User talk:Kalki/2017

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive of past discussions on my user talk page for 2017.

Thank you for explaining your reasoning[edit]

Hi Kalki. It seems odd to thank someone for assigning a "1" ranking to a "quote of the day" I had proposed for January 4th (the birthday of Isaac Newton), but I just wanted you to know I appreciate understanding your reasoning. You do a lot for Wikiquote, and I'm grateful that you took a moment to explain what you expect - it helps me propose future quotes of the day.

Thanks.

Pithy Francoln (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I've deleted three Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey quotes of the day I proposed for the next three months where the link between the day and the quote was weak. I will likely delete more in the future depending on how the remaining quotes fare. I would suggest that two of the remaining quotes from the series deserve special consideration: President Obama's quote introducing the series premier (which falls on March 9th) and the first of the three quotes I proposed for Earth Day (April 22nd) which basically states that renewable energy is THE solution to global warming.

Thanks for your efforts to make Wikiquote a thought-provoking and useful part of the Wikimedia educational portfolio.

Pithy Francoln (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I do appreciate and thank you for your efforts and suggestions, and certainly welcome you to make more, especially with stronger and clearer relevance to the date. Such actually is not an absolute requirement, but from the beginning of the current ranking system, many years ago, it has been strongly advised and recommended, so as to provide some reasonable limitations on the quotes suggested on any date, and has usually been one of the most prominent considerations. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please respond[edit]

See Wikiquote:Village_pump#Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day.2FJanuary_20.2C_2017_.E2.80.93_yet_another_disgraceful_abuse_of_admin_privileges_by_Kalki You have to explain yourself here. This is really inappropriate. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I should present some explanations, in that regard. I might not have time for that immediately though. I might get around to it after a few hours, and probably shall do so at least within the next day. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been extraordinarily busy in recent days, and expect to be so for a few more. Today was the first day this week where I had some time to actually simply relax and think upon many things for over an hour, earlier in the day, after having completed some tasks elsewhere. I believe I have read all the comments, and am considering what comments to provide and refrain from providing, in the days ahead, and as I deal with many diverse issues, here and elsewhere. When I have sufficient time, I will probably take one last examination of the comments, before providing my own. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What would you call the theme of proverbs 8:35-36?[edit]

I'm stumped on where to add this. I don't think adding this proverb quote about what goes around comes around would quite be appropriate for the karma article but is there a synonymous term you think it might work for?

  • For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
    • Proverbs 8:35-36, King James Version

CensoredScribe (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Though the quote as cited is a bit too short for adequate context, in my opinion, extended a bit for context it could be added to Wisdom, for the entire passage of Proverbs 8 involves Wisdom speaking. I believe these 2 passages which contain most of 8 are appropriate for both Wisdom, and the Book of Proverbs:
  • Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
    • Proverbs 8:1-14
  • I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
    • Proverbs 8:20 - 36
I do not have time to attend to much more here right now, as I must be leaving soon. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC) + tweaks
Was about to leave, but just noticed that I forgot to note here that I did eventually attend to this matter in the manner I suggested, adding such passages to Wisdom and Book of Proverbs. I have to again be leaving now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight and additions of the rest of the quotes. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nazi quotes on Art and Mormon church leaders on Black people[edit]

Mdd recently undid my edits to Art saying, "I think it is unappropriate to quote Nazi party members outside their main field without a secondary source with places it in a context." I see nothing in the rules of wikiquote regarding contextualization and the quotes do directly mention the subject at hand. Also I believe they meant to say inappropriate, given unappropriate means to take from private possession; to restore to the possession or right of all.

Also as I brought up at the village pump, Mdd also undid my edits on black people citing the limit on quotations, despite all the quotations coming from wikipedia's page for Black people in Mormon doctrine. I'm curious why wikiquote's guidelines differ from wikipedia's on this.

