity which lifts most people up with good humor, rather than insultingly attempting to push them down into paths of anger or outrage. Since early childhood I have been inclined to oppose the efforts of anyone who I believe is attempting to in anyway grievously belittle the worth of others, or constrain their freedom in clearly unjust ways.

circa CIRCA

As I believe will be increasingly apparent in the years ahead, though I must respect many forms of solemnity, I certainly do not identify wisdom with mere solemnity.

I am not a member of the official Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (CIRCA), and might never seek to become one, but though I might not fully endorse all of their aims, I greatly admire their strategies, and fully embrace the ideals they express which are indicated on the page which I created as Harlequin (talk · contributions) :

• You could be part of a fighting force armed with ruthless love and fully trained in the ancient art of clowning and non-violent direct action. You could learn ingeniously stupid tactics that baffle the powerful. You could uncover your inner clown and discover the subversive freedom of fooling.
  You don't need to like clowns or soldiers, you just need to love life and laughter as much as rebellion.

• We are clandestine because we refuse the spectacle of celebrity and we are everyone. Because without real names, faces or noses, we show that our words, dreams, and desires are more important than our biographies. Because we reject the society of surveillance that watches, controls, spies upon, records and checks our every move. Because by hiding our identity we recover the power of our acts. Because with greasepaint we give resistance a funny face and become visible once again.

• We are insurgent because we have risen up from nowhere and are everywhere. Because ideas can be ignored but not suppressed and an insurrection of the imagination is irresistible. Because whenever we fall over we rise up again and again and again, knowing that nothing is lost for history, that nothing is final. Because history doesn't move in straight lines but surges like water, sometimes swirling, sometimes dripping, flowing, flooding — always unknowable, unexpected, uncertain. Because the key to insurgency is brilliant improvisation, not perfect blueprints.

• We are rebels because we love life and happiness more than 'revolution'. Because no revolution is ever complete and rebellions continues forever. Because we will dismantle the ghost-machine of abstraction with means that are indistinguishable from ends. Because we don't want to change 'the' world, but 'our' world. Because we will always desert and disobey those who abuse and accumulate power. Because rebels transform everything — the way they live, create, love, eat, laugh, play, learn, trade, listen, think and most of all the way they rebel.

• I stand ready to deploy, engage, and use clown logic to change my enemies into friends and then into clowns.
  I am a harbinger of freedom, fun, and friendship, the clown's way of life.
  I am a rebel clown.

Let me try, I'm a genius.

I know very well that neither Wisdom nor Virtue necessarily comes with intelligence, but it can often help many forms of wisdom to be more fully developed, where they are permitted the opportunity to do so. Since a very young age I was identified as extraordinarily intelligent and capable in many ways, and my IQ was calculated to be in the very high ranges of measurable genius. I am in many ways very prone to be a very private individual, and do NOT wish to be personally recognized by very many people in this world, but only to a very few of those whose acquaintance and personal company I most cherish. I have NOT wanted to be identified by any of the most common labels of age, race, political or religious creeds, nationality or gender, and in most my accounts here and elsewhere have thus far sought to avoid making any definite mention in regard to my associations with any of these.

I mention my levels of intelligence not simply to impress people whom I might never actually meet, but hoping to persuade all that are interested in commenting upon the current controversies that no matter how whimsical, clownish or foolish I might sometimes choose to seem, I am not guided primarily by merely casual or shallow whimsy. I consider my levels of intelligence very fortunate for myself and others, but it is not something I am so delighted in, as my fortune in having developed a steadfast desire to increase my own awareness and appreciation of Life, and help others to increase theirs without having indulged in any dangerously foolish impulses to establish any absolute rules for myself or anyone else.

Since my earliest years of childhood I have held that though it can be a very important factor, it is certainly NOT intelligence which matters most in determining the the character of a person — but the degree to which they embrace the truly virtuous and shun manifesting the vile patterns of potential, recognizing that such virtues as humility, courage, honesty and compassion can be embraced by many people in many ways, no matter what particular perspectives and beliefs they might have on many incidental matters, and that the wisest always restrain the degree to which they deliver vigorous condemnation or praise of anyone, no matter how absolute or zealous their praise or condemnations of some attitudes and actions might be.

I have great confidence in many of my abilities to do good in this world, and have many peculiar ideas of ways to promote greater respect for Justice, Unity, Liberty and Love of Truth, among many people, and thus do NOT seek to constrain the abilities of others to do truly do good in their own peculiar ways, and view many such attempts to impose such constraints as errors, and sometimes as crimes, no matter what their status within customary statutes.

Errors and Virtues

We all are capable of many forms of error, as well as many forms of wisdom, and I assert that distinct and in many ways unique patterns of awareness, ignorance and confusion are always manifest in every mortal mind. ~ Kalki

I am opposed to all unjust oppression and the absolutist presumptions of tyranny whether it be mild or strong, or expressed in terms that are plainly malevolent of benevolent. I don't believe people should ever be presumed to have the right to absolutely command others to defy or disregard their own consciences, no matter how well-regarded or cleverly crafted such rules by which they would impel others to do so might actually be. Sometimes clear and necessary conflicts will arise — and people should be free to contend as fairly and honestly as possible in relation to these, and there will often be harsh words and harsh actions taken. So long as this does not descend into brutality which is unjustly and needlessly harsh, I can accept many forms of harshness that would seem far too extreme to be easily accepted by others. We all are capable of many forms of error, as well as many forms of wisdom, and I assert that distinct and in many ways unique patterns of awareness, ignorance and confusion are always manifest in every mortal mind.

O may I join the choir invisible
Of those immortal dead who live again
In minds made better by their presence; live
In pulses stirred to generosity,
In deeds of daring rectitude, in scorn
For miserable aims that end with self,
In thoughts sublime that pierce the night like stars,
And with their mild persistence urge men's search
To vaster issues.
~ George Eliot

It is not because angels are holier than men or devils that makes them angels, but because they do not expect holiness from one another, but from God alone. ~ William Blake

Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly. ~ G. K. Chesterton

It is not necessary for the public to know whether I am joking or whether I am serious, just as it is not necessary for me to know it myself. ~ Salvador Dalí

That's part of our policy, is not to be taken seriously, because I think our opposition, whoever they may be, in all their manifest forms, don't know how to handle humor. ~ John Lennon

Without attempting to go into extensive details, or with any regard to any particular religious or political creeds, I have long classified the levels motivation most commonly at work in most people as:

1. Saintly - what might be termed ultimately altruistic, transcending all interests in one's own personal fate or even that of one's reputation, in devotion to that which seems most worthy of reverence and service. One is humble and courageous in knowing that one can yet never totally transcend the limitations of one's own levels of awareness, ignorance and confusion, though one can strive to increase awareness and diminish the role of confusion in one's own life, and in the lives of others.
2. Heroic - clearly transcending concerns for personal safety, and devoted to the safety and lives of others.
3. Cowardly - primarily motivated by concerns for personal safety, including the safety of one's reputation, which paradoxically to the views of many, is something which often more enslaves people to paths of error and tragedy, even more so than their concern for their own personal fates.
4. Villainous - motivated to one's personal impulses and assessments to the point of total disregard or disrespect for the lives and happiness of others. Villainy manifest the ultimate forms of stupidity, arrogance, bigotry and evil.

There is no one, including myself, who I wish anyone to consider to be absolutely immune to corruptions or error, nor anyone, not even the most bitter and ferocious of adversaries I have ever faced who I would seek to label totally irredeemable. I have vigorously striven to find ways to my awareness and appreciation of others that I might be better motivated by hopes and love to be heroic and saintly and avoid falling into such fear and hate as promote cowardice and villainy.

I have long observed that many people most fear and hate those who will simply not join them in hating those whom they hate — I genuinely hate such attitudes, but I choose not to hate such people, or wish them to suffer any more harm or distress than is truly necessary to prevent them from causing further acts of injustice.

I know that ambiguities will always exist in the attempts to communicate with others, and the ways to minimize those which are truly dangerous is to ALWAYS recognize this. I recognize the utility and need for many symbols, words and labels, but I am far too skeptical of the proper applications of any names or labels by others to chose to absolutely label myself or anyone else anything.

There is a long used sentiment, expressed well by Pascal, among others:

I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short.

The time has not been sufficient for me to make this so short as I or others might wish it to be, but in past days and weeks I have written and spoken FAR more than I have chosen to use, or had either the time or inclination to prepare to use here, because I perceive that much of it might be observations and assertions that I could someday perhaps use far more effectively elsewhere, in relation to matters of far greater import.

I have always sought to be as honest and accurate as I could be when I declared anything, but knowing how easily many things could be misunderstood, have chosen to only rarely express myself beyond a few very simple expressions and declarations. In relation to some recent allegations and accusations, I knew I had to make some immediate responses, and had limited time to do it.

Some of my recent statements were long and detailed outpourings of my genuine and immediate reactions to events that I had neither the time nor will to stifle or refine, and some have expressed indications that that these passionate and extensive assertions were somehow further indications that I am "unfit" to be an admin.

Were I a less passionate and devoted an advocate of Justice, Liberty, and such Unity as can arise through clear understandings of important truths, I might be fit to agree with them. I am regularly very meticulous in my decisions on what to do about many things, and even some of these statements I present now, no matter how lengthy the collection of them might be, are some I have only devised in the last stages of refining larger statements that I have trimmed down extensively, delaying far longer than I myself would have preferred in attempting to improve my presentations.

However long or short my declarations might be, I remain committed to principles which I believe far too many people have grown callous and cynical towards, or even oblivious to, in their quest for what seems to be easy, comfortable, and convenient use of their abilities and time. Viewing such activity as they were unable to understand or appreciate, they treated it as if it were motivated merely by what they believed to be personal vanity, or even the very foolish desire to be harmful or controlling of others, rather than a will to be helpful, and to most importantly to help liberate people from many forms of artificial and detrimental limitations and controls.

I am acutely aware that many people remain highly constrained by false suppositions that there are not beautiful things to appreciate and honor in the ways of other people. No matter how alien and indecipherable many of their inclinations and activities might seem, or how truly corrupted away from some great ideals they might have become, that there are always elements of truth and virtue that the wisest and most skillful can hope to build upon. The wisest seek to learn what they can even from those they might deem least wise and most foolish.

I have chosen to not use much material I had been working on in recent days and weeks, in this summational statement, and much of this is far more restrained in presenting my perspectives on things than some of the assertions I had been inclined to make.

I am a person in love with Life itself, in all its forms, but I well know that such love is no guarantee at all that any other form of life I love will ever be able to appreciate or even recognize such love as I am capable of manifesting — yet absolute trust in other's good will, despite their capacities or inclinations to it is something I have long had difficulty feeling towards others, and do not actually encourage others to feel towards me or anyone else. Love for life can exist beyond all particular conditions, Trust for other particular forms of it can not. I have long realized that many people become locked into very narrow and constraining ideas of what is right and wrong for others to do in their lives, and I have always been inclined to view this as a very tragic error, which often results in attempts to overly control and constrain others lives.

The wise know that we can never love each other so greatly or completely as we might wish to — that we cannot even know each other so fully and accurately as we might wish to — nor even ourselves, and our own limitations and potentials. Yet it is only upon or clear impressions of anything which we can hope to build some sort of beautiful associations which can endure, and which are truly and eternally valuable.

I regularly assert that the wisest of people know that ALL expressions are always ambiguous to various degrees, and can be declared or perceived in many different ways, and that one must always be alert to the full body of evidence regarding a person's' aims and actions, not merely a few particular words they might pronounce, or a very few exemplary or flawed actions which they might take. If I were impelled by circumstances to provide a very succinct summary of what I seek to do here, and everywhere I can, one way I might express it is this: Embracing the vitally important virtues of humility, courage, honesty and compassion, and seeking not to absolutely bind either myself or others to any particular creeds or words, I seek to relentlessly devote my actions to the causes of Justice, Unity, Liberty and an Ultimate Love of Truth, and of such Beauty and Grace as are ever exhibited to the fortunate and the wise in all manifestations of the Ultimate Spirit of ALL Awareness, Life, and Love itself. I am very well aware that even such words as these can be interpreted in many diverse ways, and do not presume that my own meanings will be entirely clear to anyone, but I hope that they will be sufficient to indicate the vigor of my determination to serve this project, and not to harm it, and that I truly believe an over-reliance upon some narrow interpretations of words and rules in regard to anything, are usually harmful to most people.

Question Authority

Question Authority (talk · contributions)

It has been observed since ancient times that many forms of absolute emphasis on "the letter" of laws, or various rules and regulations are often morbid and mortifying, and some have boldly asserted that no matter how precisely devised or well motivated they might be absolute rules can always be twisted in ways that seem to permit or even mandate the perceptions of that which either ignores or transcends them as actually evil, while the ultimate Essence of Liberty which many rules are in some way intended to serve, is always vivifying, and even when most suppressed, endures as a principle that is ever present in ways beyond all words.

I very much appreciated the earnest spirit of Liberty which was very evident in the earliest days of the wiki projects, and have grown increasingly and sometimes vocally disgruntled at many increasingly authoritarian efforts to constrain people's freedoms or demand their attention in developing new policy mandates in ways I feel unnecessary and detrimental to the project as a whole, and thus to humanity as a whole, because I truly believe them to be projects that are very helpful in many ways to the whole of humanity.

If there were occasions where I made any accidental errors, posting certain comments with username identities I had not intended to, or even on one or two occasions growing weary or impatient of certain pretensions for some reasons I can't always recall, in ways that prompted some comments that it was probably in some ways truly improper of me to make, I can only request forgiveness for these. I have not attempted to go back and review all my past activity to "cover my ass" in regard to some possibly nefarious interpretations some people might choose to imagine and to emphasize, — I am always attempting to move forward with what respect for others I can muster, and encourage others to do the same.

