User talk:Kalki
Add topic
|
|
|
⨀ 
⨀
Well is ALL.
Well All IS.
ALL IS WELL.
ALWAYS and ALL WAYS.
| Do not be deceived by the way men of bad faith misuse words and names … Things are set up as contraries that are not even in the same category. Listen to me: the opposite of radical is superficial, the opposite of liberal is stingy; the opposite of conservative is destructive. Thus I will describe myself as a radical conservative liberal; but certain of the tainted red fish will swear that there can be no such fish as that. Beware of those who use words to mean their opposites. At the same time have pity on them, for usually this trick is their only stock in trade. |
| ~ R. A. Lafferty ~ |
 
|
 Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~ Albert Einstein ~ 
|
      |
|
|
With this and other accounts I have made over 157,000 contributive edits, created well over 17000 pages and done substantial work on well over 1000 more, some of which are listed here. |  
|
· I usually have only a sporadic presence here on most days. ·
[edit]I remain very busy with many urgent and diverse tasks and expect to very often be doing very minimal editing here for most of the days of most of the coming years.
Though I once regularly spent many hours of most days at least monitoring this site, I now quite often spend less than an hour a day doing so, at various random periods within any day. There are sometimes stretches of weeks where I am hardly online at all, most days. There may be a few periods in some years where I will have the opportunity for extensive activities here for days at a time, but I am not actually counting on that occurring very often. I shall continue to usually check in at least daily, most of the time, but Time shall reveal what opportunities times can provide.
· So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ ·
· ALL abides, always, and all abide, ALWAYS amidst ALL. ·
Kierkegaard Quote Source - Proposed by Kalki February 14 2007
[edit]Hi Kalki,
Do you know the actual source for this quote? I don't think Kierkegaard is the author, and your proposed QOTD from Feb 2007 is the earliest known publication of this quote (digital, book, or otherwise) that I can find.
"When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love."
Any more specific info on the quote origin would be great.
Thanks --Cusabe (talk) Cusabe (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the inquiry. I seem to have first added this to the Kierkegaard page as being cited to Works of Love (1847) in an edit of 13th February 2007; I do not currently recall what source I had for that attribution. It seems to have remained on the page in the subsection for that work, prior to the page being extensively broken up into pages for separate works by other editors. None of the translations currently accessible to me have the statement, but it could be in a lesser-known translation or arose somewhere as a paraphrase of some statements within it, or perhaps is an improper attribution altogether; I will investigate it further to the extent I can in coming days. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Oregon or Colorado
[edit]Hi Kalki: I thought it was Colorado's Supreme Court which removed Trump from the ballot not Oregon? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]Hello, someone started a request for comment against your behaviours on this project, Wikiquote:Village pump#User:Kalki using Wikiquote's QOTD for political propaganda. I'm just noticing you about that.
BTW, if possible, I'd like to recuse from such a political case. -Lemonaka 01:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Request for revdel
[edit]Hi. Sorry to bother you. Please revdel several edits made by Special:Contribs/202.128.73.51. Reason: N-word, w:Shina (word), other inappropriate content. 魔琴 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
WQ in general
[edit]Hi Kalki, I thought to pose some three of the most venerable users here an important question I just can't seem to figure out: why do you think, WQ has such an horrendous page rank on most search engines? Why wouldn't e.g. a very expansive WQ article on a relatively niche intellectual always top a short and potentially skewed WP article? Indeed, I think, especially for controversial leaders from historical scientific, religious and or political movements, having a representative WQ entry is much more insightful than the overly curated alternative. What might be the exact reason for this very noticeable skew? Do you also believe that, maybe, the aforementioned inclusion of certain figures' exact quotes, from politically incorrect up to and including borderline defamatory, has - rightly or not - lead to the actual WMF, well, somehow hardcoding this inferior status into the platform regardless of quality? Any clarification would be extremely helpful! Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Roe v. Wade
[edit]This page gets a lot of views, but it's also really long, in fact it is the longest Wikiquote page. I noticed UDScott recently reverted the additions I made to the page for miscarriage and has nominated teratoma for deletion, I'm starting to wonder whether by presence here is particularly welcome; could I request arbitration of this dispute? I'm kind of lonely and confused, it seems almost random to me which of my unnecessarily large edits are allowed and which aren't, would it be ok to revert Roe v. Wade to a shorter version of the page with three longer sections? I was kind of hoping to collaborate with people here but that doesn't seem to happen much. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Quote of the day
[edit]Hi, I see you often do the quote of the day, and thought you might consider running the following quote:
Serit arbores, quae saeclo prosint alteri.