I'm starting to notice a trend here regarding MDD and removing historically important racist quotes under nebulous pretenses. On a related note my edits to Sikhism are still regulated to the history tab, having been reverted by Ninguable. I'm wondering whether a vote for revision to the limits of quotations is necessary, because some of wikipedia's quotes seem to exceed 250 words. I've been trying to trim down the Scopes trial transcript to less than 250 for creationism as well, but it's beyond me. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Though I generally disdain the removal of significant quotes, especially when it appears to merely or primarily involve attempts to suppress the presentations of various significant ranges of ideas, I can often agree with others that there have sometimes been many which have been added which seem to lack either sufficient significance or relevance, and I have not had enough time to spend here lately to make any extensive or thorough assessments of the recent activities, attitudes or agenda of others; any attempts to indicate my own impressions of these are at this point, of necessity, quite incomplete and reserved in many ways, as I continue to attend to many other diverse matters elsewhere. Even in terms of defending my own contributions against the arrogantly aggressive insults, accusations and denigrations of others, which I have encountered here, I have typically been reticent for much of the past year. I perhaps might have time to attend to such matters a bit more in coming weeks, but many matters retain a greater urgency and immediate or ultimate importance, in my own ranges of agenda and assessments. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 13:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Kalki[edit]

I love you. I want to know you. Please

                                 🌠Ash🌌 Ashleenaut (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Sincere admiration can often be welcome and welcomed by most people, but in recent months I have hardly had time to respond to rather overt, arrogantly indiscreet and often incredibly stupid and obnoxious criticisms of my apparent attitudes or actual activity here, and presently I also have little time to respond to those who might seek to overtly express or ostensibly indicate any admiration of them. I remain rather reticent in my inclinations to respond much to the comments of others (especially with such extreme candor as I am often committed to manifesting), whatever types, forms or levels of understandings or misunderstandings they might have, or seek to instill in me or others.
Though not as extensively active upon this project this year as I have been in the past, on the relatively brief sessions when I have been active upon it, I certainly must value relatively reliable manifestations of honesty or even discernible ranges of very common delusions more than I do any sudden avowals of extraordinary affection from any editors of the wiki whose actual intentions and agenda I actually do not and cannot know. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 13:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC) + tweaks

Uploading 20 2007 Marvel US Postage Stamps, and whatever happened to the page for the Hulk?[edit]

Where once there was a page I added quotes to the about section for, there is now a redirect, and I don't seem to see the page listed as part of any VFD discussions and the Italian and Spanish wikiquote both have pages for this character. I thought I should contact you as I've seen you've added images to Adam Warlock, I was going to add one these stamps from the postal service's 2007 Marvel stamp 1970's Value Stamps series to Hulk, than I remembered that since 1978 US postal stamps are not public domain, although the website for this series seems to imply sole copy right of USPS. I hear the postal service themselves are generally not too stringent in enforcement in the spirit of many images produced for government agencies. Wikimedia wouldn't let me upload images to any of the other intellectual properties, the autoblock filters seem pretty tight for fictional characters, there's just a lot of different hulks in pop culture. I don't think that we could use all twenty because not all of these characters have pages but I've only seen a handful of pages that use images from the actual work; The Original Star Trek, Dr. Who and Godzilla mostly come to mind. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just checking in very briefly right now, but have restored the Hulk (comics) page which apparently was improperly made into a redirect by an anon IP within the last few months. However, I rather doubt that any of the stamp images you have noted will long be retained at the Commons, as their copyright status probably makes them ineligible for retention there. One of the external links you added above does not work, but I probably won't have time to check on any updates to it. I might do a few things here before leaving, but am very busy with some other concerns, and probably won't be around here long. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the page, I noted my mistake with the value stamp after uploading the image, I tried googling VFD for the Wikimediacommons but couldn't find it. Here is a collection of comic inspired stamps that includes several characters wikiquote has pages for, as well as something from the treasury department about reproductions of stamps from Ohio.edu. I think we might still be able to use the black and white versions, as according to the treasury department (as cited in a broken link unfortunately), "Printed illustrations of United States and foreign stamps are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose. Black and white illustrations of uncanceled United States and foreign postage stamps are permissible in any size. Color illustrations of uncanceled United States and foreign postage stamps must be less than three-fourths or more than one-and- one-half times the size of the genuine stamp. Canceled United States and foreign postage stamps may be of any size whether the illustrations are in color or black and white." CensoredScribe (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: So in this Mongolian postage stamp set featuring the X-Men there's a copyright symbol present for marvel comics, however I don't see a copyright symbol present for the US stamps, with only an attribution to the postal service on the postal service website. I have heard the post office generally acquires the copyright in commissioned works. I'm really not sure what this all means so I'll refrain from adding any more of these and leave it at Captain America for now. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Goodbye, would you please do one last thing for me and look into Info-Buddhism.com; I think Wikipedia is citing them on the page for the 15th Dalai Lama and I think they are fake news.[edit]