I can't clearly recall all the circumstances of what was occurring at the time I made one very notable mistake, but there was one alarming incident which FloNight has pointed out on 10 June 2004, in which I do remember many of my emotional responses, because I was extremely upset when I accidentally posted some additional comments I had meant to make as Moby, the originator of a VfD discussion, and actually made as Kalki. I will state flatly that that WAS an accident, and I was APPALLED at it, as I had become increasingly reluctant to get involved in any VfD disputes under any name, let alone initiate them. I pondered with great personal distress whether or not to clearly reveal my error on the day it was made, so as to avoid any appearance of it having been deliberate. But I certainly did NOT want Kalki and Moby clearly associated, because that time there was a very persistent vandal banned at Wikipedia who had been in disputes with Moby, whom I did NOT want to know my primary identity. If people choose to take this one incident of over 5 years ago as in some way exhibiting a PATTERN of deliberately callous deceptions of others, in regard to open contentions on unestablished policies, or if they are truly are inclined to believe that I would have deliberately betrayed my own integrity and jeopardized my position of trust here by intentionally registering remarks as Kalki on a page deciding if "Yoda"' should have his own article or not — well, there is not much more I can expect to reason clearly about with such people. I believe that I decided eventually that the comment was not likely to affect the actual outcome of things, and if it looked like it would, to only admit to the error then.

Thanks

In what will be some of my final summations on this matter, I will quote a few of my own words I had made several years ago, as Moby (talk · contributions):

Never fail to recognize that potentials for extreme foolishness, stupidity, malice, and the ultimate insanity of malevolence exist wherever ignorance and confusion dwell.

Knowing this, the wisest and greatest are ever inclined to battle in every necessary way against states of ignorance and confusion, and to avoid needless confrontation or conflict with people who are ignorant and confused.

Another notable statement which I presented as Agnostic Gnostic (talk · contributions)

This I know:

There are people who earnestly strive to foster and nurture the best in everyone and thus reveal the best in themselves, and there are those who strive to emphasize the worst in others, and thus foster and nurture the worst within themselves.

This I do not know:

Which are you most inclined to be?

I am thankful that more people have thus far not joined in the call for removal of my admin abilities, but I will now need to rapidly start receiving some active support to avoid that happening. If any significant questions remain as to my aims and motives I hope that I can effectively address them very rapidly. I will now present as a final quote of someone who I have long admired and was certainly no mere clown, nor clownish politician, and whom John F. Kennedy declared the greatest statesman of the 20th Century:

For all that has been —
Thanks.
For all that shall be —
Yes.

Dag Hammarskjöld
in
Markings (1964)

I could probably have trimmed this a little more, but I have trimmed it about all I can today, and feel I should post it at this point, as I am getting too tired to continue, and will probably have to nap soon. No matter what occurs in relation to this issue, I hope I have been somewhat amusing and informative to most people who bother to read this, and my efforts at indicating some rough outlines of some of my general concerns and aims in life has not been entirely futile, in regards to the present questions. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

P. S.

I am back, at least briefly, and have done a quick review and a few minor tweaks of this bit of patchwork of loose ramblings on profound and minor subjects. I recognize it really isn't very well composed at all, being largely a "flow of consciousness" document with several partially mingled flows touched upon. I was getting rather tired as I put the finishing touches on it, including most of the images and the subheadings to simply break up its length. There were several essay and story ideas which occurred to me in recent days which I will probably eventually attempt to develop for publication elsewhere. Yet the rambling presentation I have made here touches upon some major issues as to my motivations and aims, and the strong opinion that absolutist ideas of perfection should never be imposed upon anyone or anything at any point, and all people and things should be left free to proceed and perhaps evolve as circumstances impel them to. The wise are not resentful of the processes of change nor those of life, but seek to sustain and magnify that which is truly most valuable, and eliminate only that which is truly most harmful to much of greater value, not that which might merely seem less comfortable or accommodating to one's own dispositions.
My own dispositions are very complex. Even as a very young child, I was quite aware that where some people only seemed to have very limited capacities for making associations between presented facts or appearances, and construing much beyond them (thus very often prone to insisting that their interpretations were the only possible ones, or at least the best that existed), those with advanced intelligence could usually make far more associations, and develop far more intricate ideas and valid theories as to how things might relate, and aware of many possibilities or actualities most people were not aware of, and more acutely aware that there might well be many more possible relationships far beyond their own comprehensions.
I know that I sometimes often have trouble trimming down what I present to the minds of others to only what would be most effective in some pragmatic ways, but I really believe that I don't have so much trouble as many on trimming down the ideas which occur to me to those which are most worthy of doubt or belief — or at least further investigation. I hope that my activity here remains interesting and amusing to others, and will prompt them to begin to think more upon many interesting subjects which will lead them to far more beautiful awareness about many things — because ultimately that is one of the things we find most enjoyment and reward in, throughout all of our lives — prompting ourselves and others to think in new and beautiful ways. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be in need of more support here, to remain an Admin

Wait until what we know can be spoken without regard to what others may believe. Wait until teachers take the place of preachers — until followers become investigators. Wait until the world is free before you write a creed.
In this creed there will be but one word — Liberty. ~ Robert G. Ingersoll

A few notes on the subject of my rather rapid need for more support, if I am to remain an admin, which I have been since 29 January 2004, and most efficiently continue on with many tasks I have been engaged in since 2003, in building up interesting sets of quotations, and presenting them in interesting ways. As I have always made clear, I do wish to resign from having bureaucrat level functions here, as no longer something either necessary or desirable for me to have, from the perspectives of both myself and some of my adversaries, but I do wish to retain admin status, and tend to believe it would be of overall detriment to the project and to others, as well as to myself, were those abilities to block vandals, and doing much daily upkeep removed, it seems to me, merely as a punitive measure, for resolutely defying the personal expectations or demands of those who have called for this to happen.

As I have previously indicated, I seek to support neither optimism nor pessimism about many things, but to be an optimizer of what situations I perceive to exist, and to proceed from there to do what must be done, for the greatest benefit of ALL, and not merely what I might wish to do, or others might wish to see done.

I am a profoundly agnostic about many matters — and though respectful of many aspects of many faiths of political, religious, materialistic or mystical nature, I have always been prone to object to any assessment which mortal minds can make about anything being taken or given as the "Be-all and End-all" assessment for all others, which they should accept without question — and have always been inclined to oppose such arrogance and presumption to the extent I believed I properly could — without endangering my abilities to oppose far more substantial forms of injustice or oppression. Not all such forms of presumption are as dangerous or as dangerously pervasive as others. Though I might be profoundly gnostic upon many matters which I believe are far beyond my abilities or desires to clearly indicate, I do not presume that I always know what is truly best or necessary for others or myself to do — I can only know what seems best to me at any moment, based upon my general awareness of many things, and how they seem to correlate.

Part of my current level of dilemma involves intense awareness that the more I present in defense of myself and some of my unusual but not forbidden practices here, the more I will likely need to be effectively self-constrained in some of my activities elsewhere, at least for a time, and, very probably, the less time I will have to complete far more significant and substantial work than any which I intended to do here, on this project.

I yet do find it useful and desirable to my intentions of being generally helpful, rather than hurtful to others, to retain my long held adminship here, and worth making at least a little more effort to retain. Though I had sought and hoped to awaken more people's consciences to support me, simply in devotion to the general principles of Liberty, and against the various presumptions of commanding authority that many people often grow comfortable with, that does not yet seem to thus far be having much effect, so I will simply resort to briefly listing a few more summations of some points I believe to be very valid and relevant to the issues in question:

1. Despite the suppositions of some, having more than one user name is NOT forbidden activity. NOR has it actually been strongly discouraged activity by most people involved on the wikis, and though it certainly is misused by many vandals, simply forbidding it and its potential good uses by others would probably not substantially reduce or diminish their engagement in the practice at all — some of them might even choose to gloat that their malicious activities had prompted many fools to constrain their own liberties and capacities to be largely immune to the taunting and harassment of some of them.
   Even Aphaia, who brought up the subject here, apparently at the prompting of Thatcher (who I still have bothered to find out very little about), admitted to having more than one identity, when the subject came up last year, though she thought my use of so many was excessive, in some ways burdensome on others, and simply didn't "look good."
2. I long have been one of the most active editors and admins here, despite a much reduced presence over the last year or so. I wish to remain such, and I believe that others probably wish me to reman such, though I am not sure how strongly, and am also sure there are a few who would simply wish me to "go away" that they might deprecate my activity and its influence all the more boldly.
3. I believe that without some of the further distractions which might result from my loss of adminship, both I and others will remain far more free to be active and promotive of primarily good-natured activities in regard to others, rather than engage in much more overtly harsh actions, which would involve opposing activities that seek to extend the ability of a few to command or control others, through honestly unpleasant and pointed criticism which some might even sometimes wish to characterize as merely mortifyingly ill-natured or morbid. I truly believe most people prefer to be pleasant than harsh, most of the time, but I have never denied or pretended to deny that it is sometimes necessary and proper to be extremely harsh with those who seek to constrain or eliminate many proper forms of freedom. When I am at my harshest though, I am openly and honestly harsh, and don't couch many of my expressions in nice comfortable pleasantries designed to deny or disguise the brutality of the conflicts actually occurring, or many of the potential or likely consequences of various potential decisions.
4. Though I can be a harsh adversary, I very rarely engage in any form of conflict with others merely for the benefit of myself, and far more rarely initiate any form of clearly destructive conflict with anyone which must involve some form of loss to others (rather than a mere honest conflict of wills and logical arguments, in which both I and others might gain). I only present arguments when I truly believe it is necessary to do so for the benefit of others. Many have foolishly mistaken my reluctance to fight in various situations as mere weakness of will or ability, or an extreme pacifism, and been unpleasantly surprised that I lack neither skills nor will to manifest many forms of strength and can often persist in opposition in ways they find extremely confounding. From the start I have accepted that I might well lose this particular contest here, though I do not actually wish to, and yet I have great confidence that the principles to which I am devoted shall not be permanently hindered or in any way truly damaged, by such things as are merely inconveniences and irritations to myself and a few others.
5. Whatever further arguments I might eventually make in regard to some of my positions on matters, I will need some more support soon, to prevent the loss of my admin abilities, which I do find useful and helpful in serving this wiki project.

I know that whether I seem harsh or gentle, to a great extent I must remain something of a mystery to others — but all people must to some extent always be mysteries to each other, and I embrace that FACT as irrefutable, despite the inclinations of many to set themselves or others up as absolute judges, rather than forever provisional assessors. Far more unusual in many ways than that, I remain a person generally devoted to not attracting attention to myself, that I might be judged upon very slight impressions, nor to others that they might be praised or condemned based upon impressions just as slight, but to profound and often very beautiful ideas which I truly believe to be beneficial to all, and can help move people away from many detrimental inclinations to very closed and final judgments about many things, and to more honest and open assessments, about ALL.

Knowing a few of the names I and others have used, or intended to use, is not knowing what I truly am, or any of us truly are — and only observing the general aims to which I have employed all these identities — in devotions to furthering diverse and profound insights regarding Justice, Unity, and Liberty, can truly provide a good sense of what we all ultimately are — manifestations of ever-growing Awareness, Life, and Love. There are many ideals I seek to serve in my life, but amidst them all, a few of those that I am most profoundly and intensely devoted to are Justice, Truth and Liberty.

I must soon be leaving once more, for at least an hour, and when I return might do more constructive work on the pages here, or indicate a few more of my thoughts on the current controversies. Everyone who reads this before final decisions have been made upon the matter has a choice to either support, oppose, or remain silent as to my continued admin status, based upon what they know of my long activity here. I continue to appeal to others to register their opinions, and if possible support my continued status as an admin here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that I made my decision after reviewing the specific edits of your many many accounts. There were actions and comments made by you that I consider inappropriate for someone with admin status. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that I nearly always aim to be helpfully honest, if not always so mildly, gently or transparently so as some people might prefer. There are many statements which others have made which I consider inappropriate for honest and fair human beings. I yet continue to respect even many of my worst adversaries as people capable of growth in awareness and appreciation of many things, and not such entities as should ever be treated as totally incapable of transformation or justification, however unlikely that might sometimes seem. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Life goes on...

Though I highly value this project and the service I have been able to render to it through the years, it seems my status as an administrator, somewhat unfortunately, has now been removed (as well as my "bureaucrat" status — good riddance to that!). There have been and continue to be matters which concern me far more than anything which might happen here, some of far more importance, others of greater urgency, and some with both, and though I certainly wish the outcome had been far different, I actually am a little relieved that this period of contentions is over, and I can turn much more of my attention to many other things of far greater significance and potential consequence.

I actually had worked earlier upon some fairly good statements in response to some of those written down by others recently, but many of them were such that I thought I should probably save for more powerful and less constrained delivery within works of far more importance than anything I might be able to compose within the growing constraints on both candor and creativity which are evident among the wikimedia projects, and it seems I was right.

I will probably be far more silent here once again on many issues, if that is permitted me, and proceed to do more work elsewhere. I will not abandon this project and my commitment to serving it in any ways I am permitted to. I do hope that some people will be satisfied for a time at having "punished" me, in their success at having diminished my usefulness and abilities to serve this project in many ways, because I disobeyed their wills, their demands, or disregarded their rather common and unexceptional expectations of what can or cannot be done — or "should" or "should not" be done — and yet had NOT violated any actual community MANDATES. As I no longer in any way am someone who might be presumed to be "representing" the presumed authority of others, I will probably be actually somewhat more free to speak without some forms of self-restraint about many things, in the months ahead, if implicit or explicit suppression of honest expressions of opinions here do not reach even greater levels.

Though it might seem to be a dark day for me to many, I assure you despite my disappointments in many people, and to some degree my own ability and will to lead them to greater understanding of all the complexities of issues that are involved in events here and elsewhere, I am actually laughing at this point, and continue to see ways to proceed with great grace and determination to serve others, even those who have been adversaries in the past, and defy many forms of very limited expectations of what a single person can do, to slowly, gradually, and sometimes swiftly and dramatically, advance humanity's appreciation of all the splendors of Awareness, Life, and Love ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) .

There's a dark & a troubled side of life
There's a bright, there's a sunny side, too
Tho' we meet with the darkness and strife
The sunny side we also may view

Keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side,
Keep on the sunny side of life
It will help us every day, it will brighten all the way
If we'll keep on the sunny side of life.

The storm and its fury broke today,
Crushing hopes that we cherish so dear;
Clouds and storms will, in time, pass away,
The sun again will shine bright and clear.

