User talk:Kalki

I usually have only a sporadic presence here on most days

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 most days. There may be a few periods this year 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, but Time shall reveal what opportunities times can provide. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

ALL abides always and all abide ALWAYS amidst ALL.

♘☤ Kalki · † archives: X · index · iota · imago · αnima · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · controversies · assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · outrages · 2011 · contentions · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · 2015 · RfA4 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box · Heroes · OZ · OASIS · ♖

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~ Albert Einstein ~

File:Dont panic.svg

This user has been on Wikiquote for 21 years, 3 months, and 12 days.

135,888+

This user has made over 135,888 contributions to Wikiquote.

With this and other accounts I have made over 147,00 contributive edits, created well over 1001 pages and done substantial work on well over 1000 more, some of which are listed here.

⨀ ∴ ☥ ♥ ☮ ∵ ꇎ ॐ

Purpose

Hello Kalki, on the page purpose, Rupert Loup removed a lot of your edits, as can be seen here. Could you please put them back? I cannot since the page is locked. Thank you for your time. --2001:8003:4085:8100:CC0D:2862:2E0B:1820 04:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Other activities have kept me extremely busy in the last few days, and I do not anticipate having the time to address these contentions adequately for at least another day or two — I will probably address them along with at least a few others within the next week or so, but can anticipate being delayed even in that time frame. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

February 17 2020 Quote of the Day process question

Thank you for your efforts to maintain the Quote of the Day. In the early minutes of February 17 2020, you added a new suggestion, and used it, that had support from no one else, that no one else had an opportunity to review or vote for, rather than select from among the existing suggestions, several of which had various levels of support from multiple editors, is that right? JessRek6 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Usually, in selecting a QOTD I try to glance ahead at least a day or two at a time to have some idea of the options available, and to discern potential choices or the need for searching out more options. Even so, usually I do not make a final decision until just before the selection time, and sometimes without having even glanced at the suggestions page since the previous year, and sometimes with entirely new additions, most commonly involving regarding the recent death of notable people, or other major events.

I am not entirely sure of the time frames involved, but I do believe I had glanced ahead at least a day or two on the date mentioned and thought it likely I would probably use your suggestion for that date, and I have used several of your "anti-gun violence" suggestions for QOTD in recent months. I also kept in consideration another user’s suggestion of Hans Morgenthau’s "Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over which it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter's minds. That influence may be exerted through orders, threats, persuasion, or a combination of any of those."

I believe that after a day or two of occasional considerations, and mostly agreeing with the statement as a whole, some deficiencies in the opening lines of the statement by Emma González, whom I had previously used for a QOTD, had made that quote somewhat less favorable, and a few hours prior to making a selection I was probably leaning at least slightly toward the Morgenthau quote, and decided to search his page for clear sourcing of the statement, and came across a few others which I actually preferred more, and set them into a list to post as suggestions. I then became distracted by other matters and did not get back to the computer and this site until just prior to posting time, at which time I posted the one Morgenthau quote I had found most preferable, formatted it for QOTD, and then afterward posted the others I had found on his page as well. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I did check the timing of events before reaching out to you:

• 8 minutes after midnight 00:08, 17 February 2020 you added a new suggestion and immediately gave it a ranking of 4.
• 11 minutes later, with no other rankings, you selected your new suggestion as quote of the day. At that time, there were 5 suggestions with opinions from multiple editors, 3 of which with 6 votes total, and 1 with 5.

Some questions for you please:

1. Is quote of the day your thing, your preference, your final decision, or do you maintain it as a service for the community?
2. As you know, the WikiQuote main page invites readers to make suggestions and to rank suggestions. What is the role of submitting suggestions and ranking suggestions in quote of the day, if any?
3. What are the constraints on the subject matter of quote of the day as you understand them?
4. What are the constraints on the re-use of quotes, on the same theme, or from the same source, or suggestions from the same editor, as you understand them?
5. What kind of deficiencies may disqualify a suggested quote of the day, as you understand them?

Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

---

I have attended to selections of the QOTD since 2003, and very nearly from the inception of this project in that year. Even those relatively few quotes selected before I began doing so were usually quotes I had initially entered into the project pages, when they were first beginning, but selected by another admin. Within a few years, with the help of others, I had set up the ranking system which exists so people could provide suggestions, and gauge and rank their opinions of the merits of the available suggestions, and throughout the years I have generally chosen from those with the highest average rankings, and usually, but not always, given a further boost of a 4 ranking to whatever quote I finally settle upon for a particular date from the lists of those available, when I do make my final decision. There have actually been very few complaints regarding my selections of quotes over the years, but among the very few of them have been those of sufficient fervor as to have inspired commentary from others that they were glad that they did not have the tasks of dealing with such contentions. They actually have been surprisingly and extremely rare though, and almost always by someone not pleased I did not select their particular suggestion or preference.

For practical purposes and limitations it is recommended that quotes have some relation to the date, and most typically this has relation to the birthdate of the author of the statement. There actually are NO absolute constraints on subject matter, themes, sources, or suggestions from any particular editors, but there actually has been generally low participation in the suggestions over the years. Though a few who have participated much have made many diverse additions on various subjects, many of the most prolific providers of suggestions have actually tended to have relatively narrow focus and interests. For many years one of the most persistent posters of suggestions tended to post quotes with very militaristic, pro-authoritarian and even villainous slants, and to usually rank very low those statements of more generally admirable sentiments which most people generally ranked high, but that did not dissuade me from approving and using many of his genuinely acceptable suggestions, while strongly and adamantly contending against, and ranking very low the most noxious of statements he suggested. During a period of his most intense activities, I openly appealed for greater participation in the ranking processes at the Village pump to prevent the "Quote of the day" from becoming the "Nazi quote of the day", because at the levels of participation that then existed many of his very skewed rankings on many pages would have occasionally left me little choice but to select some of his preferences against my own and MOST people's rational preferences. That period of crisis eventually passed, with greater diversity of participation, though some remnants of his more bizarre preferences still exist on many pages.

There is a ranking of "0" which I myself have seldom used, indicating an absolute rejection of the suitability of a statement for QOTD, which I am inclined to use only for extremely false or foul statements. That being said, there are actually no absolutes on the "deficiencies" or flaws or errors within statements which absolutely disqualify any of them entirely from consideration, and I do not suppose that any statement is required to be considered entirely perfect of flawless by any standards which could be devised. You seem to be exaggerating the significance of my statement regarding the growth of my gradual unease at using the quote you suggested for that day; as I stated it actually was the quote I initially thought I would most likely use for that day, but did perceive deficiencies in it which I weighed against it.

The quotation you suggested reads:

The people in the government who were voted into power are lying to us. And us kids seem to be the only ones who notice and our parents to call BS. Companies trying to make caricatures of the teenagers these days, saying that all we are self-involved and trend-obsessed and they hush us into submission when our message doesn't reach the ears of the nation, we are prepared to call BS. Politicians who sit in their gilded House and Senate seats funded by the NRA telling us nothing could have been done to prevent this, we call BS. They say tougher guns laws do not decrease gun violence. We call BS. They say a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. We call BS. They say guns are just tools like knives and are as dangerous as cars. We call BS. They say no laws could have prevented the hundreds of senseless tragedies that have occurred. We call BS. That us kids don't know what we're talking about, that we're too young to understand how the government works. We call BS. If you agree, register to vote. Contact your local congresspeople. Give them a piece of your mind.

~ Emma González ~

I can sympathize and agree with most of the assertions in the statement, but in considering it I also noted that the two initial sentences have not only some relatively minor and confusing grammatical deficiencies, but also have what could easily be perceived as a major falsehood in the blanket statement that "The people in the government who were voted into power are lying to us. And us kids seem to be the only ones who notice and our parents to call BS." I have no doubt that MANY people in government who were voted into power WERE lying, in various ways, at various levels, but must also coldly note that it is yet also a falsehood to make such a declaration AS IF it absolutely applied to ALL "the people in government who were voted into power." All that stated it did NOT "disqualify" it from my consideration, and I believe I retained some inclination to use it until the very last moments when I posted the one I selected. I had made a definite decision and posted it at 8 minutes after the UT date change. It then took me eleven minutes to seek an image, with a few options in mind, and to format the layout for the quote. I then had other things to attend to, and a few hours later I got back to matters here and posted the other quotes I had also found to be noteworthy on the the Morgenthau page.

