User talk:Kalki/2021

Carl Schurz quote on Karl Marx
You have recently reverted my edits to Karl Marx. I shortened the Carl Schurz quote on Karl Marx as I have other quotes. The page is not well maintained. Please consider contributing. I don't appreciate being accused of censorship. Please, follow WQ:FAITH. --Ashawley (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

And you've done it again with this edit comment:


 * I have not yet checked the "shortening" you have done on other entries — but the "shortening" you have done on this quote is DEFINITELY censorship — and quite apparently biased censorship — whatever you choose to call it.

Please refrain from accusations. I'm shortening the quote for length not content. That he held contempt for his enemies is well known. Preserving the criticisms of Schurz seems sufficient for an obscure quote that is only listed in Google search results 8 times --Ashawley (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sock discussion
Hi I happened to see that a sock of yours created Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army. As you are probably aware the topic of socks is being discussed at Administrators%27_noticeboard for quite some time now. I wonder why you have not participated in that discusion, since you don't seem to be shy about posting publicly about controversial issues? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Me too, I'd like to see the comments from Kalki and other admins about the lock and possible hounding of one of the most constructive editors of wikiquote. DanielTom has said that the only way he could get unlocked would be with help of others, and if admins who have seen that this is a very constructive editor who may have been unfairly locked, and a proposal or request could be made with support by admins, then it is more likely he will get unlocked. Because I have been busy I have not commented much but I will try to add some observations on this in the coming days or weeks.
 * This is DanielToms comments:
 * From what I have seen, and experienced first-hand years ago, stewards globally lock accounts with little or no critical thinking, simply following requests (sometimes raised by overzealous admins or other users with personal vendettas). Global locks are very difficult to appeal, at least without the help of other users. The users that are globally locked are not so much as notified, thus they cannot defend themselves prior to the global lock. Needless to say, this is a great injustice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

-- ო ~ #SheSaid 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you feel I am a "malicious troll" (swastikas)?
During dicussion at the Village pump: Why are there so many pages with images containing a swastika on WQ?

you said this to me On 18:42, 6 March 2021: "I have long suspected you to be, and increasingly perceive evidence of you very likely being very little more than a malicious troll around here, despite various forms of camouflage and acceptable edits."

I must say I was surprised when no one reacted to this egregious personal attack against me, and I started wondering if the comments that have been made about me, by people who do not normally participate in discussion at WQ but who have also accused me of being a troll, have merit? I am particularly interested to know if the other admins at WQ also feel that I am simply a malicious troll and that this is my sole motivation for my edits at WQ. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem deeply offended by perceived personal attacks: have you never read any of Daniel Tom's edit summaries regarding me calling me incompetent on dozens of occasions within their edit summaries? DanielTom has also called me a troll, as I'm sure you can see for yourself by going through their edit history for about an hour and using control F. You quote DanielTom in the Sock discussion section of this page, care to comment on their behavior and how it differs, or doesn't,from the way you are allegedly being treated? I'm not surprised by the lack of a response, calling someone a troll is not one of the five and six letter words that gets you an instant ban on a website or risks disciplinary action in the world at large, unlike, say, calling someone another five letter mythical creature, fairy, which many organizations' lawyers would consider to legally constitute a hate crime. Also for the record I still find your edits to be generally lacking, although calling you mean names isn't going to change that. I find your insistence that you can't edit the page for Roe v. Wade yet can still continue to edit all the other pages without any problems rather bizarre as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