Ada Blenkhorn
in
"Keep On the Sunny Side" (1899)

Formatting

Sorry - I'm so familiar with Wikipedia style, it's taking a moment to get used to the different way referencing etc is done here. Gordonofcartoon 14:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No big problem. It happens all the time. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Hmmm. I kept it ordered by date within the sections. It just seemed like it was getting too long. I'll check the policy (can you provide a link?) and see if there's a better way to split up the article. DavidBailey 23:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

After quite a bit of discussion at various places, it became generally agreed that sorting by editor-created subject headings on pages for people had far too many complications and potential abuses, and this was reflected in the recommended layouts provided at Wikiquote:Templates#Quotes_by_people where it is specified general quotes should be arranged chronologically (though these don't actually specify the arrangement for sections devoted to works should be chronological). I am not sure whether or not a general statement rejecting subject headings was ever actually ever formally declared on any policy pages, but it was clearly the majority decision on the matter, and has been the general practice ever since. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've looked at some other notable pages, and it looks like the convention is splitting it up by sections of their life. I'll try to put together a timeline and do this for the Mitt Romney article. Thanks for the heads up. DavidBailey 23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this layout? DavidBailey 00:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I was actually about to comment on your talk page, when I noticed your note here — it looks very good, and seems to conform to such formatting as has begun to be used on pages for various politicians. Thanks for the work! ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, good work.

In general, I mean. You are a great asset to this project, and I appreciate your contributions. BD2412 T 01:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I have much reduced the time I spend checking in on things here lately, but I still intend to be around at least a little a few times a week, and continue doing what work I can, within the time I have available. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism... again...

This appears to be another apparent sockpuppet of the slew of vandalism connected to the user name... User:MuchoSemen13. The same person keeps creating incessant vandalism, following around contributions and either reverting them at random or just plain vandalizing with different user names. I've found another recent sockpuppet vandalizing the same articles. Please check Black Frieza. All the same exact edits as the person pointed above, all the same places, same reverting vandalism. Please look at how the same person is reverting all the same material using different usernames, causing vandalism on the same places. Please look after these specific articles for me and if necessary, protect them from recently joined users in order to avoid vandalism; please help me maintain and sustain resourceful articles while avoiding vandalism from this same person. - Zarbon 01:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I try to revert what obvious vandalism I notice, where this is possible, but no longer have the tools to stop it or prevent it which I once did, so notifying me is of not much use at this point. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes for deletion

The VFD pages known as Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sarey Savy and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Pending deletions needs to be closed by now. Both VFD pages are passed their VFD voting time like Sarey Savy is passed January 24 and the Pending Deletions category is passed January 23 and everyone picked a clear delete on both VFD pages.(StarWarsFanBoy 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

As I am no longer an admin here, I no longer have the option to delete pages (and was rarely very active with VfD concerns even when I did), so notifying me of the matter is of little worth. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Huey Newton

The quotes I removed from this article are quotes from a characterization of Newton in a one-man play. It's not clear that they're being presented as things he actually said, any more than Denzel Washington's lines in Malcolm X were actual Malcolm X quotes. 24.22.157.251 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these are not likely direct quotes, and have now moved these into the "Quotes about" section, with comment that they are from a portrayal of Newton. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Achilles, a multiple account of Kalki is now blocked

This section, or most of it, was originally posted to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard‎‎, but is retained here for easier reference and archival purposes.

For your information, I blocked user:Achilles, identified as Kalki's multiple account, since it became again active. The last IP address used isn't blocked, unless incidentally blocked, so Kalki can continue to edit.

In my understandings we have reached editing through massive multiple accounts is a no on this community. The block aims to enforce it, but I am open to discuss and would like to make it sure that it is our consensus now. So instead of blocking all accounts, I'd rather invite the community to discuss it. (Better on WQ:VP? I'm not sure).

Cheers, --Aphaia 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the blocks you did Aphaia and besides those sockpuppets did nothing but do editing that is not following our Manual of Style.(StarWarsFanBoy 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

I assert that this is once again, an arrogant ABUSE of powers and abilities that have been provided by status, to silence and diminish the rights of myself and others to artistic expressions on this project and others. I just checked in here, noted a few pieces of vandalism, and then noticed this further insult to my dignity and to the dignity of human Liberty, which has always been one of the founding principles at work on the wikimedia projects. This block of my Achilles (talk · contributions) account, is once again an arrogant presumption of IMPOSING a policy that does NOT exist, but which perhaps a few people believe should, and expect that others will not object with enough numbers or vigor to successfully oppose. I request an immediate UNBLOCK of this account. I assert once again, that to my knowledge, there has been NO clearly improper activity by that account, nor deliberately improper activity on ANY of my accounts. There have been questions and accusations raised by people long aware of and hostile to my use of them, which resulted in a successful stripping of my admin and bureaucrat status here, to which I made no further objections, as I plainly did not have enough support because of the accusations made and the suspicions created. Determinations of what policies should be in regard to multiple accounts have NOT been made, and this simply is ANOTHER example of the injustice which can be made by people overly presumptive of what their particular status on the wikis gives them the right to demand others do or not do. Many very improper assumptions have been made regarding my motives and aims, and my disappointment in many aspects of the character and moral integrity of many of my fellow editors continues. I have since the events of November and December become far more busy with other projects than I have been here, as both my usefulness and enthusiasm for activities here have subsequently diminished, but I certainly have no intentions to abandon activities here, nor to do anything here other than work as a devoted advocate of many forms of human virtues, such as humility, courage, honesty and compassion — of which there remains far too extreme a deficit in far too many people. My guises have all been fair and honest guises — I certainly am NOT claiming to be the Achilles of old myths and legends by my use of the name — simply a person who can admire many of the ideals this hero represented, as well as a person who like him, can recognize many of my own weaknesses and flaws — and all too many of those of others as well. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have LONG sought to use many names in many places as a way of promoting many admirable human ideals, NOT as a way of promoting myself personally — despite the efforts of some to find out more facts about me than I have been willing to provide, or to publish such facts about my activities as I would have preferred remain obscure to most. My use of multiple names here has been something of a long time minor "hobby" of sorts, as in the earliest years here there had developed few objections to such activities, and though this ability has plainly been misused and abused by vandals and trolls, taking away such abilities from people intent on using various names for making responsible edits does not actually do much to impede the most persistent and prolific of vandals or trolls at all. I might be accused of being a rather eccentric name-grabber — but I assert that I stand in steadfast defiance of power-grabbers and mere status-grabbers who seek to diminish and constrain the proper rights and freedoms of others, by gradual or blatant denial of others the rights to do anything their limited imaginations or aims cannot conceive of being in any way good. I assert I have always had good intentions and continue to have good intentions — but I do not seek to deny or disguise the fact that I can be irritated and angered when people presume it their right to dictate to others such policies or demands as actually exceed their proper authority, and I assert that once again this IS occurring. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions), using my account as Taliesin 07:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Kalki, that is the most selfish bloated pieces of self-posturing I have seen in a long time. Coupled with a quite slanderous and egregious attack, unsupported by a shred of evidence, seemingly based on the point that you don't like it.

The community has already addressed this matter to you through the decision to desysop you. You lectured the community then, you seem to be lecturing us again, and it does not seem that you wish to listen to what is being said to you in that the community does not wish for it to either occur or to continue.

The issue of accounts is valid to the whole of the WMF community as global accounts are the means to login to the system, and it has been clearly indicated that sockpuppets are not encouraged, and if there is a specific requirement then the user should look to indicate their use. You have hundreds of accounts, and maybe it is the time where you listen and act as the community has indicated their preference. You have to stop thinking that this is all about you, and your wishes, that is quite an arrogance. Do you really want this to be escalated bigger and broader through WMF?

It is quite preposterous that the community is here to support your whims, your multiple accounts, and now your facile baseless and false accusations. I care not about any information about you, I have already seen quite enough of your apparently puerile and selfish misbehaviour. Billinghurst 14:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am defiant of the implicit insults upon me and the quite explicit attacks upon my own and everyone's proper freedom to use their imaginations in finding ways to help others find the learning of significant truths interesting. Once again a few people seem inclined to speak as if THEY and their presumptive judgments clearly represented the will of the whole community, and my behavior was clearly and irrefutably "misbehavior" because it defies such presumptions and expectations. I once again have just stepped in to check on things, and presently have only a brief time — but the issue on any limits on multiple names has NOT been clearly and separately addressed as Aphaia and the above user seem to presume it to be, neither here nor on the Wikimedia projects as a whole. Many people clearly DO seek to discourage such activity as my own with greater restrictions than currently exist, or to feel entirely free to ACT as if they already DO, for various reasons; but many people do NOT, also for various reasons, which might be far less extensive than my own, but are still rather strong and legitimate reasons.
I am reminded of todays QOTD: "The people who have sufficient passion for the truth to give the truth a chance to prevail, if it runs counter to their bias, are in a minority. How important is this "minority?" It is difficult to say at this point, for, at the present time their influence on governmental decisions is not perceptible. ~ Leó Szilárd
No matter what might be assumed by a few, the clear truth is that ONLY the issue of the doubts and lack of confidence about the worth of my motives and aims have been addressed by the few votes which were required to succeeded in desysoping me in November and December. This occurred by the revelations in November that I had long defied the expectations of many and presumptuous demands made by a few people, and continue to do so, because I consider it not only my right — but my moral DUTY. Those who are currently objecting to my continued use of other accounts are probably quite aware that getting the votes to actually impose such a policy as they seem to be seeking to ESTABLISH by PRESUMPTIONS of their supposed RIGHT to do so would be far more difficult thing to get done than that vote actually was, because it would involve OVERTURNING long established policies — policies that existed since the earliest years of the wikis. A proper addressing of the issue clearly and reasonably prior to identifying me as someone defiant of the attempts to CREATE or IMPOSE restrictions that were DICTATED by a few people would have been far more appropriate, and I would then have felt it necessary to abide by any decisions eventually reached, but such action was NOT taken, and only my decreased interest in working on this site has diminished my activities editing here, either as Kalki, or by any of my other available names. I happened to edit as my long used and well used and CLEARLY identified Achilles account on a whim yesterday, from another browser than I usually used, and I discovered that this was once again being presumed to be improper behavior, when the use of alternate accounts, either identified or NON-identified is NOT forbidden behavior, so far as I know on ANY Wikimedia project. Diminishing the freedoms of use, and creating of NEW restrictions on users rights and privileges, and the implicit or explicit demand that people must conform their activity and comply with the will of others solely by the whims of others, be they admins, bureaucrats or any other representatives of the established rules of the community is something that I clearly oppose. THAT is the arrogation of authority that I rejected in the past, when I was a long established admin, and once again reject now, after my defiance cost me much of my prestige and all of my official status here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions), using my account as Taliesin 12:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh what a load of drivel to try and justify your position without listening to valid concerns, around some loose convention that existed at a point of time, and has no regard to the development of the wiki and its systems. There is a very clear principle in all that surrounds user accounts, and sockpuppets. That the rule and procedure allows variation, you take that and abuse the overarching principle, rather than appreciate it in a true and honest context of its definition. Your constant bleatings about you, and your whimsical dismissing and belittling of any other opinions and concerns is getting ugly. I keep hearing the quote of my long deceased father, "While you can baffle them with bullshit some of the time, it is still bullshit." Billinghurst 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From the above conversation, I'm at a loss to figure out what Kalki did with his sock accounts to merit their being blocked. Wikipedia actually has a section in its policy on sockpuppetry outlining "Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts" and "Legitimate uses of alternate accounts", and while Kalki's past use at least may have been a bit extreme in the number of accounts, he has done nothing to fall under the "Inappropriate" header. That may not be our policy here, exactly, but I simply see no reason why Kalki, no longer an administrator, can not make positive contributions under whatever name he wishes. BD2412 T 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two concerns on my side: 1) Kalki's way to create a massive number of accounts waste checkusers time for years. As noted, it was 20072008 we faced this concern first. His way of making socks and setting up userpages are quite similar with vandals who make sleepers and then begin to attack the projects, so we need to investigate those accounts. It is simply a waste of time, and I don't think his contributions, even if I appreciate it greatly, deserves waste of times of volunteers in this manner. 2) Since we left his accounts unblocked for a while, other banned users with socks think now our project welcome this manner and try to lift up their block. This came to me from Poetlister in an inappropriate way (no indicated way, that is, through OTRS, but a private mail asking it secret from the other admin). Please note contributions to this project from this guy were not vandalism per se and the Poetguy might take our patience now an allowance of restart of his own sock farm building. I think it was no first time I say, but piling up socks in this manner (over 200 now) is simply a disruptive action in my opinion. Also I think it as abuse of WMF resources (please note we cannot delete accounts). Regardless what kind of edits has been submitted with those accounts, creation of massive accounts by one person is an abuse the global community is concerned, hence need to suppress. --Aphaia 18:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by Aphaia (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well this is something I've held in for many years. Im sure many of the longtime admins here remember the Wazzawazzawaz attacks we experienced in 2006 and 2007 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. To sum it up for those of you that weren't here back in those days: there was a 3-4 month period where massive complicated trolling attacks that extended into Wikinews caused so much destruction and confusion that admins were distracted from things more important to the project NPOV etc. The attacks also targeted a trusted admin here Jeffq more often than not. You will notice however that they never focused around Kalki. I was advised by [User:Kalki|Kalki]] that he was behind the attacks over IRC in August of 2007. I never said anything about it because I figured it was over. Well, I was wrong. This is just something I had to let off my chest and I think it is for the better of the project that it is known. I'd rather not say who I am in the Wikiverse for obvious reasons. Good day ladies and gentlemen. Stayinganonfornow 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Kalki on this claim. BD2412 T 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

May I invite you to examine this [10] made just minutes ago by Wazzawazzawaz / Kalki. Isin't it strange that the Wazzawazzawaz account which had been inactive for years suddenly made this edit? Stayinganonfornow 04:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That could just as easily be you. I'd like to hear from Kalki. BD2412 T 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that I am the Wazzawazzawaz vandal, just to go inactive for over 4 years and suddenly return during the recent events regarding Kalki? You have got to be kidding me. I would not be suprised if you are not just another of Kalkis sockpuppets. Stayinganonfornow 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I also find it suspicious BD2412 T that your account was created in and around the same time frame as the Wazz vandals. I'm willing to submit to a check user to prove my innocence. The question is are you? Stayinganonfornow 04:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I already did so when I sought adminship here. Mike Godwin knows my real identity, and can vouch for me. Please note, I have made over 300,000 constructive edits to various Wikimedia projects (and a full-time job). I don't have time to be anyone but me. Cheers and as a note for future reference FUCK OFF! BD2412 T 05:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how cursing helps your case at all? And how is this constructive? Stayinganonfornow 05:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow..now you just reverted a vandalish edit you made using one of your sock puppets. However, you accidentally did it using your BD2412 T account. Funny how the small mistakes out you in the end isin't it? Stayinganonfornow 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I ran checks and concluded Stayinganonfornow (talk · contributions) is identical with some other accounts including Wazzawazzawaz (talk · contributions). They are hardblocked. The IP address used is assigned to an educational institute so it may be soften, but currently no other person seems to be affected. --Aphaia 07:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note this user and his/her socks have been blocked on a number of other wikis also where they have made attempts at harassing Kalki. Tiptoety ^talk 08:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A gnat can sting a lion or a horse or a human— but it remains a gnat, and the lion remains a lion, the horse a horse and the human a human, but those humans who take delight in doing evil make themselves into something more loathsome, paltry and repellent to the wise than any mere insect could ever be.