He sows the seed of trees that they may be a profit to another age.
Thanks, Ficaia (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd let you know I've created Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 3, 2024 Ficaia (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I had noted that addition on the day it was added, and decided I would probably accept it as a good-faith suggestion, though it exhibited an ignorance or deliberate disregard of the normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD since 2005. You seemed familiar enough with many operations of the wiki that I was inclined to believe it the later, and I had intended to comment on this yesterday, but remained too busy with many other concerns to spend much time here recently. Thus I had neglected to make a response to your initial suggestion here, as I was especially pressed for time on that day. A short time ago, I was doing a brief check in here and saw your subsequent addition, and though I am willing to accept that as well, as there are presently a paucity of suggestions on both days, and the suggestions were generally acceptable, I have extended the ranges of the QOTD pages protected from unauthorized editing,. Thank you for your efforts, but henceforth, please use more normal procedures for suggestions on the days of each month, such as Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May. Though generally it is sought that the quotes or usually their author have some relation to the dates, this is often difficult with the more ancient authors, and it might be a good idea to create some page for suggestions by them without necessarily some rigorously specified dates or ranges of dates, to be used when there occasionally are very few and relatively poor suggestions for dates. I have to be leaving now, and will probably do some minor sizing tweaks on the images you provided later today, after I have returned. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well that was a pompous response. "The normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD" are basically dead, having been frequented by almost no one but yourself for a decade. BTW, I've also created Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 10, 2024 and Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 11, 2024. Ficaia (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I want to replace the second image in Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 4, 2024 with commons:File:The Westminster Portrait of Richard II of England (1390s).jpg. Why can I no longer edit the page? Ficaia (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have figured that out. With the above remarks you have clearly proven yourself engaged in actions both presumptuous and deceitful, and quite duplicitous in your attitudes and apparent ruses of ignorance of some particular matters. Even so, I yet was inclined to consider your future suggestions simply on their merits, relative to those of others, as I have done with other adversarial individuals in the past, despite their apparent disdain or animosities towards me or the procedures which were established nearly two decades ago, though almost certainly with somewhat less inclination to accommodate your apparent whims and aims than I have done in those two initial postings. Then I saw your persistence in deliberate rejection of the standard procedures of suggestions and selections, with further postings without regard for them, and it leaves me far less inclined to be either charitable or deferential to such arrogantly presumptuous actions in the future. The "normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD" for suggestions and selections are not "dead" but they and the Quote of the Day have been maintained and sustained by me since the earliest days of this project, though you seem to have a definite will to do what you can to bring about their end with your acts of blatant rejection of them in favor of solely your own presumptuous postings. I am thus inclined to delete these more recent deliberate intrusions entirely, and will now assert that further unauthorized postings into the official Quote of the Day pages prior to their entry into the protection ranges could properly be treated as malicious vandalism, and could result in temporary or even eventually an indefinite blocking of your account. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- You have a real w:WP:OWNERSHIP issue with this process. There are two of us editing Quote of the day now. Ficaia (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have figured that out. With the above remarks you have clearly proven yourself engaged in actions both presumptuous and deceitful, and quite duplicitous in your attitudes and apparent ruses of ignorance of some particular matters. Even so, I yet was inclined to consider your future suggestions simply on their merits, relative to those of others, as I have done with other adversarial individuals in the past, despite their apparent disdain or animosities towards me or the procedures which were established nearly two decades ago, though almost certainly with somewhat less inclination to accommodate your apparent whims and aims than I have done in those two initial postings. Then I saw your persistence in deliberate rejection of the standard procedures of suggestions and selections, with further postings without regard for them, and it leaves me far less inclined to be either charitable or deferential to such arrogantly presumptuous actions in the future. The "normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD" for suggestions and selections are not "dead" but they and the Quote of the Day have been maintained and sustained by me since the earliest days of this project, though you seem to have a definite will to do what you can to bring about their end with your acts of blatant rejection of them in favor of solely your own presumptuous postings. I am thus inclined to delete these more recent deliberate intrusions entirely, and will now assert that further unauthorized postings into the official Quote of the Day pages prior to their entry into the protection ranges could properly be treated as malicious vandalism, and could result in temporary or even eventually an indefinite blocking of your account. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I had noted that addition on the day it was added, and decided I would probably accept it as a good-faith suggestion, though it exhibited an ignorance or deliberate disregard of the normal procedures for suggestions and selections of QOTD since 2005. You seemed familiar enough with many operations of the wiki that I was inclined to believe it the later, and I had intended to comment on this yesterday, but remained too busy with many other concerns to spend much time here recently. Thus I had neglected to make a response to your initial suggestion here, as I was especially pressed for time on that day. A short time ago, I was doing a brief check in here and saw your subsequent addition, and though I am willing to accept that as well, as there are presently a paucity of suggestions on both days, and the suggestions were generally acceptable, I have extended the ranges of the QOTD pages protected from unauthorized editing,. Thank you for your efforts, but henceforth, please use more normal procedures for suggestions on the days of each month, such as Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May. Though generally it is sought that the quotes or usually their author have some relation to the dates, this is often difficult with the more ancient authors, and it might be a good idea to create some page for suggestions by them without necessarily some rigorously specified dates or ranges of dates, to be used when there occasionally are very few and relatively poor suggestions for dates. I have to be leaving now, and will probably do some minor sizing tweaks on the images you provided later today, after I have returned. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sexual harassment
[edit]Could I get blocked if I asked another editor out on a date, and would it matter how I worded that request or whether I continued making it after being told that the answer is no and is always going to be no? We have a page for pick-up lines, would any of those constitute sexual harassment? I find the idea of editing Wikiquote together with someone who enjoys doing this to be romantic, though I don't know if any of the other editors would share that opinion seeing as it's usually a lot of work. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Kalki. I'm not sure if you have seen the discussion on my talk page related to this page. I know that in years passed, we had discussed reducing the buffer for the protected days, but it had gotten increased again a couple of times (most recently by you this month). I am sure the adjustments were in response to disagreements on the process for selecting the quotes for the QOTD. After reading the discussion, might I ask for your input on again relaxing the protections to the current day? I want to get your feedback in this discussion based on your long history with the QOTD pages. I haven't always agreed with you over the years, but I do find that you usually operate with the project's best interests in mind. I look forward to the discussion. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please pardon my lack of response yesterday, and the fact that I very likely will not have time to make a substantial response for another day or so. The last couple of months have kept me in a very hectic pace of activities most days, even by my standards, and the last couple of days have even been more hectic than most of them. I had expected to make fuller response today but it has thus far been far busier upon me than yesterday, but I expect some opportunity to concern myself more extemsively with matters here within the next few days. Thanks for your notice upon these matters, and I must now do a very few things here, and then leave again, for at least a few hours, and expect to be very busy most of the coming day thereafter. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) + tweak
- Hi Kalki. Just wanted to nudge you on this (and related) topic(s). As I have said before, I don't always agree with your choices, but in I do respect your desire to protect the best interests of the project. Within the specific area of QOTD, as you are likely aware, there has arisen some discussion regarding the selection process. It would be great if there was more participation in the process, as I am sure you would agree. The latest issue is the ultimate selection of what will appear on the front page. Are you open to discussion of that process and adding some steps or guidance or whatever to open this part of it to additional participants? I am by no means trying to take over anything - just trying to facilitate some discussion about the process and ways it might be improved. Thanks for your consideration and look forward to the discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Ficaia
[edit]An user has started mass deleting quotes he appears not to like on dozens of pages without giving valid, specific reasons for each deleted quote but hand-wavingly claiming that they all have the same problem (wrong formatting, or typos, or bias, or academic prose) which is not true, as the quotes are all different and usually are adequately sourced etc, and in any case, a discussion and the cleanup template should be used instead before deleting. Mass deleting without giving a specific rationale for each deleted quote is not helpful at all. Just as an example, here he removed dozens of quotes from Voltaire and others. Since you have interacted with the user before I am notifying you. --ᘙ (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have also noticed this behavior on the pages for abortion and human, where they have moved many quotes to the talk page, I would not consider an analysis of fictionalized television depictions of a subject from NPR to be academic prose. The page they created for history of abortion was also problematic being idiosyncratically organized and Eurocentric, they also seemed unwilling to have quotes featured on multiple pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Theme pages that apply specifically to humans
[edit]In keeping with Wikipedia, we have a page now for race that applies specifically to humans, Race (human categorisation), as well as one for the "informal" biological classification Race (biology). Why are humans singled out for their own page, couldn't all of the theme pages have new versions created that are exclusive to humans? By having these two pages is Wikiquote suggesting that the "informal" biological classification of race is in fact formal and that animals other than humans have races, or that the racial classification for humans are also informal? The American Anthropological Association says race isn't a formal construct, so are we allowed to add that to the Wikiquote page for Race (human categorisation)? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)