Your statement that at the time I made the selection "there were 5 suggestions with opinions from multiple editors, 3 of which with 6 votes total, and 1 with 5" is rather confusing: For maximum versatility and consideration of many factors, I tend to consider the average of the rankings of the individual quotes, and certainly do not go by how many total rankings they might have received, and to be clear, there were at the time of my final decision and posting of the Morgenthau quote, 8 other suggestions, 5 with 2 clear rankings, and NONE with more than that, and where you perceive that one selection had "5 rankings" I have no idea — there were at that time 3 other suggestions with only ONE clear ranking. In any event, by the time of selection, I had rejected some of my initial impulses to use your suggestion, and as I was somewhat late at getting back to the computer I was considering simply using the suggestion of Bystander53 (talk · contributions) which had earlier prompted me to look at the Morgenthau page, but decided on using what I honestly considered a somewhat better quote of Morgenthau. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Please allow me to clarify the situation regarding the community consensus on the QOTD for 2020-02-17, as of the first minutes of that morning. Here are all the suggestions of which two or more collegues expressed opinions:

• Morgenthau ("Political power is a psychological relation..."; not the quote you ultimately selected): 3+3=6
• Foote: 3+3=6
• Bruno: 3+3=6
• Soter: 4+1=5
• VOA: 3+1=4
• González: 4+2=6

Six suggestions were available, all of which had support of two or more editors; yet you selected a quote with support from just one editor (yourself). Five suggestions were available that had a higher sum of rankings than the one you chose. Applying a standard of most editors in favor, or highest total ranking, one of several suggestions would have been selected. I understand Wiki culture is not voting, yet we all have a responsibility to fairly recognize consensus, even when we disagree with it.

Do I understand you consider the rankings as unreliable indicators of community consensus?

Average ranking breaks down as a criterion if you allow yourself to consider the average ranking of a quote with only one ranking. When a quote has just one ranking, and it is a 4, no other quote can possibly achieve a higher average ranking. If average ranking were used as the criterion, independent of the number of editors expressing support, then for example a quote with just one ranking of 4 ("average ranking" 4?) will always be selected over another quote with 6 editors expressing support, 4-4-4-3-3-3 ("average ranking" 3.5). When a quote is a suggestion from yourself, and is only minutes old, so that there is no opportunity for community input, and that quote has just one ranking, and that one ranking is from yourself, and that one ranking is a 4, and you select it, the appearance of community process suffers, and it is not surprising participation lags. When editors take the time to make suggestions, and rank suggestions, and later learn that one editor can select a quote no one else suggested or ranked, does it foster participation or discourage participation?

Do I understand you to confirm, yes, you do consider yourself to hold the role of the final decision maker on the QOTD? If so, should we document this arrangement? Other editors might take the time to make suggestions, and read and rank suggestions, under the false impression that the submission and ranking process has a role in which quote might be selected.

González at the time of the quote was a secondary school student, what we call a high school student. I feel she can be forgiven a less-than-High English grammatical construction and some use of hyperbole. Her intention was clear. No one reading it would reasonably take it as a deliberate mis-statement of fact, a categorical "All elected officials lie." I believe other quotes which employ hyperbole have been used in the past.

To clarify, I am not in favor of a "Nazi Quote of the Day", and further I don't think it is useful to bring that into this discussion.

Thank you again for your service to the WikiQuote community and to the QOTD feature in particular. JessRek6 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

---

I definitely never implied in ANY way that you were a person in favor of a "Nazi Quote of the Day" — and consider any attempt to imply that I actually did as a very petty polemic. You had inquired increasingly derisively as to my rationales and processes in selecting quotes of the day — and I simply mentioned some of my experiences in past years in dealing with some of the ways various narrow-interest editors have and can skew results and ratings, and gave some indications of some of the ways I have responded to some of these, mentioning some aspects of one of the most prominent of the problem editors.

You derisively asked "Do I understand you consider the rankings as unreliable indicators of community consensus?" You might possibly MISUNDERSTAND any number of things I have stated and state, but I actually consider the rankings the primary means by which I can and do gauge the consensus, but your own stated tallyings and calculations DEFINITELY seem to be either absurdly confusing or deliberately IGNORING the ACTUAL mathematical processes involved in any rationally valid use of the ranking system used, and imply that consensus should be measured simply by some cumulative addition of the rankings posted for each quote rather than the more rationally accurate AVERAGING of the rankings posted.

EACH and EVERY suggestion page clearly presents these OPTIONS for ranking quotes:

Ranking system

4 : Excellent - should definitely be used. (This is the utmost ranking and should be used only for one quote at a time, per person, for each date.)

3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used.

2 : Good - some desire to see it used.

1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used.

0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.