Wikipedia cites Info-Buddhism as on the page for the 15th Dalai Lama, which has a misleading title, and doesn't provide definitive dates, and I can't seem to find any information on.This Interview with the Dalai Lama about the Full Ordination of Women strikes me as propaganda, that ran into the problem of having to provide fake citations for the date of the interview and the french women's journal that allegedly spoke with the Dalai Lama which no information is provided on to fact check. I could format half the quotes Daniel Tom has noted his only objection to being formatting but that won't convince him of the notability of quotes about bacteria and viruses from scientists. My apologies for any problems I caused you during my time here, I hope I did more good than bad here. CensoredScribe (talk · contributions) 04:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

π Day note[edit]

Kate Bush at 1986 Comic Relief (cropped).png
First thousand digits of pi..jpg
 
Vitruvian-Icon-Gray.png

Sweet and gentle and sensitive man
With an obsessive nature and deep fascination
For numbers
And a complete infatuation with the calculation
Of π.

~ Kate Bush ~


Pi pie2.jpg

  Jiuhuashan bodhisattva image.jpg

It is still the 14th, at my location, and Spring Equinox approaches, and on this Pi-day, serendipitously the birthday of Albert Einstein, in the final week of winter, amidst a blizzard which might yet knock out local power lines, I will note that I still have not had much time to clear up and update this page, and attend to as many other things here as I had earlier hoped to do, by this time of the year. I have been somewhat busier than normal in recent days, and I expect to be far busier than normal over the next few as well, but hope to attend to many things here, extensively, within the next month or so. Time will tell how much I can actually accomplish, and assist others in accomplishing, here and elsewhere, in the coming year, but amidst much sorrow, tragedy and tribulation, I retain and maintain much reason for hope and worthy efforts to indicate the beauty of the world, and of minds wise enough to celebrate and exalt diversity, and not to promote and insist upon such ignorance and confusion as permit and impel authoritarian and nihilistic absolutisms and exclusions. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotes about Kalki[edit]

Here are two quotes by (2 PhDs) Robert M. Price (from this interview) that very much reminded me of you:

  • I cannot believe the bleeding-heart naiveté of those who charge Trump with religious bigotry, as if this were not an emergency situation.
  • They advocate sentiment-fueled policies with no sober thought for the real-world consequences. ... I say, snap out of it! Are you living in the real world or not? Freud defined religion as the projection of the wish-world onto the real world. That's Liberalism.

BTW, I don't know what led you to write: "if I am fortunate enough to be around...". Perhaps it was just a general reflection on the human condition ("it is certain that we must die, and, for aught we know, this very day"). People sometimes tell me they feel sorry for old people, and I respond (following Cicero) that if they must entertain such a condescending emotion, they should pity the young, who, unlike the old, have not gone through the various stages of life (I was going to say "yet"—but, indeed, the point is they are not at all guaranteed to make it to old age). That said, I do of course wish you well. Take care. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

April 3[edit]

Thanks,

However, you can't do a loose <p> with HTML5, and it will eventually break due to the parser update. Perhaps you'd like to re write the page so it follows proper structuring or file a phabricator ticket to get the parser fixed PROPERLY so the <p> bodge isn't needed anymore? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, thank you for your efforts to patch unsupportable markup.

Use of an un-closed <p> tag to signify a paragraph break (semantically, and to display slightly more white space than a <br /> line break) is widespread in billions (at least) of pages around the web. Although it is problematic within CSS and is not allowed in XHTML, virtually all browsers support it where possible (implicitly closing it at the next block-level starting tag or at the end of an enclosing block, except the obsolete Netscape Navigator 4.x which failed to work consistently).