Our lives and the worlds of our experience are necessarily full of ambiguity, paradox and clear contradictions between many of the various impressions we mortals can have.

I do believe that there are absolutely reliable rules and forms of enlightenment which my own mind and other's minds can perceive and recognize, many aspects of which can never be absolutely and incorruptibly expressed by any mortal means, but there are many ways of expressing or indicating them which can be useful or adequate within a wide range of circumstances.

To limit others in ways that are not clearly necessary not only prevents many forms of beauty and benevolence from arising — but often limits the vigor of responses one can make to various forms of ugliness, malice, evil, and ignorant indifference to the harm that is done to many.

I can state that that the very obvious troll and vandal has definitely lied in some of his or her declarations, including the claim that I engaged in any sort of conversation with anyone claiming to be a supporter of or participant in such forms of idiocy as are commonly engaged in by vandals and trolls.

I have long been aware that providing more facts than it is necessary to reveal to the most corrupted and malicious of minds is usually a very dangerous practice, which provides them many means to distort the appearances of facts to serve their own devious and demented aims and inclinations. This is was one of the reasons why I was alarmed a few months ago when many facts about me and my activities were made openly available to many forms of idiot, and why despite some desire to clarify matters to those who are primarily fair and benevolent I generally refrain in engaging in too much open discussion with people who I perceive to be plainly deluded in some very clear ways. To the extent that I can, I will persist in various attempts at making many of the wisest expressions of the many of the best and least deluded minds more accessible to others, through this particular project and by other means.

I am hoping to make many things far more clear about my actual actions, motives and inclinations in the coming months — but I certainly do not intend to respond so fully and vigorously as I could to all the accusations, foolish impressions and other forms of nonsense of all the wanton trolls, vandals, or other forms of idiot which I encounter here or elsewhere. Nor will I commit myself to always, nor even usually, giving explicit encouragement and support to all the forms of wise expressions or actions which might occur in the course of events, though I am far more inclined to do that, when I have the time and opportunity to do so. There are far more important things that demand my attention and focus than those things which go on here, and some of the fiercest storms of other people's confusions which I have encountered in these wikis are merely mild tempests in a tepid teapot compared to the actual dangers, hardships, fates and dooms which I have sometimes faced in my life, and continue to face.

I seek to make or help others to make many clear and impressive revelations of many vitally important truths, so vigorously as I can. I myself am quite aware that there is a truly vital need for many more revelations of facts and Truth than I myself could ever make, and that those most interested in revealing universally important truths, rather than merely perniciously promoting awareness or belief in those few facts, errors or outright lies which most serve ones personal or partisan agenda, are those who are most worthy of the support of myself and others. Those who seek either prestige, comfort or simple notoriety through the harming or constraining of others in unjust or unnecessary ways are those who engage in such behavior as I often find to be extremely contemptible. That does not mean that I find these people totally contemptible, nor even that I cannot see that their behavior can seem to have reasons that seem valid and justified to them — often I can clearly perceive that it does — even though it is usually not such reason as I myself could agree with or accept as valid. I will usually attempt to make many vitally important truths as clear as possible to others, even those I find most contemptible, so that truths can be built upon rather than immediately and boldly seek to confront and destroy many of their worst delusions head on. This is not always possible, but it is a general tendency with me, and I often mourn and sorrow when more suffering and damage than might have been absolutely necessary occurs to anyone, even many of my most vicious or obstinate opponents. People who are so deeply deluded that they regularly take intense delight in causing others harm and distress cannot usually recognize how pathetic and paltry their aims seem to the wisest of people. But some, detecting that the nobility of others might make their forms of worth seem miniscule in comparison, often seek ways to make those who are most magnanimous and noble seem in some ways lesser than themselves, and take delight in any harm or pain which they can cause.

To extend upon a few long used metaphors: A gnat can sting and irritate a lion or a horse or a human— but it remains a gnat, and the lion remains a lion, the horse a horse and the human a human, but those humans who take delight in doing evil make themselves into something more loathsome, paltry and repellent to the wise than any mere insect could ever be.

This is a very brief summary of some of my thoughts and some of the strongest forms of my personal inclinations. I know that I do not and cannot always succeed in conveying awareness of all that I know or would like people to know through my own words or through other people's words, but I make efforts to be as helpful as I can, and only as hurtful to anyone, as I truly feel to be necessary in the service of fairness, truth and liberty. This is quite the opposite tendency which I detect in people who are inclined to misuse their abilities and freedoms to become trolls and vandals on the internet, and those who are inclined to be harsh and as brutal as possible to others, through whatever means are available to their paltry minds and wills, whether through very deceitful distortions of facts or through outright lies.

Our lives and the worlds of our experience are necessarily full of ambiguity, paradox and clear contradictions between many of the various impressions we mortals can have. Some deeply deluded and dangerous fools delight in outright lies, so long as they can distress, harm, embarrass or humiliate those they are for any reasons hostile to, or simply pathetically and apathetically indifferent towards. It is even more dangerous when they can seize upon a few facts to make their hostilities seem in any way rooted in truly valid and righteous motivations, rather many forms of personal envy, resentment, and jealousy. Far more common are those who have no existing wishes to maliciously lie or deceive — but who are willing to believe or pretend to believe many forms of malicious deceits and lies because they serve their personal vanity or selfish and partisan aims — and often, being far more numerous, capable and actually powerful, it is often these who are far more dangerous to human welfare.

I have long realized that the best ways to deal with many forms of noxious and obnoxious behavior as many engage in is rarely to make overly constraining rules about what can and cannot be done by any person or persons, but to make very clearly constrained, limited and conditional rules about what seems best within any set of circumstances, such as one has known or perceived to be possible, and to always be open to the fact that there ARE many conditions, circumstances within Reality and strategies by the malicious — and by the benevolent — such as one has not encountered nor even imagined to be possible. My experiences have taught me that the most devious and malicious of minds often have far more skill and ability to exploit established rules to their own aims than those of genuinely good will usually do. Thus I generally refrain from either creating or supporting any more rules about anything than I truly believe to be necessary, and to avoid treating any rule devisable or perceivable by mortal minds as an absolute one, including this one. I do believe that there are absolutely reliable rules and forms of enlightenment which my own mind and other's minds can perceive and recognize, many aspects of which can never be absolutely and incorruptibly expressed by any mortal means, but there are many ways of expressing or indicating them which can be useful or adequate within a wide range of circumstances. This sums up a few of the reasons I am so intensely devoted to the ideals of Justice, Truth and Liberty, — and of freedoms of all people absolutely constrained only by what is vitally true and necessary — and not merely what might seem convenient and useful to oneself or a few other people. To limit others in ways that are not clearly necessary not only prevents many forms of beauty and benevolence from arising — but often limits the vigor of responses one can make to various forms of ugliness, malice, evil, and ignorant indifference to the harm that is done to many. ~ 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HELLO

See THIS. Stayinganonfornow 05:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The above comment was made upon my talk page by an obvious vandal and troll, prior to my above responses to some of its activities, retained merely for easier reference ad archival reasons ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments below are comments which were posted to the linked section at the Wikipedia's Administrators noticeboard ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello all...assistance requested at Wikiquote!!!

Hello Wikipedia.Over at Wikiquote we have a severe problem going on regarding Kalki and BD2412. The evidence is pointing that they are Sockpuppets of each other. See This. We request input of Wikipedia users familliar with Kalki and BD2412 at the discussion here. I'm also writing to let you know preemptively in case there are any issues at Wikipedia in the future. Cheers! Stayinganonfornow (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note this account has been blocked as being a sock of a cross-wiki vandal who is harassing Kalki on Wikiquote. Tiptoety ^talk 06:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that. There are other socks, now also blocked - Alison ^❤ 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which account? I assume you're referring to User:Stayinganonfornow, but it isn't immediately obvious from context. --Zarel (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that one - Alison ^❤ 06:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I will state that BD2412 (talk · contributions) is definitely a person other than myself, NOT any alternate identity of mine, and someone whom, to my knowledge, I have never met or spoken to. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ ∞ ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

Galbraith Quote

• Thanks for that settling of the miss-atributted quote which was orginally in the sourced section under the reference "Money".. It drove me nuts(!)looking for it.. I don't know who you are but you sure have mental DEPTH!! In these troubled time Kalki take comfort in my new additions to theMarcus Aurelius quotes, I am sure they will give you a lift and a laugh...--Oracleofottawa 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been noting and appreciating your recent work on the Marcus Aurelius page — there was much I myself had wanted to add to it, but hadn't got around to, being busy with many other things. I have a growing backlog of things on my list to do here, but other concerns have a far greater pull on me right now. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh comment

You made a good reversion of the IP, and I complement your extensive work history for this project, but I thought I should mention that the quip in your edit summary ("liberal bias beats bias by asses any day") was inappropriate. You wouldn't want to give the impression that you are replacing one bias in the article with another - the goal for us to convey to new users is that Wikiquote is meant to be a neutral source of information. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge my fault in indulging that impulse — I frankly was in a state of agitation where I was getting a bit fed up with many forms of bias and bigotry I regularly encounter, whether it comes from "right" or "left" regions of the political spectra and partisan policies that people devise, and am getting tired of far too many directives or demands to pamper the sensibilities of either. I immediately had some regrets, recognizing that my snap comment might have seemed to improperly favor "liberal" bias — but I am someone who perceives asinine bias and presumptions at work among various groups normally labeled liberal as well as conservative — and have long been appalled at the shallowness evident in many people's thought-patterns in political matters. I will concede that such a comment as I made is usually not a wise or prudent thing to do, and not the most exemplary behavior I might have engaged in, but assert that I generally can and do see much of the good in most people and choose to emphasize that to the fullest extent I honorably can. I honestly do sometimes do get very weary of being extremely polite to the extremely obnoxious and presumptuous. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I know the frustration of dealing with single-minded tendentious editors, vandals and trolls. You did the right thing, I just thought I'd say something. It doesn't take much to make ideologues think they're being conspired against, and thus justified in their behavior. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

i jsut logged on,anyways, can you show me what i vandalized? just to be sure it was me. this is a shared computer.Bread Ninja 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Without some indication of what you might have edited while not logged in, there is not much I can specify — but you should be given notice that the IP would then be publicly associated with your logged in account, which is not always a desirable thing. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your user page touched me

Troll Alert! — the person who began this section has been revealed to be an obvious troll/vandal. ~ Kalki

It really did. You see you are a valued person. And that message of love, hope, peace, kindness, and joy touched me, You see it touched my heart. It made me smile. So Kalki, look up into the sky. Smile. And you will brighten the moon on a sunny day in a lovely forest where a great rainbow will descend from the East that will bring beauty and elegance from up above. Auburn1 07:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

:P

P :P :P. I gave you a tongue to give you a feeling :) Auburn1 08:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I generally refrain from engaging in discussions here unless I feel there is some need to do so — and despite the explosions of words that can then ensue, I am usually quite taciturn. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you love love? Auburn1 08:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

All people to some extent may be said to "love Love" — to even live at all — but I do not work here primarily to actively discuss such things myself here, but rather to provide greater access and potential for involvement in considering what thoughts and ideas others have expressed in their words. The Wikimedia projects are not discussion forums, but places to do productive and meaningful work, in collaboration with others, who have either allied, adversarial, irrelevant or indifferent intentions to one's own. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I find your words of wisdom to be very beautiful and full of passion, desire, and determination. Auburn1 08:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE  : It has become obvious, through other edits, that though full of overly saccharine and tender expressions such as cynics as well as the naïve are often prone to use, the above user, "Auburn1", (as I actually recognized to be very likely from the start), is merely some incarnation of a troll/vandal. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Kalki. I came here originally to tell you about the "troll postings" -- yes, this person has been blocked upwards of a thousand times on different wikis, and has been around since late 2005 -- but I got caught up reading your user page. It's beautiful and it is a fine reminder to deal with such things peacefully and in a way causing minimum harm. It's helpful sometimes to realize that the people that try to harass us may themselves suffer more than we even know, and sometimes they are just reaching out in the only way they know how. Anyway -- please keep up the good work -- from another user who has been around since 2004. Antandrus1 22:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Antandrus on en:)

Thanks for the comments. The trolls and vandals seem to be a bit more active here lately — but the damages they do to the projects eventually is removed... and the time they have wasted in being merely irritants and impediments to the work of others is primarily a burden on their own lives. Most people have far better things to turn their attention towards, most of the time. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

no, this person was not blocked 1000 times, true this person was blocked by antndrus many times but lately it gives me satisfaction when he loses his cool and blocks people, i almost died laughin when innocent get suspended wow there were many on april 09, i knew he'd come here, it was trap, it worked out well, who came causing problems. Adding info to bios, obviously is not what kalki is about, so you reverted info on hamlet, kindly show evidence where is vandalism, kalki you and antandrus are same type, i sensed that from the very beginning, thats why i was never nice to you unlike other users i had no problem dealing with. Simple fact that you revert things proves to me you want you own way, also you were asked to show evidence in some regards, where was it, you ran away? You are aware by breaking rules you could be reported to wikimedia board? Whats your problem? Dont you know I helped with many articles ingrate/s?