u chose war, war it shall be/enjoy as much as i do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
u call me vandal (but you are the real vandal with super vandal antandrus who is also pretending to be somebody's mother and spoofing emails in her name) when i try to bring proper quote for wislawa, now im fighitng back on other site where u have no power, one good turn deserves another, stop it, or all your work will be gone: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Montaigne_-_c.1590_portrait.png
 * To anyone interested — this asinine threat is an act of a long term abuser who has been vandalizing and trolling WMF sites since 2005, and seems to have returned to greater activity here lately. So it goes...  ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Further info on this user, for those puzzled by his incoherent ravings:
 * Long term abuser "Projects" is a "Globally banned user: Foundation Global Ban- do not reinstate. Questions can be directed to trustandsafety@wikimedia.org."
 * He is banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and may not edit any Wikimedia project. All accounts/IPs should be globally locked/blocked on sight.
 * Responding to this editor or even just blocking him may open you up to long-term harassment and direct threats. If you feel unsafe, you may contact the Chicago police for help.
 * I know that I myself have witnessed but a very small portion of the copious amounts of harassment, trolling, direct or indirect vandal-spam to external sites, and contemptible threats which he has directed at MANY individuals on various sites over many years, and can assert I truly find him to be a pitiably and pathetically deluded human being. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 12:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC) + tweak
 * For many years he has regularly posted "diffs" to various postings of his ravings on Wikimedia wikis, and often now also posts links to various external sites where he has posted rants and ravings about "THE ETERNAL TRUTH ON WIKI-PEDO-IA, WIKISCUM, WIKIHYPOCRITES, WIKILOWLIFES, WIKINOBODIES, ETC!!!" So it goes... ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocking FunhausFrank's tr011 and Geraldo Perez 2.0.5
Hi, can you take action against the users FunhausFrank's tr011 and Geraldo Perez 2.0.5. They have been reportedly engaging in vandalistic behaviour towards my talk page and Korean Air Lines Flight 007. I tried to revert FunhausFrank's tr011's vandalistic edits, but he has not stopping and reverting my edits. Geraldo Perez 2.0.5, who is falsely masquerading as a Wikiquote administartor, is adding message to my talk page saying that I have been blocked with racist messages added on the reasons for being blocked, which is clearly an evidence of rogue user engaging in behaviour of vandalism. From their behaviour, these three users seems to be spam users or bots.

Hope you can take action against these users ASAP. Toadboy123 (talk) 16:41, 01 September 2021 (PST)
 * These accounts have now been permanently blocked. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much ! Toadboy123 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2021 (PST)

quote of the day Baruch Spinoza
Hi

Just to let you know: I try to find the time to look up the WQ quote of the day. When I did this today I discovered I could not look at the souce of the quote.

Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The current link in the Spinoza article to Tractatus Politicus as translated by A. H. Gosset (1883) does appear to be dead at this point; I don’t presently have time to seek another one, as I must be leaving soon — but will seek one after I return. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sun Tzu
From Wikipedia: “The Art of War (Chinese: 孫子兵法) is an ancient Chinese military treatise dating from the Late Spring and Autumn Period (roughly 5th century BC). The work, which is attributed to the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu ("Master Sun", also spelled Sunzi), is composed of 13 chapters. Each one is devoted to a different set of skills (or "art") related to warfare and how it applies to military strategy and tactics. For almost 1,500 years it was the lead text in an anthology that was formalized as the Seven Military Classics by Emperor Shenzong of Song in 1080. The Art of War remains the most influential strategy text in East Asian warfare[1] and has influenced both Far Eastern and Western military thinking, business tactics, legal strategy, lifestyles and beyond.” (Again: Sun Tzu: Wikipedia)

Me: Regardless who “The Art of War” is ULTIMATELY attributed to, or NOT…The saying: “Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.” is arguably contained in that body of work. That is simple history. Attributing this phrase to a movie from the 70’s is LAUGHABLE, as is your reasoning that anything discovered by research in this millennium CANNOT by definition trump “research” from the 70’s, come on! (So sorry to put it as directly as that…”extensibly researched.”) ADMINISTRATIVE (¿how are you even allowed?) retrogress, such as YOU have demonstrated, is the VERY reason people CANNOT quote Wikipedia without derision thrown back at them! Change it back…or lose a donor. Additionally, I promise I will NEVER use your site, defend it to others, and will even JOIN the naysayers (and tell them why—how you DON’T even use Wikipedia’s own data to publish accurate articles). JaneDoeSelvidge (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is relatively simple to seek historical records on the internet, and to this day, though the phrase is now OFTEN over-confidentally attributed to "Sun Tzu" and the Art of War, or sometimes Machiavelli or Petrarch — there remains NO publication yet located where the phrase or even phrases to precisely that point occur prior to it's use in the 1974 film Godfather II. That is the fact which prompted the declaration of the attribution to Sun Tzu's Art of War a highly popular ERROR, and that remains a fact which makes that a valid assertion. It might be very easy to say that it is "arguably contained in that body of work" — but it is much more difficult to genuinely FIND any instance of the phrase in ANY actual translation of the work prior to 1974, or so far as I know, even in any genuine translation since. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Mail
I've sent you an email. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)