Are there definite plans to break this in Wikimedia software? If so, please provide a link to the bulletin or notice announcing this breaking change. It would break a huge number of wiki pages.

If it really is necessary to eliminate un-closed <p> tags, please do not just replace them with one of more <br /> tags like this – it is semantically incorrect (and does not display the desired amount of white space to signify the semantic information). The correct way to "fix" it is to add a closing </p> tag at the end of the block (i.e., the indicated paragraph or stanza).

~ Ningauble (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

see meta:Tech/News/2017/15
It's to do with replacing the current "tidy" routines with something that's a lot tighter to the XHTML/CSS document structuring conventions.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay ShakespeareFan00, I understand that it is for the convenience of the new Parsoid (though un-closed <p> tags do not appear to be specifically mentioned here) because its developers (and the W3C consortium) have limited patience with maintaining backward compatibility. Still, please bear in mind that the solution to making <p> tags HTML5 compliant is to close them, not to eliminate them, because somebody added them for a reason. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Generaly thought, it's also not as simple in some instances as merely closing the tag, as some templates expect a 'span' type parameter and not a 'block' type parameter. Using <p> inside a span clearly isn't good structuring, and some of the "implied" handling used to date will of course no longer work with the new parser. I've put in a Phab ticket about getting some explict tags. In respect of your example you might want to see if <poem></poem> is supported on Wikiquote.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ShakespeareFan00. I understand that it can get complicated in templates because they are often poorly designed. (Using <span> when you mean <div>, or vice-versa, is a common rookie mistake.)
Sadly, although <poem> works in some situations, it is not useful in Wikiquote article pages because it does not work inside a list item for some reason. (That might be a problem with the current system that could go away when it is retired.)
What is the Phab ticket number you started? I may contribute 2¢ there.~ Ningauble (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T163073 is the phabricator ticket.

In respect of poem tags not working inside a list item, this is possibly a related issue, in that <poem> may be forcing a "block" level item in an unexpected place ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for trying to resolve what issues are involved. I am aware there are conflicting coding conventions and norms involved, but not very familiar with many of the technical details being currently debated. I simply could see that the alterations were breaking the formatting on the page I reverted, and did not see any need for them. If using </p> is advisable at this point, I will begin using it from now on, and alter the formatting on pages I work on to any extent. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I patched the April 3 page with this edit, so you can see an example of how to use <p>...</p> in an HTML5 compliant manner. The idea is not to use <p> as a paragraph/stanza break, but to use the <p></p> pair as paragraph/stanza wrappers.

(A lot of other things are going to break, or not behave as expected, when MediaWiki eventually converts to the new Parsoid for all page generation. This creates a lot of gnomish work for people like ShakespeareFan00 to do, either proactively or after the fact. It may be expected that sometimes the fixes will produce unexpected or different results than what was originally intended.)

It could be worse:  Imagine some World Wide Writing Consortium dictating that a letter of the alphabet is no longer supported! ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are still some non-latin alphabet and archaic characters not in Unicode... so ...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please check your user and talk page.[edit]

Did the attempt to match the tags , so the generated HTML is structurally correct match the italic formatting in the wrong place?

I would suggest carefully checking the number of opening and closing for italic formatting you have, they have to be matched or the rendering isn't correct on some browsers. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Important information about the famous Bronte Profile Portrait[edit]

Hello Kalki, I see you have added the "Profile Portrait" to Emily Bronte page, which I had to change with another image. Let me explain why: the identification of this portrait as Emily has been long disputed, and all evidence points out that it is actually Anne who was portrayed in this picture. See here the information about the "Profile Portrait" and its identification.