Anyways, start being more fair, assuming you ever were once, which i doubt!

—This unsigned comment is by 66.2.70.66 (talk • contribs) . & —This unsigned comment is by Poefan (talk • contribs) .

Your complaints and comments make little sense, and I doubt they were meant to be anything more than annoying taunts. I have far more important things to do than attend to all the trite troll droppngs you might care to leave, and I don't intend to waste much more time than I have to with them. Find something more rewarding and productive to do with your life than the pathetic pursuit of being an irritant to others. No one can entirely stop you from wasting your time doing such things — but it is your time and your life which you waste most of all. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

well at least you reply, but u did not reply to simple fact, where is source i asked for, dont try to avoid subject, you are aware thata one word i added is proper grammar or u dont as usual!

—This unsigned comment is by Poefan (talk • contribs) .

You, like many vandals, trolls and other idiots seem to take a pathetic pride in being able to disrupt the productive work of others. The only subject you consistently present is your willingness to be a nuisance and an irritant. Whatever IP or name you might have asked for "a source" for in justifying your inane additions is not entirely clear — though there were sources for the quote on one caption on the page of a recent reversion of your nonsense. I have much more important things to attend to now, that involve actually contributing to others potentials, rather than diminishing them. I hope you someday mature enough to do that. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

P. S. I doubt if you will actually do so, as your aim simply seems to be to irritate, but please sign your posts, so that other people don't have to. ~ 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

:) : —This unsigned comment is by Auburn1 (talk • contribs) .

well at least you pust :) this here, do you remember when were were done with mussolini reverts? Then evil entandrus came, after he reverted that page was blocked, glad it was, thats victory to me, i was pretty much done with my edits.

Keep in mind I have another account here since 07 & i never used it where i knew would create controversy,where i contributed 100s of wikiquotes, not just bios, i will never use it again, so it remains unblocked, but remember you lost millions of other quotes. For somebody who has no life Im shocked you replied!

—This unsigned comment is by 66.99.0.163 (talk • contribs) .

Despite the cliché phrase, which even I sometimes use, everyone has a life — and most indeed, have far more important things to do than waste time responding to persistent trolls, vandals and other forms of irritating idiots who attempt to command and demand the attention of others. You seem to be someone intent on using up much of your life in very poor and contemptible ways. For this you might be to some extent pitied, but your entire attitude and form of action presents people with little to respond to but the contemptible. This is truly pathetic, and I hope that someday soon you will realize this and do something of greater worth and significance with your time. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

YO!!! Your insultig comments do not deserve honor of my reply. The hitler quote was missing word needed in proper grammar, I asked u for source n nothin, of course. I must admit & I knew from the beginning, you command english lingo well & its sad u use it all in negativeway, but do u speak almost fluent hebrew & fluent polish (assumin keyboard has all foreign functions) as I do & then some? Heck no, so shut up! No wonder they took your administratorship away. Good!

No, im not using my time for trolling, Im using my time to open eyes of hypocrites like yourself! U r regular, don quixote, fictional dreamer impractical idealist!

—This unsigned comment is by 66.2.70.13 (talk • contribs) .

---

I expect to pass through this world but once. If, therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do any tellow human being let me do it now. Let me not defer or neglect it, for I will not pass this way again.
~ Quaker saying, usually attributed to Stephen Grellet ~

Those who have become enslaved to various forms of cynicism, stupidity and other forms of delusion often honestly believe that there are no higher or greater perspectives at work in the world than their own. Sometimes they even become so hostile to any assertion of worth other than those which they can easily appreciate or recognize, that they descend into bottomless pits of stupidity and the worst extremes of nihilism — the denial of any form of worth at all, other than those of transient convenience within various circles of delusion, and even accept or embrace some forms of authoritarian absurdities, out of mere convenience. I operate in this world with an intense and profound will to repudiate such delusions, as best I can, with assertions and indications of the truths of Love and the love of Truth.

Since early childhood I have been acutely aware that many people of lesser intelligence and imagination cannot perceive all the complexities of many circumstances which others can, and that the wisest must, often very sadly, accept this, and attend to doing what good they can among people not so mired in their own forms of arrogance, stupidity or other forms of limitation as to be unable to respect honorable perspectives other than their own. I hold that the wisest are those who are most willing to allow all to honestly indicate what seems to them to be most honorable and dishonorable paths of vital potential, to the fullest extent they can, within the necessary environments of existing imperatives and agreements.

This wiki project is one I have long considered admirable and entirely suitable to exposing people more to some of the greatest and wisest assertions of people throughout the ages, amidst many cultural traditions, without forbidding or denying exposure to many of the most notable of the most foolish as well.

I am not so ignorant and confused as to believe my own perspectives upon any matter are supreme, or unassailable, as many of those most willing and eager to improperly cast suspicions, accusations or labels upon others often do, as well as those who are most eager to improperly make rules and strictures for others to abjectly obey. There are forms of fraud and delusion so habitual, deeply engrained and pervasive that many don't even recognize them as frauds and delusions, serving them with intense enthusiasm, in ways that often mar the truly proper enthusiasms of those whose visions are clearer and whose wills are truly far more virtuously developed than their own. The wise can always accept the authority of clearly presented Truth — but they cannot accept the claims or presumptions of anyone who would declare that they have the final or supreme declarations of Truth — such forms of idiocy are usually quite obvious indications that they are quite willing to bow down to idols of their mind as are most suitable to their own appetites and desires — and insist that others do so as well.

I am certainly not so profoundly stupid to insist that anyone should ever unquestioningly follow or even worse, abjectly and unconditionally obey any other, based upon their presumed intelligence, wealth, power, official status, or other criteria which produce various forms of honor and prestige among human beings — and I am also not so profoundly stupid as to insist that anyone should ever be absolutely and totally ignored — even those apparently far more foolish and deluded than such vandals trolls and other idiots as we can normally encounter on the internet. But I am not inclined to spend too much of my time conversing with any of them, in ways that I would deem wasteful of opportunities to do things that are far more contributive to human society and rewarding of all that is truly honorable amidst the diverse ways of humanity.

ALWAYS be willing to learn much, as well as to teach what one can — the willingness to learn is one of the most important qualities of any competent teacher. This does NOT mean that one ever needs to surrender or abandon fundamental ethical principles — but it impels an intense repudiation and rejection of most forms of arrogance or cowardice, and it can mean that one's perspectives on what the most fundamental ethical principles are and how they should be indicated, expressed and exercised can often change quite drastically, within various situations. The wise understand such processes are a proper part of the liberty of life — while the most rigidly dogmatic consider any deviation or evolution beyond their own immediate understandings or developed habits, customs, fashions and appetites to be condemnable divergence or heresy, and thus, in forms of ignorance, confusion and sheer stupidity that can be both arrogant and cowardly, have made absolutist idols of that which seems to them most satisfactory, rather than humbly and courageously retaining them only as properly provisional gauges, ever to be related to the indications of the whole of Reality.

I have just briefly checked in, done a little work on a few pages, observed a few things, made a few statements elsewhere as well as here, and now must be attending to other things. I take seriously an ancient admonition to "Be passerby" — not too intensely involved in any one thing, idea or activity, but to proceed to appropriate levels of involvement in all that you encounter, seeking to do as much good as one can, and as little harm, as one's innate moral conscience impels one to. I recognize that those who have yet to greatly develop or reconcile their own rather fragile or minute consciences with the great imperatives of Reality's ultimate dictates will often be very discouraged at the apparent contradictions and confusion they encounter — but I point to many forms of the wisdom which has been expressed in this world, and to the fact that many very stable and admirable systems and perspectives have emerged from very small seeds of wisdom, amidst much confusion. The thing that is most needed in many is the will to study, observe and admire what clear beauty does exist in this world, and not be too attentive to all the apparent ugliness and evil will which many will insist are the primary things which people need to focus upon. While I would never seek to be so foolish as to deny they exist, and must often be dealt with very vigorously — I insist that the wisest are always focused upon the most beautiful of things they can be, and focus upon dealing with the most ugly and vile, only to the levels they believe are truly necessary.

These are just a few brief indications of my own attitudes, as a counter to some of those which have become evident lately, as well as a few others which I believe to be very foolish and appalling. May all the trolls, vandals and other idiots at work here, as well as the wisest of the well devoted, study and learn much, and strive to be more of a help and less of a detrimental irritant in people's lives. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Erdös

God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers. ~ Paul Erdős or Carl Pomerance

• Very nice.. Kalki, The Ullam spiral is pretty unknown by most everyone..--Oracleofottawa 01:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm quite pleased with the work I have been able to do on a few pages lately, especially the one on Paul Erdős — I saw it needed a little cleanup and thought it would be simple and short work to correct and source a few things there, before going on to a few of the more difficult tasks awaiting work here, but I ended up devoting quite a few hours to expanding it, and especially liked being able to include examples of the Ulam spiral. There are a few more pages I hope to be able to do much work on within the next month or two — but then I don't know how much time I will be able to spend here, because I expect to be much busier with many other concerns after that. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Serendipity

I've just seen that you have put a lot of effort in improving serendipity (the stub of which was, in turn, created by me) and i just want to say thanks for saving the article from deletion and kudos for an excellent work.--ArkinAardvark 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I always feel that it is better to actually be able to do work on adding to and improving pages worthy of inclusion than go around making or enforcing largely detrimental rules often designed primarily to needlessly limit or constrain what others can or cannot do. As I have indicated in the past I don't object to very useful and helpful rules arrived at by genuine and truly fair agreements, such as are truly necessary in nearly any social endeavor, but I have a deep and profound detestation of rules, regulations, or assumptions of the right to create them which are developed or enforced primarily to give people unjust and unwarranted command or control over other people in ways that amount to little more than improper and unjust indulgences of their personal or partisan lusts for power or illusory authority. I strongly believe that one can usually tell vandals, trolls and other forms of disruptive idiots at work by their actions — and when one cannot, one should generally refrain from actions oneself — and not become a vandal of the rights and responsibilities which are inherently necessary or useful for any human being to properly and effectively function as an autonomous being.

I much liked being able to find time to work on a few recent pages that were vastly in need of improvement, and hope to work on at least a few more within the next month or so. Unfortunately, I have much else that is keeping me busy with many other things I find far less enjoyable than working here, but I still expect to have time to do proportionally far more here than I have been able to for over a year, for perhaps a month or so yet. I just reviewed my contributions page to check on some of my recent work, and among the pages I have much enjoyed being able to work on have been:

Serendipity, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Libertarianism, Lance Armstrong, Wolfgang Pauli, Titian, Richard Francis Burton, Paul Erdős, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Henrik Ibsen, and William Morris (though I wasn't yet able to do all I would have liked on that page.)

I have also recently done relatively minor work on maintaining or improving Albert Einstein, Rudolf Rocker, Erich Fromm, Mansur Al-Hallaj, Maya Angelou, Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama and Karl Mannheim. Later today I hope to be able to finally getting around to working on the Meher Baba page — and within the next week or so I would like to do at least a little work on improving the pages for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Muhammad, Terence McKenna, Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Frost, as well as a few pages in need of very massive cleanup that will take a lot of work, and I had thus avoided tackling for some time. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Kalki, I certainly applaud your efforts to improve troubled pages and I have certainly been a long supporter of yours - as you will recall, I was one of the few voices supporting you when you came under attack and unfortunately lost your adminship. But I don't understand why you feel the need to constantly denigrate those that are only acting to support rules that have been arrived at through much discussion and consensus. I have no alternative but to feel that your pointed comments (such as written above) are directed at people like myself and I don't understand why you would continue to voice this opinion. While you may disagree with the actions that some took towards you (and I too disagreed with it), that doesn't mean that merely enforcing the rules that exist is some sort of power play or that is satisfies some deep-seated need to exert power over others. I would much rather direct my energies towards creating pages than towards removing them, but that is not always the reality that exists. Again, I applaud your efforts to improve or rescue pages - when I have the time, I try to do the same - but please refrain from castigating those who are doing nothing more than tagging pages that need such attention. Thanks. ~ UDScott 18:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly have never cared much for any rules that impel people towards any kind of unnecessarily destructive or restrictive actions, but I have not always had the time or ability to express and indicate that so much as I would like; when I do have the time, I often make use of the opportunity to make points that I know others might not like being made, but which I genuinely believe can be useful and instructive. I generally refrain from pointing out individual people or groups in criticizing behavior which I object to, and avoiding confrontation with delusions or errors that I don't perceive any harm in, but I am not inclined to remain entirely silent upon matters of some gravity merely so that people can remain comfortable in their various forms of error and delusion. I don't consider such to be an actual service to anyone — not even the deluded who might wish to remain complacent and comfortable in silencing or suppressing any form of dissent which they can. ~ 18:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see - as one of the "deluded" I guess I just don't know any better. Fine, I think I have a better understanding of you than I did before. I just don't see how you can make a judgment about me based merely on the fact that I am enforcing community rules, when my long history of actions (including many that you have agreed with and some that have outright supported you in times of strife) would seem to present a more balanced picture of me. Instead, you choose to use my actions as an admin to form your opinion of me. That's your right, but I would have expected different from you. So be it. ~ UDScott 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that I know many people object to certain words, because they are so often used by so many in ways that are intended to absolutely and profoundly condemn people rather than merely being honestly descriptive of what might be their present or potential states of being. I am quite comfortable in often calling myself a fool, and even an idiot, in many ways — and acknowledging that in many ways I have been, and probably remain deluded about many things, including the ability of most people to perceive and appreciate many of the aspects of others perspectives. I have always been scrupulously honest, in ways others have often found surprising, and I am becoming a bit more comfortable in speaking with candor about many things about which I previously had preferred to remain silent, but I have always recognized that there are major impediments in expressing things with words, even in face to face speech with others — let alone in written form where one's general disposition and attitude of genuinely liking people, even some of the most deluded of fools, cannot be adequately conveyed. I do not consider anyone primarily an idiot — and I actually appreciate most people, even my adversaries, in far more favorable ways than I believe most are capable of appreciating their dearest allies and friends. But I don't want to expand upon my own attitudes and ideas too much at this time — merely to continue working on some of the pages here which need much work. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Do you need any revert help you seem stressed ~ YukiLuvzbou 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Help in reverting and preventing the work done by trolls, vandals and other forms of idiot is always welcome, save by those who embrace some forms of idiocy themselves. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Happy Easter Kalki, I know that you know what it is really all about...--Oracleofottawa 05:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I plan to be very busy both here and elsewhere for the next day or two, so I thought I would get started with a few things here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Worldsong