The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I can accept that most evidence presented on the page you cite seems to indicate it plausible or even probable that the long used portrait is not that of Emily. I tend to reject "absolutist" assertions such that "all" evidence indicates it, though the arguments on the matter seem relatively sound. As it is one of the more famous images identified as Emily by many, I would prefer that some version of it be retained on the page, with perhaps some quote relatable to its dubious nature, and perhaps some commentary upon this somewhere upon the page. I don’t intend to look for such a quote immediately — but might do so in coming months, if I find time to attend to that and a few other matters here. I remain intensely busy with many other things at present, and often only check in here for at most a few times a day, usually for only minutes at a time. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry I used "absolutist" assertions in my message. However, I tend to oppose usage of dubious pictures on Wikiquote pages. This "Profile Portrait" was chosen to be identified as Emily not because of some family likeness, but because the girl depicted there is beautiful, has "fire in her eyes", etc. Usage of "iconic pictures" is not a good way to appreciate Emily's poetry. No poet should be seen through the prism of assumptions. I am a great fan of Emily's poetry and ready to help with improvements on her page. Just ask me what you need, and I will try to save your time. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I simply tend to oppose acceptance, as if as if they were absolute or unquestionable facts, ANY assertions or arguments I can find to still be reasonably dubious, disputable, disputed or which I perceive to clearly be in error, whether it would be easy for me to make clear such deficiencies or errors as I perceive to others or not. There is more I actually considered asserting in regard to such things, but refrain, because I am not presently ready to engage in any extensive dialogue on many matters here.
I actually can and do accept that the portrait which for well over a century had been very widely and commonly identified as Emily has now successfully become disputed on theWikipedia — and evidently sincerely rejected by some, with faith and confidence in their own or others assessments of what I perceive to be the rather low levels of skill in depiction evident in any of the extent portraits. What assessments have been made by some about the reliability of the precision, accuracy, and apparent or evident distinctions represented in them, are such as I myself find somewhat dubious. I myself can perceive enough incongruence and exaggerations in regard to some of the assertions as to doubt and reject the presumption of the absolute identification of the subject of the portrait as EITHER woman. Presently, with what little is actually certain, I can and do presently favor the assessments you seem to embrace with far great confidence or certitude, but I simply do NOT and cannot accept that the existing evidence absolutely DISPROVES the previous identification as a depiction of Emily — I only accept that the arguments presented make it more dubious or actually unlikely, by some of the provided criteria. Though I find the arguments presented have merit, and are perhaps in some ways stronger than any counter arguments that could be made, they are NOT strong enough, from my observations to PROVE the alternative identifications which you and others (INCLUDING myself, at present), have come to accept as likely or reasonably prefer.
As the portrait DOES remain widely identified as Emily, whether correctly or not, I would prefer some use of it, perhaps with some quotation regarding uncertainties, ambiguities or errors, and perhaps some brief note as the the currently disputed nature of the identification of the woman portrayed. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC) + tweaks
Well, it's not the identification of this portrait that I am discussing here with you. (And I don't need any caps and bold font to understand what you mean.) I just oppose the usage of dubious images on Wikiquote pages. That's all. Being identified as Emily for over 100 years doesn't make this portrait any less dubious. Once again, I say that usage of such "iconic" widely identified as some certain person images is a bad way to appreciate this person's art. Do you oppose my point of view? The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

IP vandals[edit]

We've got a serious case of IP addresses (presumably from the same vandal) continuously making vandalism edits by any or all of the following:

1. Adding unneeded emphasis to quotes.
2. Copying/pasting directly from DVD/Blu-Ray subtitles (which are highly unreliable).
3. Adding extra quotes when the article already has enough.
All without explaining their edits in the edit summary.

And on the following articles:

The Shrek series
The Toy Story series
Chicken Run
Antz
The Incredibles
A Bug's Life
Monsters, Inc.
Mike's New Car
Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) (adding a line from an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants that is NOT part of the film!)
Aladdin (1992 Disney film)

And I am positive that there will be more victims unless these IP addresses are blocked indefinitely and the articles (not just the ones listed) are protected indefinitely. These vandals will not stop. They keep getting new IP addresses every hour or so. I already reported this fiasco, but I am still awaiting a response. WikiLubber (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ban 190.122.55.144 for vandalizing Regular Show (season 8) quotes[edit]

Excuse me, But IP number:190.122.55.144 has continued to vandalize Regular Show season 8 'A Regular Epic Final Battle' quotes with his 'to be continued' words every time.Therefore we want you to add Regular show season 8 in the following articles from the IP vandals section you listed. And you must find a way to ban 190.122.55.144 before he or she will continue to vandalize A Regular Epic Final Battle quotes with his to be continued quotes.

--Belrien12 (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have restored protection to the targeted page for 3 months. That is about all I have time to do on the matter at this point. Extensive blocking of the IPs used might be done eventually, if some behavior persists — but there are not generally "bans" on IP's. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

On the road …[edit]

I just viewed the solar eclipse from South Carolina, and will be traveling a few more days editing from my iPhone. I'll correct any mistakes I made when I'm back home on my desktop - I've very limited time until then. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Though I am now back home, and have regular editing options beyond the iPhone, I remain extremely busy, and often have only a few minutes to check in here a day. I do not anticipate much activity here beyond minimal upkeep for at least a week. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 11:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Special QOTD (III)[edit]

Kazuo Ishiguro has won the Nobel prize in literature, it was announced today. May I suggest adding the following quotation to Wikiquote's main page to mark the occasion:

What is the point in worrying oneself too much about what one could or could not have done to control the course one's life took? Surely it is enough that the likes of you and I at least try to make our small contribution count for something true and worthy. And if some of us are prepared to sacrifice much in life in order to pursue such aspirations, surely that is in itself, whatever the outcome, cause for pride and contentment.
~ Kazuo Ishiguro ~


~ DanielTom (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I will use this as the base of the QOTD for 6 October 2017 — but extend it to include more of the perspective of the character the author has making the assertions:

Perhaps … I should adopt a more positive outlook and try to make the best of what remains of my day. After all, what can we ever gain in forever looking back and blaming ourselves if our lives have not turned out quite as we might have wished? The hard reality is, surely, that for the likes of you and I, there is little choice other than to leave our fate, ultimately, in the hands of those great gentlemen at the hub of this world who employ our services. What is the point in worrying oneself too much about what one could or could not have done to control the course one’s life took? Surely it is enough that the likes of you and I at least try to make our small contribution count for something true and worthy. And if some of us are prepared to sacrifice much in life in order to pursue such aspirations, surely that is in itself, whatever the outcome, cause for pride and contentment.

I will format this now, and post it, and then must be leaving again... ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The sentence starting with "The hard reality is..." summarizes the whole book, and the author's own perspective (from what I understood), so that's fine. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oldest pages[edit]

I noticed that the oldest pages only go back to 2009's Pokey the Penguin and was wondering what the oldest pages actually are. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Oldest pages" on that list indicates the oldest pages with no changes. There have been no changes to that page since 2009; it was actually created in 2004. There might be other listings for such pages as were the oldest creations, such as the "Main page" — but I haven't dealt with such in quite a while, and don’t have time to seek out any current listings right now. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 11:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, I interpreted the meaning of oldest incorrectly and didn't bother to check the page histories. I was never able to get a list of the chronology of page creations from RationalWiki because of a server change and I've been checking out Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. I think people get better at editing over time but the first changes made to a wiki reveal a lot about the editor's and the wiki's interests and lack there of. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A question regarding the rules on incivility and the words of Daniel Tom.[edit]

I was wondering if this kind of language is considered acceptable behavior and if you're dedication to the 1st amendment would permit me to attempt to diagnose Daniel Tom psychologically as they've attempted poorly to do for me, autism or a sociopathic lack of concern for how their actions effects others might explain it, but what would I know as someone brain damaged to below the reading comprehension of a five year old? I'm concerned for the emotional well being of Daniel and the people they interact with so abrasively, "You have added so much garbage and so many off-topic "quotes" to Wikiquote theme pages that it's probably going to take us years to undo all the damage. Your reading comprehension is evidently worse than a 5 year old's, and I even thought you could be mentally challenged, but after seeing this I now believe you are just trolling." CensoredScribe (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe:, it is unwise to involve Kalki in this dispute. He and DanielTom have had an interaction ban in the past. Don't stir that pot. BD2412 T 04:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the advise BD2412. I won't continue make a fuss, besides I doubt Daniel Tom is going to care if I add more sourced quotes from Today in Science History or copy them from a biography to a theme page, as long as I don't make any typos. Sorry to bother you Kalki. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of images on Blade Runner page[edit]

Please see my comments on the Blade Runner talk page regarding your reversion of my edits. Thanks. Doctormatt (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my talk page[edit]