I have been able to devote a few larger blocks of time to things here lately than I had for quite some time — and I hope to be able to do so for much of the next week or two, but beyond that I expect I might be far busier than I have recently with many other things. I actually expect to be very busy for another few days with other matters, but between bouts of dealing with those, I still expect to be able to put in some good stretches of time here. I am glad I have finally begun my Worldsong page, because it is a concept I had in mind long before this site ever even existed. I allowed many other considerations and tasks to take priority over working on it for quite some time, but now that it exists, I expect to gradually add to it over several months, simply skimming some of the crème de la crème of expressions I am familiar with onto it, as I go about with other tasks here and on my computer. I intend to have a very extensive sampling of the wit and wisdom of the ages on it eventually, and already, despite being merely in its initial stages, it is one of the pages I am most happy to work on when I can, as a way of potentially introducing more people to a wide diversity of expressions which have far more scope, profundity and good humour than most people normally expose themselves to. I haven't been able to do much on it today, and have a few other things which will probably keep me busy, but it is a page I can work on easily, a few sections at a time, and within a month or so I hope to have many of the expressions I consider most profoundly wise, witty or simply amusing upon it. I do intend to keep it as one page though, so eventually it will grow very long … but worth an occasional glance during my days, just to remind myself of the wisdom and worth that does exist in this world. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Go Kalki!!...--Oracleofottawa 03:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement — I have already gathered quite a lot onto the page, and like how it has been shaping up, but there is much more to do, on it and on many other pages, and I hope they all can be helpful in introducing people to a broader range of ideas, deeper insights, and more interesting views upon many things than they normally encounter. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Psi

Regarding the ongoing deletion discussion, would you be amenable to this being merged into our existing entry on Fraternities and sororities? Cheers! BD2412 T 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A new message for idiots

Discontent with the insufficiency and even irrelevance of some of the standard messages available for posting on user pages in response to vandalism, trolling and other forms of idiocy, I have come up with this statement, which is one such as I might use more of in the future.

This IP address or username appears to have been used by such an idiot as takes pathetic delight in vandalizing pages of a wiki, and thus someone oblivious, ignorant or even in denial and opposition to some essential truths of Reality. May all such idiots eventually be healed of their time and life wasting delusions, and all the worst forms of idiocy with which they are afflicted soon be diminished by greater levels of awareness and sense of vitally important truths, with the help of people honest and compassionate enough to humbly and courageously declare their particular forms of idiocy to actually be idiocies, and not charming or admirable ones at all — save to people in various states of extreme idiocy. This message is not meant as an insult to anyone's intelligence, but an indication that I suspect they might actually have more intelligence than they have thus far exhibited in their actions. I send my blessings, fools. ~ A fool called Kalki

I can recognize that some people might not be pleased by my use of the term idiot or fool, in regard to themselves or others, but I am a very honest person, and though I might be silent upon matters long, when I declare something I try to be as effective as I can in communicating some of the most vitally important truths I can, and the terms idiot, idiocy and delusions are ones I find entirely appropriate to manifestation of some forms of action and will. I have never attempted to deny that I myself might often be perceived to be some kind of idiot or fool — but I am not ashamed of being an idiot who is not actually intent on needlessly hurting people or their abilities to do good for others in this world — when their are so many people who are, and are often such idiots that they are even proud of that fact. This will serve as a brief summation of an attitude which I commonly manifest. ~ A fool called Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have hit upon a final revision of the above that suits my inclinations:

This IP address or username appears to have been used by such an idiot as takes pathetic delight in vandalizing pages of a wiki, and thus someone oblivious, ignorant or even in denial and opposition to some essential truths of Reality. May all such idiots eventually be healed of their time-and-life-wasting delusions, and may all the worst forms of idiocy with which they are afflicted come to be diminished by greater levels of awareness of vitally important truths, through the help of people honest and compassionate enough to humbly and courageously declare their particular forms of idiocy to actually be idiocies, and not charming or admirable ones at all — save to people in various states of extreme idiocy. This message is not intended to be an insult to anyone's intelligence, but rather an indication that I suspect some people might actually have more intelligence and capacity for wisdom than they have thus far exhibited in their actions, and to give notice that if anyone wants to experiment responsibly, they can use the sandbox.

Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
Adding patent nonsense to Wikiquote is considered vandalism. When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in their usernames or IP addresses being blocked from editing.
With such honest declarations I am resolved to send what blessings I can, even to some of the more irritating of fools. ~ A fool called Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kalki

When you respond I'll tell you why I'm messaging you. I love me! 00:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have waited 20 minutes. I'm impatient. Anyways you know how you always talk about idiots? Well about a month ago I constantly vandalized your page. I was one of those idiots. I annoyed you and harrased this wiki. Well I've come to the realiztion that being a vandal does nothing. So I've reformed my activities. I've decided to fightthe cancer of vandalism. I will never be a vandala agin and I will protect these Wikis from the vandals. And btw, Im sorry for what I did to you. Please forgive me, for you are a great member of this community. I personally look up to you! I love me! 01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I truly have been occupied with other matters, and was not inclined to respond immediately at any rate, but now am back. One can hope that you are sincere, but whether you are or are not, you can hardly expect immediate trust, nor even the development of strong trust that is not founded upon demonstrated actions and resolute persistence within an admirable range of attitudes. I have worked for many years on this project with both extraordinary candor and discretion, and expect others to be capable of the same, even when they do not show so much of it as one might wish.
Because I did not conform to what I honestly and sincerely considered to be the entirely unjust and inappropriate expectations and demands of a few, I was penalized. I accepted what penalties circumstances demanded, and continue to optimize the use of my time to the extent I can, to develop this worthy project and others, so much as I can.
Even so, I don't expect a great deal of gratitude or trust from most people, but I do tend to trust that most people can see beyond the ruses and rules that are commonly deployed by the most naive, ignorant, or cleverly manipulative idiots to improperly and maliciously misguide or even control others. Where people plainly fail to develop such cognitive capacities — or even to honor them where they plainly are developed, I can be rather disappointed, and choose not to refrain from such harsh language and terms as might cause at least some of the fools I address directly from sinking deeper into contemptible forms of foolishness, or at least deter some others from being quite so foolish as to join them in their errors. I have never claimed, and do not seek to claim that I myself am without a capacity for error, foolishness and even some forms of deplorable idiocy — but at least I am not so much a fool as to condemn others for speaking sincerely and honestly. I believe this only encourages the most clever and deceitful of fools to find ways to hide, disguise or deny their animosity to the welfare and progress of others, arising from jealousy, envy, or a truly infantile sense of superiority over anyone whom they succeed in deceiving or manipulating in any way. I do not seek further discourse with you upon matters at this time, but I would like to see gradual proof of the worth of your words, in whatever manner they are ultimately to be valued. I will express my wish that this truly is in a positive and beneficial way, but I reserve my assessments, and now proceed on to other matters. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Much reduced presence here on most days

I had expected to be busier with other things in coming months, and already am having to attend to things which prevent me from spending so much time on the internet as I recently have. I will probably be out of contact with the internet most of the time for the next week or so, and perhaps much longer. Over the next few days, when I am online, I will be gathering up some files to work with on an offline computer when I have the time between other tasks, so that I can post them when I do get a chance to get online. I will have some internet access on most days, but probably not for very long on most of them, so I will get busy making selections for the QOTD for the rest of May which I will probably complete within the next few days, and perhaps even finish later today or tomorrow. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just back from some traveling, and just checking out the internet for more than location finding on my iphone for first time in a few days. Will probably be too busy to do very much work here for at least a few days or perhaps weeks. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

After an extensive period where my activities diminished opportunities to access the internet, I expect that at least the next two months and perhaps longer will provide a window of opportunity for me to be very active upon it. I do NOT expect my primary activity to take place here, but I do expect that there shall be at least several days in most weeks where I can spend perhaps a few hours here, and should be able to maintain more of a monitoring presence than I have done for several months now. I am already compiling a list of pages I wish to create or work on extensively within the next few weeks. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I probably will still have a chance to do some editing here most days, but many things have arisen which are likely to keep me extremely me busy for at least the next week — luckily I got some of the work I most wanted to do done here recently, but there is still much more I want to get to. I have perhaps a few hours to do a few things now, before I return to many other matters, and I will likely still be on the internet daily, and checking in on things when I can, even if I am not extensively active here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans-Georg Gadamer

Hello, Nice work on Hans-Georg Gadamer. I see you don't like "best known". Would you like to explain why it is so? (If so, do so!) N6n 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for the appreciation of the work there — I might do more within a week or so. In relation to the change from "best known for" to "most famous for" — I have sometimes altered intros with the all-too-common and casual use of this phrase, because it has long irritated me as a patently presumptive and usually patently false one: from nearly all the perspectives upon things which I can normally entertain, one cannot presume to state how anyone or anything is "best known" to another — especially in reference to often some rather trivial detail of their lives, or their supposed accomplishments or failures; and I found it especially intolerable in relation to a philosopher of language and hermeneutics like Gadamer. The greatest philosophers usually have a great deal of insight into what can and cannot be known, and how to express and indicate it in many ways — and I believe very few would argue that what is "best" is something casually or easily indicated or stated to most people. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, you are saying that while "most famous for" is, or least can be, objective (based on "popular perception"--which may even be for the wrong reasons), "best known for" is subjective. That there are degrees of understanding, and the "best known for" will be different for everybody. (And as such, if we still insist on using "best known for", we must ask for the opinion of the "best people" about this.) This is an excellent point! Thanks for the reply. N6n 04:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of your observations correspond well with my own, and others less so — but such is the case with all observation and expression between mortal minds. The wise are very acutely aware of this, and usually very reserved and constrained in their assessments, whereas the very foolish tend to casually generalize the most peculiar, and even sometimes the most invalid observations and assertions. I will probably have more to say on these matters later in the month, but though I have more time for internet work lately, my primary tasks and concerns to a great extent are elsewhere. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, have you read Albert Jay Nock's Memoirs of a Superfluous Man? Of the books I have read, it has the best commentary on "fools" (and many others things!). If you would take a suggestion from an anonymous, untested stranger (me): do read the book. Also, I must say that I felt refreshed by your writing style. I feel very constrained when writing generally. But your thoughts and sentences are sufficiently complex to allow me to write freely.

(Nitpicking: "casually generalize" should be "casually generalize to".)

I hope to be able to participate in a discussion with you. Good luck with your work! N6n 10:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have always been involved in reading many things, from many diverse social, scientific and spiritual perspectives, and continue to be involved in doing so, but though there was a long period many years ago where I voraciously read about a book a day thoroughly, as well as attending to many others studies, it is now very rare for me to do more than skim over books for their general ideas, seeking a few peculiar expressions of insight — not only because there is simply far too much available for me to examine and assimilate, but also so much which is in many ways repetitive and that I find I need not focus too intently upon.

Many anarchist and libertarian philosophers are of great interest to me because their general affinities of opposition to the overly constraining tendencies of many correspond well with my own, even if their particular opinions and assessments of many things might diverge from mine considerably. Nock is a person I find notable and under-appreciated in many ways (though most social and economic philosophers are), and I already expanded his page considerably from what it was last year, including some statements from that book. I doubt if I will have time to soon devote myself to thoroughly reading much of his work though, as many other things presently require my attention; but prompted by your suggestion, I have had time just now do a scan through the PDF downloaded from the Mises Institute for occurrences of "fool", read them, scanned through a couple other sections and added a couple more of his observations from that work to the page. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The best I've come to is two or three books every week for more than an year, almost cover-to-cover. Yet I have read too little, and know very little--sometimes it is overwhelming to see how much yet there is to learn, to even become a reasonable, leave alone respectable, man. (I am using "learn" here in the sense: to understand and improve myself.)

I often "skim" myself, but don't (yet) trust myself to do it well. But could it be that if one doesn't skim carefully, a new idea will appear to be the same as old?

"Never complain, never explain, never argue," he [Nock] often said, "and you will get more fun out of life."
... "Why, then," I asked him once as he was setting out on a lecture tour, "do you lecture? Why do you write?" His answer: "A fellow does what he has to do."

Frank Chodorov about Nock. [11] N6n 05:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I kept up a pace of about a book a day for about a year or so, and occasionally 2 a day, but I find that what I now must do is to search through much material for significant new nuances of insight or major variants on old ideas, and it is very rare for me to devote much time to any particular work, though I generally enjoy it when I can. There are a few works I do intend to read thoroughly within the next couple months, and I might add more of Nock to that growing list. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have read much, I guess Nock wouldn't have much to offer. He keeps on saying that his ideas are "obvious" and keeps quoting other people to express himself. I liked the Memoirs much as it presents a wise and honest person, a person I would like to see myself as! Nock understands it all, yet he is at peace! He quotes:
I have fought my fight, I have lived my life,
      I have drunk my share of wine;
From Trier to Köln there was never a knight
        Had a merrier life than mine.
                (Charles Kingsley)

N6n 14:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly am not knocking Nock — I find most of his assertions quite refreshing — and though in many ways many of his inclinations correspond to my own so closely that there might be thought little for me to gain in studying him, I would disagree with such conclusions, and assert he does offer inspiration and reminders of very important aspects of life. I like it when people quote much, for like Montaigne, and many others — quotes usually emphasize such observations as one finds valuable and important to share, which one might perceive very slight or very great need to qualify or develop with new expressions of one's own. I especially like some of those you have been adding to the articles, and your creation of the Konrad Lorenz page is also appreciated — I might do more on that one within a week or so myself. Its creation led to a bit of minor work on William Beebe — who is someone I had been meaning to seek more material on several times in the past, and I might get around to that soon. I also added a couple quotes by him to the Quote of the Day suggestions for July 29.

In the courses of my days I am always adapting to the moments with appreciation of the eternally important rather than merely the incidental and apparent — though I try not to be too disregardful of that either — for it often can be or become far more important than it might initially seem. And now I am going to attend to some of the QOTD selections I have been doing here for several years, trying to sort through the most significant of those quotes ranked highly to create some minor presentations of memorable worth to at least some of those who encounter them. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Inspirations and reminders" is correct, that is why I like to read "obvious" things.

Nock is not interested in political action or proposing cure for society's current ills. He says -- and I agree -- that the ideas he talks about are eternal. (However, this is not a further proposal for you to study Nock!)

Quotes are very important. Some of them incorporate ideas -- once coined, they are fit to be entered in a Dictionary! (e.g., "know thyself"). Often, we quote because others have already done the work to put the idea well, it is like not "reinventing the wheel". But, a thing said in one's own words looks "fresh", which is welcome too!

I like Montaigne too. N6n 05:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Dag Hammarskjöld is my favourite politician. My favourite quote from him is: Is life so wretched? Isn't it rather your hands which are too small — your vision which is muddled? You are the one who must grow up. N6n 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some problems with Quote of The Day system

1. If I don't understand something, how can I say whether it is "excellent" or "very good" or "good" or "acceptable" or "not acceptable"?
2. Don't-understand or don't-care should be assumed by default, when that quote is not voted for. Ranking something you don't understand is preposterous, and by not ranking you effectively rank it as "not-acceptable"! Similarly, you shouldn't be forced to rank something you don't care for. N6n 03:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly no one need rank all of the quotes and those not ranked by someone are tacitly assumed to be such as one cares about less, one way or another; if one truly finds problems with the clarity of a quote, that would generally be a reason for ranking it low, and perhaps stating such a reason for doing so, with indications of the need for clarifying context or such. I generally try to choose from among the quotes that have the highest averages or at least the clearly highest levels of positive interest rather than negative rankings, and with extremes such as 4 or 0 given particular weight, because 4 should be used by any participant, at most, only once per date per year, to indicate their top preference, and 0 only where it is sincerely felt that the quote has little or no merit for consideration as QOTD.. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not enable the Appel socks

Please do not enable the Appel socks, as you have done [12], at the page, Howard Zinn. The RFC at Village Pump is clearly against this [13]. Please do not do this again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ningauble's original actions were clearly restricted to removal of this author's material from the theme pages — and I recognized and fully approved the propriety of his actions in this regard, but to the extent he implied that there should be more extensive action taken in response to improper behavior on the part of someone I gave some very definite indications that I considered the material on the author's page itself was NOT something I thought we should be overly concerned with, and also that if established editors found something notable or quoteworthy to be added or retained elsewhere it should not be automatically forbidden, merely because of the source. Though quite willing to seem a fool to others for doing so, I have always been against what I consider the extreme foolishness of establishing too great a mandatory rigor in any policies or expressions of policies, when loose adaptable guidelines tempered by rational responses seem much more appropriate — and less instrumental in the building of cliques and gangs of people who suppose and even presume they have the right or duty to dictate to others what can or cannot be done — based upon their own will and presumptions, rather than clearly established group consensus. To say that there is a clearly developed group consensus for such extremes of action when those commenting after me did not take issue with my tempering comments is quite a leap of presumption.

You have also indulged in what I consider to be clearly overzealous behavior in removing quotes by Howard Zinn, simply because their origins were in an interview with this author, and I stated in restoring them, that I considered the Zinn quotes notable enough to be retained. I do not accept the argument that continually seems to be presented by a very few people that there should be an absolute standard of prior quotation used as one that is appropriate to the growth of this project, nor the actual worth of it as a wiki — where I believe the actual content should for the most part be freely extended, and continually determined by developed consensus and not by some overly restrictive rules established by a very few people, some of whom often seem far more active in making and enforcing such self-serving rules as they seek to create as if they were clear and necessary mandates, than in actively building anything in the project other than such rules. By the levels of participation in such matters, I think I can validly assume MOST people are NOT all that interested in developing many further mandatory restrictions here, and I for one remain adamantly opposed to establishing such over-reaching rules, rather than properly considerate and adaptable guidelines, which should never be treated as absolute mandates.

Going beyond what I believe had clearly developed as consensus you also removed quotes from the author's page for no clear reason that I can see beyond that they did not suit your particular tastes, and to including removal of a quote I found about as a notable as anything this author said, which had been included in the caption: "It is easy to let men alone when they do things our way. The test of a truly enlightened civilization is one that lets people alone, to pursue their own predilections, even when the majority of us prefer to live our lives very differently from theirs." I am NOT particularly interested in this author, and not favorably impressed with the behavior of accounts that have been promoting him, but I am also certainly not favorably impressed with behavior that I believe amounts to mere censorship, and service of one's own improper presumptions of authority to absolutely dictate to others what they can and cannot do on this wiki, without clearly developed group consensus on matters.

I had not responded immediately to your actions and posts, because when I noticed them I had been too busy with other matters, and when I had attended sufficiently to these, I actually was too weary to deal with the matter, because, quite frankly, I needed to rest and get some sleep, because I have had very little in the last several days; I now am awake, and though there is much more I wish to note I am only making a few brief comments before I must leave for at least a little while. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC) + revised and extended slightly ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered at Village Pump. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'Self-promotion' may look bad (to others), but that does not make it wrong. If a quote conforms to WQ standards, who inserted the quote, or what is being said, should not matter. (There would be little progress if people do not indulge in 'self-promotion', there would be just regurgitation of old ideas. It reminds me of a passionate essay by Claude Shannon lamenting that the literature of Communication theory is exploding, and pleading "please, no expositions, only original work".) N6n 07:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked for one week. Using sock account User:Crystal Blue Persuasion socking at Template:New pages, and disruptive editing and enabling of spam promo edits of socks of User:TRATTOOO. The combination together is just too much: 1) Using socks yourself to edit Wikiquote-process pages, a violation of w:WP:SOCK, and enabling socking behavior of another massive sock farm operated by someone else, as well - near on doing so at the same time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kalki, thanks for the work at Oliver Heaviside as User:Crystal Blue Persuasion. N6n 06:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update: Checkuser Aphaia has declined request at Village Pump by N6n (talk · contributions) to have Kalki unblocked. In a separate comment at Village Pump, Checkuser Aphaia has endorsed the block on the Kalki account. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just a note to say that I have checked in and my editing abilities have resumed. I currently have become far too busy with far too many other things of far greater importance than attempting to immediately address what I consider to have been the outrageous behavior of Cirt. I will probably do so quite thoroughly within the next week or so, perhaps beginning within a few days. For those of you who objected to the block, I thank you. I currently must attend to many other things I have become involved with. I will be back. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction : I tried to do a minor remedial edit to another page than this talkpage (apparently EVEN it had been blocked to prevent my editing prior to today, but I didn't realize that until I tried to edit earlier today) I currently remain blocked from editing any other page on this or any other wiki because of a wikimedia wide block Cirt placed on my current IP that is not set to expire until some time NEXT YEAR : 20:02, 13 October 2011. As I stated, I am far too busy with too many other things to deal with all the complications of this situation right now, but it would be somewhat considerate if someone would remove the ridiculous year-long block on my current IP address. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is because these IPs have been used to create massive sock farms across multiple Wikimedia project sites. -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have before asserted, having multiple accounts, primarily intended for innocuous and constructive edits does NOT constitute a violation of any current policy of which I am aware. ANY edits that may or may not be in technical violation of some current rules, or have the appearance of being so remain a matter of debate. Are you implying your outrageous attempt to silence me and prevent my editing here remain in place for an entire year unless I switch my IP to an address that I have not yet used, so that you can persist in what I consider to be your presumptive retaliation for daring to contend with you on an editorial issue? In all my years as an admin here I had been censured by a few only for the very few debatable issues that occurred years ago, and certainly my questionable behavior never rose to the massively arrogant and truly quite INFANTILE abuse of admin abilities that you have indulged in, in your one person pogrom. ~ Kalki 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not utilize such language comparing blocking of sockpuppets to the killing of people and genocide. -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am using the term in the broader original Russian sense of the word, as a violent rampage. I am a person quite aware of the malleability of language and rules devised as if words were not malleable by the crafty; it is one reason I place no faith in the absolute reliability words or declarations made with them, and determine my assessments of situations and circumstances primarily by activities, relationships and behavior patterns. Words can be very useful and even necessary to communicate many forms of truth, but they can also easily be twisted to make lies and outrageous distortions seem credible or even definitely true. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a global IP block or a local hard-block. It may be an autoblock resulting from the indefinite blocking of named sockpupets. Perhaps Cirt would like to clarify? See also WQ:AN#Local IP block exemption for User:Kalki. ~ Ningauble 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

Please be more careful when adding quotes. The ones you edited and added on David Irving were inaccurate. Thanks. --188.221.165.192 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Offer

If you strike out (using <s></s>) the offensive comments you have made above in this inappropriate comment, and agree to be restricted to one account, this one, Kalki, then I will make this account "IP block exempt", so you will be able to edit from this one account. Do you agree to these two requests? -- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

An appeal for you to consider the greater good of the Wikiquote community

Hi Kalki, I'm asking you to please consider the greater good of the Wikiquote community and other wikis where you edit. From reading your accounts user pages and your edits to articles, I have the impression that you have strong views about issues related to how to achieve goodness in a community. I believe that you honestly feel that your accounts are adding something good to Wikiquote. And while that it may be true that there is an element of goodness in the messages that you post with the accounts, the overall harm that comes from using the accounts overrides any benefit that comes from using them. This is especially true since the primary purpose of an user account pages is to relay pertinent information about the user behind the account. Since the primary purpose of your multiple accounts is to make user pages to aesthetically influence the community, and this is not a recognized reason for an exception to the one account per person that is expected cross wiki, then you need to find other ways to express your views to the community about these matters that are outside the main reason for editing wikiquote. I appeal to you, Kalki, to accept that your use of these many account is causing difficulty on site and agree to stop using them for the greater good of the community. You have loads of goodness to offer the Community with the work that you do. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

---

I am again editing from someone else's computer because of blocks I clearly consider to have been excessive and over-reactionary upon my own current IP address.

I had been doing many other things until just recently and just checked in and read your remarks. Your proposals and tone are among the most welcome that have been presented, though I still must disagree with the severity of constraints requested. Rather than persisting in acquiring more accounts without any special constraints, which I still believe should remain the general policy at the Wikimedia sites, I can consider agreeing to specially restricting ONLY myself to a very few of the clearly identified accounts, and perhaps a few others as yet not identified. If I were to create any new accounts, some of which I already have in mind because of names I have used or am intending to use elsewhere on the internet, I could agree to inform a specified checkuser, and to the extent it was deemed necessary or useful, the broader checkuser community could be informed. Also I could inform a checkuser if I knew of anyone using any of the computers at my regular locations of activity creating an account from these as well — clearly identifying these as NOT my own. There have been a few of these in the past, which I have not bothered to specify, because so far as I am aware, most have as yet seldom if ever been used.

Some of the vigor of my past reactions have been because of the ways in which proposals were presented as ultimatums which I held to actually exceed the proper authority of those involved in making them. When I actually bother to react to it beyond silent contempt, I quite often react with intense and principled shows of disdain when anyone presumes to use dictatorial commands and wanton force in socially unwarranted ways against those who appear to be differing in aims of objectives which others cannot immediately understand or appreciate.

I truly already have long had an extensive presence and plans for identities at other sites than those of WIkimedia, and I wish to be able to secure the use of some of these identities at all places, and not have impostors with foul intentions perhaps impersonating, imitating or emulating some of my identities elsewhere, ALL of which are created with motivations to provide positive contributions to various sites in various ways.

A few of the names I would like to use as clearly identified alternate accounts of Kalki are some I have already extensively used, or was planning to so use:

Rumour (talk · contributions)

The Doctor (talk · contributions)

Taliesin (talk · contributions)

Achilles (talk · contributions)

Touchstone (talk · contributions)

I of the Storm (talk · contributions)

There are probably a few more I would like to specify, but I don't have time at present to review the lists nor provide all my reasons for retaining some of these.

There are at least a few other names I use elsewhere I do not yet wish to widely publicize as others which I use or plan to use prominently, but I am willing to inform a checkuser of most of these, or perhaps even openly reveal a few of them within a few months, because with the revelations already made by others the associations would already be easily be made by some.

It is less of an immediate concern to me right now, but as is standard practice to prevent some forms of vandalism I would also like to be able to openly create alternate account names with slight variants of those I have used, but simply have these as dead unused accounts which redirect to the active account with similar names.