I have replied to your comment at my talk page User_talk:Butwhatdoiknow - Butwhatdoiknow (talk)

I'm looking forward to you addressing the question I asked on my talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Why did you delete the talk page for the help article? That page probably had a lot of great info for a new user like me.Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It didn't. The page had only been created by a vandal, and I was only the last one to delete a page vandals had created very many times. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As I'm on thin ice and regret not working collaboratively more with others, here is a quote from Tolkien on science and technology that you might like and consider adding to his page.[edit]

  • I should regard them [the Elves interested in technical devices] as no more wicked or foolish (but in much the same peril) as Catholics engaged in certain kinds of physical research (e.g. those producing, if only as by-products, poisonous gases and explosives): things not necessarily evil, but which, things being as they are, and the nature and motives of the economic masters who provide all the means for their work being as they are, are pretty certain to serve evil ends. For which they will not necessarily be to blame, even if aware of them.
    • John Ronald Reuel (J.R.R.) Tolkien, Letter draft to Peter Hastings (manager of a Catholic bookshop in Oxford, who wrote about his enthusiasm for Lord of the Rings) (Sep 1954). In Humphrey Carpenter (ed.) assisted by Christopher Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (1995, 2014), 190, Letter No. 153
I also wanted to say thanks for your daily diligence attending to the quote of the day, several of them have been insightful to me, and you have a wide and inclusive range that's always relavent to that day in history be it ancient or recent events. Thanks for teaching me to select better quotations using words that wouldn't get you fired from a teaching position for ageism or implying/lying that someone has a disability. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

New England blackout Autumn 2017[edit]

I've been without power since around 0300 and there are statements by the power company that it could take a week to fully restore power in this region. I live in a rather rural area, so am expecting it might be a few days for restoration around here. // skip that - I looked up and my lights are back on. I am on my iPhone, but hope to be editing from my Mac shortly.

I am much relieved of several difficulties. I had been resigned to editing from the iPhone for perhaps several days, limiting my capacity to do much beyond VERY minimal activity here, and had wished to make note of that, but now am comfortably back on my mac. I will thus be able to far more quickly and easily do a few edits, before leaving again, and be able to avoid errors easily made in phone-editing. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes bad people do good things.[edit]

You recently reverted a series of my edits removing quotes. You gave several reasons, one of which was your perception of "extremely biased efforts at censorship" on my behalf. I write in the hope that, upon consideration, you will conclude that my motivation for the removals should no more be a reason to revert than the motivation of the editor who added the quotes (it was the same editor for all the quotes I removed).

My understanding is that the sole standard for adding (or removing) quotes at Wikiquote is found at WQ:Q. Either a quote meets the Quotability standard or it doesn't, and that page does not include the motivation of the editor as a factor. This leads me to conclude that if a biased editor adds an appropriate quote that quote should stay on the site, and if a biased editor removes an inappropriate quote that quote should stay off the site. In short, the motivation of the editor should would not be a valid reason to support a reversion. Am I missing something in this analysis? Butwhatdoiknow (talk)

I have just arrived home, and must leave again in a few minutes, after taking care of a few things here. I will take into consideration your comments and respond to them within the next day or so. I do not have time to adequately do so right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I will stand by. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
FYI: Talk:Steve_King#Removal_of_quotes_as_(1)_not_independently_well_known_and_(2)_not_likely_to_stand_the_test_of_time.. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I can appreciate your impatience with my inattention to this matter. I have been frustrated and delayed in many major and minor, yet often quite sufficient ways, while attending to many of the compounded complexities of various major and minor problems of the present and currently enduring states of affairs which have arisen in the recent and distant past, in many various levels of various situations — I will perhaps begin to deal with some of these situations which are sufficiently evident here in the coming month or two — there are currently many other matters which press upon my concerns with greater urgency. I might begin to actively address a few Wikiquote issues more thoroughly within a week or two — but I am not committing to even this, though I might place some of the issues involved in your apparent concerns higher on my immediate agenda here, and begin addressing them within a few days, if possible. I currently am doing a QOTD layout, and will be leaving again very soon after that, but might even get back and do a bit more here within a few hours. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)