As a sincere and deeply devoted advocate of maximal Liberty in all social endeavors, I could openly and willingly agree to such restrictions upon myself — I do NOT wish the general relaxed directives favoring one account or just a few become actual mandates binding anyone else. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to specify that the user pages of the other alternate accounts — even if some of these remained blocked, should not merely have the rather presumptuously applied block notice upon them, but should retain many of the generally positive or humorous messages and quotes I had posted upon them, remaining reminders of the good in humanity, and indicators of much of my original intentions in using them, and not merely what I consider cynically presumptive testimonies to some of the most ill-willed interpretations of things possible. ~ Kalki 17:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop restoring sock pages

Kalki, please stop restoring content of sock pages, as you have done multiple times now, at [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. These are socks, that were created as part of your 200-plus massive sockfarm across multiple different Wikimedia sites. They are not userpages for your decorative purposes. They are tagged sockpages. Reverting back removed content and confusing other visitors to those sock pages with large amounts of coding is disruptive. Please, do not do this again, as it is quite disruptive and inappropriate in nature. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" ~ Joseph N. Welch to Joseph McCarthy

YOU, sir, are clearly exceeding both rational and official capacities of behavior, and are clearly passing into the realm of extremely contemptible and deliberate harassment, genuine disruption of efforts at honest and fair communication between others, and gross presumptions of human decency in your most imperious and dictatorial behavior. I have little more to say at this time, beyond the fact that I had been grateful that FloNIght had proposed a measure which I thought might mitigate any immediate need for a far more thorough confrontation of your tendencies towards contemptible aggression and pillaging of efforts to do more good than your apparently narrow bigoted little mind can comprehend, but I might have been mistaken. ~ Kalki 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalki, I apologize for Cirt's actions to the extent it was done in my name ("the community"). Someday I am going to learn how to deal with such primitive behaviours, and then I will start contributing to the world! N6n 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Main page QotD

Please note that the main page today, All Hallows 2010, is displaying last year's Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 1, 2009 instead of the current Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 1, 2010 because someone has altered {{Main Page Quote of the day}} and other components of QotD processing. To avoid disruption of the process, you will either need to adopt the new method (and complete its implementation) or to roll back the changes that were made. ~ Ningauble 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please revert the changes Cirt recently made to the Template:Main Page Quote of the day page so it doesn't display last year's misplaced page. I do not presently have sufficient editing privileges to take care of the matter. As you or someone else noted earlier in the month the changes he made to the templates seem to have NO clear positive affect or advantage, and I clearly perceive many detrimental effects to them which I had intended to note soon. I actually did not expect the changes made would actually have such effects as these so soon, but anticipated the changes would have to be reverted. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Y Done, as a quick fix pending further discussion at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day. ~ Ningauble 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Community sanction - Restricted to one account

You are restricted to one account, by result of community sanction determined after consensus from Wikiquote:Village pump discussion, and determined by Checkuser Jusjih (talk · contributions), here diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

IP block exempt

You have been granted IP-block-exempt. This means you can edit through IP blocks. This userrights status will be revoked, obviously, if you are blocked again in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, as it is clear you have taken every opportunity to insult me, defame me, block me any way you thought you plausibly could, whether for reasons that were actual legitimate or not, or could seem so to anyone beyond a cretinous level of logic who actually endeavored to examine the situations. It is very good that what should have been the WORST case BLOCK that might have reasonably been done weeks ago is finally settled upon. I will state I definitely intend to edit pages under NO other name than Kalki here — at any time, until such truths of the ABUSES of authority and abilities that have occurred are made clear as possible and it becomes the community consensus that NO such restrictions as I currently accept should remain upon me, or anyone else not engaged in deliberate vandalism, trolling or clearly malicious defamation. I do NOT expect immediate success in this, such are the prejudices and presumptions which are obviously manifest at the present time, but I do truly believe that there shall eventually be a comedy of redemption which shall occur to put an end to this tragic farce of foul minded distortions that as yet seems to prevail here and elsewhere. Let justice be done. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Cirt, no good deed goes unpunished. Tiptoety ^talk 04:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed — in deed. The only punishing I threaten anyone with is exposure of truth such as others would rather have remain obscured, hidden, denied, or erased. They have presented ONLY such truth and characterization as they would prefer to present in order to constrain or threaten me. This comes after I have been unjustly and improperly constrained from editing, after entering into an editorial dispute with a dictatorial imperious admin apparently aiming to intimidate and willing to extremely punish any overt dissent or opposition.

In a society of criminals … the innocent man goes to jail. ~ Philip K. Dick

If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. ~ Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451.

I remain intent on a very principled dissent, against many forms of intimidation, and eventual presentation of facts that shall reveal the unjust foulness of how many things have been portrayed, and largely accepted. ~ Kalki 05:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT by Cirt, to Tiptoey about this page and my activities:

re IP block exempt

Yeah, it seems even though I promoted him to IP-block-exempt, he still will not give up with his walls of text postings. He also appears to be compiling userspace-subpages as attack-pages - see "outrage" in title of one of them. Thoughts on what can be done about that behavior pattern? -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems my efforts to present such information as others find offensive — to defend myself against what I perceive to be blatant acts of hypocrisy, distortion and defamation, and to present my own opinions and perspectives with candor — to DEFEND my actions and perspectives — is something some would wish to characterize as merely creation of "attack pages" (by which they might further execrate and suppress free expression upon matters which I have a right to be passionately concerned). I have simply made efforts to arrange many significant commentaries in more cohesively or chronologically presented forms. Unlike some, I have long taken seriously such ideals as were indicated by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in the expression often misattributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
~ John Adams ~

Mean edit summary

Get Some: SgtMaj Sixta may speak in retardese but that does not forgive poor transcription <_ saw this is recent change log way do it do about it?

—This unsigned comment is by 71.204.179.150 (talk • contribs) .

There is much meanness in the world, in many forms. One observes it and goes on, attempting to do things that are neither mean nor pointless, to the fullest extent possible. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Revert Vandalism

"So shines a good deed in a weary world." Thank you. Riffroof 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to move your userspace subpage

Kalki, can you please remove "outrages of" from the title of your created userspace subpage, User:Kalki/Outrages of October - November 2010? The page will function just as fine if it is titled: "User:Kalki/October - November 2010." Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sure it would function quite fine in suppressing much potential interest in an honest discussion of opinions, prejudices and presumptions at work here. I find the title entirely appropriate. You might well chose to deem my behavior as outrageous or even more outrageous than I deem yours — as you found it appropriate to SUMMARILY block me entirely for a week after I entered into an edit dispute with you — something normally reserved for ONLY extremely outrageous behavior. You persisted in insisting that the blocks you placed on my IPs that prevented me from editing at home after that expired should not be removed — obviously necessary in your opinion to prevent further outrageous behavior on my part. Mea culpa — I confess — from your perspective it seems my candor and honesty MUST be outrageous — even as your behavior and attitude continues to seem outrageous to me. THUS the title is entirely appropriate — and time will tell who actually is considered to have acted most outrageously by other people, when all presentable facts are disclosed. SO IT GOES… ~ Kalki 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Baruch Spinoza

Thank you for your comments on contributions to Spinoza. I am currently editing/adding to Blaise Pascal, if interested. ELApro (talk) 5, November 2010

I had noticed, and much appreciate your continued efforts. You have certainly made major contributions. Thank you. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Idiot Alert"

Kalki, consensus at WQ:AN is that your use of "Idiot Alert" in such a manner, as you have done here [21], is inappropriate. Please, do not do this again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You once again seek to close consensus to your own advantage rather SUMMARILY, as is your wont, — immediately after I posted my first addition to the page upon which it was being discussed. I certainly have no intentions of alerting idiots too severely of their particular forms of idiocy at the present time, but am interested in hearing further commentary in response to mine before accepting your summary assessment as anything other than cravenly asinine presumption. Fondly for the sake of candor, I make brief response as the clearly asinine idiot known as Kalki. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you persist in this behavior pattern, example [22], you will be blocked from editing. -- Cirt (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The horrible behavior pattern you find so deplorable was a frank and honest assertion to a vandal who chose the monicker "Returning troll", to whom I stated:

In many ways you seem to be more contemptible than the idiots who have seen to it that I have no tools to effectively stop you from your rampage of idiocy, but actually you are beneath such contempt — you truly seem to be an idiot who exhibits little capacity to be less of an idiot than you are — and thus merely pathetic. May you one day come to greater appreciation of the importance of doing constructive, rather than destructive things with your time and your life. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As an idiot who is strong enough to withstand being treated as if I were merely an infantile imbecile by people I must sometimes regard as truly infantile idiots, for now, I will refrain from further suggesting such a thing to those whose infantile idiocies are so prominent as to seem nearly incurable. May you learn to bless all your fellow angels in what ever pits of ignorance and stupidity you must descend to find full welcome by the saints who can descend or ascend with ease, and may you be granted forgiveness and pardon for whatever transgressions of simple human decency you reasonably can be forgiven and pardoned. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reposting entire contents of sect from your user talk page to AN

Please do not repost entire contents of your user talk page to WQ:AN. There is no reason to do so. You can simply provide a link between the two. This takes up less space. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does take up less space but certainly allows people to remain far more ignorant and easily confused about the actual context of discussions, as crafty manipulators of people's opinions and prejudices often choose to specify such portions of a discussion as are most amenable to their own positions, and keep much else rather obscure. I tend to deplore such practices as cravenly deceitful. I recognize one cannot post massive posts in such a manner but shorter posts of a few paragraphs seem an appropriate provision for proper assessments of such an issue. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From your past behavior, you have not yet shown you are able to post succinctly, but thank you for not reposting this again. -- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

However much I might say, to the irritation of some, there is usually a great deal I leave unsaid, but I NEVER assume that my words or my "succinctness" should be absolutely accepted as the final or complete word on anything, as some people are prone to imply about many things. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Livingston Seagull?

The gulls who scorn perfection for the sake of travel go nowhere, slowly. Those who put aside travel for the sake of perfection go anywhere, instantly.

I am just back from a daily 11.7 mile bicycling excursion through the outskirts of 3 local towns and the center of one of them, and I have to note a little humorous incident which just occurred. As I was approaching home, immediately after I passed something of a hermit who does daily hikes in the region, I looked to my side and saw a lone seagull, perhaps flying roughly 100 meters in the sky above me, and as I had just worked on the Jonathan Livingston Seagull page earlier, I stopped and took special note of it as it flew in a slight circle, spinning around in the strong winds of the day, directly above me perhaps only 50m or less. As I am currently residing in New England this was no extraordinary incident, but as I resumed riding I looked up again into the sky, only about 3 or 4 seconds after glancing down, and the bird was nowhere to be seen — and I was between two fields and could see for miles around. I stopped again and carefully searched the sky for it, to no avail. I am assuming the strong wind caught it and it might have descended enough that it was hidden by trees at the edges of the fields, but the only visible thing in the air was a much higher jet and its contrail. The hermit had by this time nearly caught up with me on the other side of the road, and I took the opportunity to speak to him about the humor of the incident. Though I had nodded and politely greeted him in passing before, I believe it is probably the first time we had a conversation, though only a short one. He asserted "That what's they call Kismet", and I entirely agree.

I had thought I would probably have more time today to work here, but my plans for the next few weeks are in a state of rapid transformation. I expect that there will be a few days where I will have little time to do things here, but when I do have the time to be on the internet, doing things here will probably be one of the top priorities I attend to. I had been intending to do much work elsewhere, but I believe that Vox Box is a page which can eventually be very amusing and helpful to others, and I enjoy working on it and a few associated pages. I am likely to do much work on it soon, rather than on some other sites where I plan to eventually go into much further detail about my rather peculiar perspectives on many things. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This IP

I saw the comment you left for this IP on November 21st. I really have no stake in what you decide to do, but it's worth noting that this IP address covers all public Macintosh computers at New York University, so a number of these unconstructive edits come from multiple people. It also explains why there have been some occasional constructive edits. 216.165.95.66 02:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I had simply commented that based upon the records of disruption I would have expected the IP in question to have been blocked prior to the latest vandalism. The IP blocks, when placed according to normal procedures, usually begin with just a brief block of a week or two, and when I was active as an admin the generally recommended procedure was to never place blocks on Anonymous IPs for more than six months. In more recent times blocks of a year seems to have become a generally accepted procedure, and though some people seem eager to place indefinite durations on entire ranges of IP numbers, potentially affecting thousands of users, based upon any suspicion that these might possibly be used by someone who dissents from their will to be obeyed or declines to defer to their preferences, I personally don't know that this is actually official or even generally accepted policy or procedure. Unfortunately the mutually supportive roles of vandals of the wikis and vandals of human liberties and freedoms seem to be something which has taken hold of the dispositons of some people. I can recognize that this is a very sorry state of affairs, but unfortunately that seems to be the situation at present, and it is likely to remain such until many forms of human wisdom, rather than dehumanizing prejudices and presumptions are more widely recognized and revered. ~ Kalki 06:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rod Serling Sound Bite

Hello,

I just registered with Wikiquote, and I'm pretty much groping around in the dark here. I got your name from the Rod Serling history page. I have a sound bite of Rod Serling speaking the "The tools of conquest...prejudices can kill,... (etc.) from his The Twilight Zone episode “ The Monsters are Due on Maple Street”. My question is this: would it be acceptable (or even possible) to place this sound bite on his Page? Again, I'm brand spanking new here and need some guidance. Thanks. -- Michael David 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice cuneiform expression!

I like your taste in cuneiform expressions. I am just checking in briefly here, as many things are occupying my time, and noticed your message on my talk page. I am not normally highly attentive to the rules some people can contrive to regulate or misregulate things, but am inclined to believe that the sound bite could probably NOT be hosted by the Wikimedia commons, where all our media is hosted. You could probably provide a link to some third party site containing it though, especially if it were not an overly commercial site, or in any way commercial at all. I will probably be checking in here off and on for a few hours, but expect I will primarily be busy with other things for a few days yet. ~ Kalki 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. the cuneiform image you used above is also available in the normally preferable SVG format : File:Ama-gi.svg ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Kalki. I don't even remember where I got the Serling quote. It's not a part of any web-site or anything like that. It's a stand-alone file someone e-mailed me a while ago. I have a bunch of such orphan documents that contain quotes. I often ask persons I work with to send me their favorite quotes. It's always interesting the ones they send. Thanks, again. -- Michael David 23:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Bold

Regarding "since the very earliest days of this wiki BOLDING has been accepted as a means of presentation and emphasis, & as encouraged as much as the use of one's own intelligence in the act of selecting quote…)", please provide evidence to support your statement. The edit I made was based on Wikiquote:Manual of style so I was puzzled to see your response and revert. Sean.hoyland 08:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the earliest discussions occured in August 2003 and in 2004 at the Village Pump, and occasional discussions have occured on the talk pages of a few articles or user pages since that time. I for one have used it extensively from the start, and strongly promoted the use of it, especially on larger pages, and have usually used it on most pages I have created or done extensive work on. I never made any strong moves to make any "official guidelines or instructions" on using it, because I generally have a very dim view of creating overly complex formulistic prescriptions about most things, other than a very simple one of avoiding formulistic prescriptions where they do more harm to human liberties and freedoms than good. Largely because of this I never sought to make any "official" promotion of the practice — but it has always been a prominent option here, used on most artilcles other than most the film and theme pages, where its use is more rare. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC) + tweaks 2010·12·16 12:01 EST (17:01 UTC)

Good work on Apocalypse Now

initially posted to talk page of Oracleofottawa (talk · contributions)

I was hoping to find a good image of a water buffalo, but the one you found works splendidly. I used to see the creatures on a daily basis when I lived for several years in the Campania region of Italy. I think the image of a ferocious snarling tiger works better than the one you originally added. I was pleased at the progress swiftly made on the page, as I obvously believe that well selected images make pages much more visually and intellectually interesting. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a Hoot!

Now that page looks like it should. LOL....(Best of the season to Kalki...)--Oracleofottawa 02:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ω

Kalki · † · ¡¡¡α!!! · 2009 † 2010 · 2011 · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box
… Ω …