I believe it has always been quite clearly evident to most people that anything approaching an actually fair processing of the rankings above innately involve an averaging of any rankings for any quote — and a quote with a ranking of 4 and 1 would thus have a resultant ranking of "2.5", and NOT some kind of "cumulative total" of "5" — such an absurdly irrational system as involves a simple ADDITIVE cumulative count would permit a 3 people to rank something "1", as barely acceptable, and have any quotes they alone rank 3 and "very good" have no greater consideration than that one — or conceivably even have a dozen people rank something "0" and UNACCEPTABLE as a Quote of the day, and yet have a single 4 ranking of it outweigh ALL such rankings if no other quote available actually got so much as a cumulative 4. Such extremes might actually never occur, but EVERY calculation could actually be VERY skewed AWAY from genuine consensus.

After I had typed in many of the above observations, I noted that you added a statement implying "6 editors expressing support, 4-4-4-3-3-3" could be outweighed by my single vote of a 4, and certainly that is also conceivable, but it also certainly has never happened. I can even concede it conceivably could occur if a famous personage died and a quote regarding his demise became appropriate for a date where there were already very highly ranked quotes — but in all the years of my editing here any quote with so much as two 4's or three 3s has usually been among my top considerations, and it has actually been very rare to get so much as three "4"s for any statement — and if not the product of obvious sock puppets, multiple rankings of 4 without contrary rankings of "0" — such as actually has occurred regarding some quotes of the pro-authoritarian editor I mentioned earlier, are always given prominent consideration, and usually have eventually been used.

I make no denial that averaging process innately does permit me to have a somewhat greater sway in deciding the final selections than any average editor, and I do not believe that this is extraordinarily unjust or unfair, as for years I have daily considered the sometimes wide varieties of options posted for any dates, and am certainly NOT committed to advocating for any particular group or causes to the exclusion of any other, though like any human being I have my own affinities and antipathies to various ranges of sentiments or inclinations. The "cumulative tally" process you seem to be either assuming or advocating as appropriate is one I find innately absurd and irrational — and believe that MOST people can plainly discern that it would ALWAYS permit and IMPEL absurdly skewed results entirely out of ranges of ALL the norms of opinions and actual consensus regarding the quotes.

I also make no denial that from the first months of this project I actually have had the role of the final decision maker on the QOTD, and probably have retained that role primarily because most others regularly involved here definitely did NOT wish to become caught up with the burdens and hassles sometimes involved in such decisions, and if you are actually advocating so absurdly irrational a system as insists there should be nothing other than a "cumulative tally" of rankings which actually disregards and destroys any rational reckoning of genuine consensus, rather than the more rational and fair AVERAGING of rankings aimed at ARRIVING at clear notions of consensus, I believe many people can plainly see in that fact that there are quite irrational lengths people can and will go to to favor their particular agenda or inclinations to the disregard to all other rational considerations.

I will close in actually addressing what I believe to be most of your above points, by agreeing that González can CERTAINLY "be forgiven a less-than-High English grammatical construction and some use of hyperbole" — but such a use is something I believe is quite also quite forgivable and acceptable to take into consideration AGAINST such particular quotes in comparing them with others. I also believe that you can be forgiven for your apparent resentment that I did not select your suggestion. As I have indicated I was mostly inclined to use it, for at least a day or two, and all your arguments against my processes of consideration have NOT led me to conclude that it is in any way not eventually acceptable, and though I might suggest possibly dropping the first problematic line of it, I probably would not actually insist even on that. The quote simply was NOT the one which I preferred to use for this year on that date, and I can anticipate perhaps using it at some point in the future. I make no commitments to that, though I do actually presently believe it likely. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and thank you once again for your service to the WikiQuote community on the QOTD.

I recognize your extraordinary commitment to this service. I am convinced you are sincerely trying to do what is best. However, this situation, where one editor asserts that their personal preference is the deciding factor, is in my experience unprecedented anywhere in the broader Wiki community. I am not advocating any particular scheme, other than to suggest that the expressed opinions of multiple editors should be considered with more weight that any individual editor. I might have thought we could compare the daily chore of reviewing previous suggestions to the chore of closing any discussion as an uninvolved editor; normally, we would expect such a close to proceed from a careful consideration of the previous discussion, not simply vote counting, but we would not expect the close to side with a resolution that was not entertained by any of the participants. You understand how it seems that your insistence that you are free to add a new suggestion at the last minute, rank it 4, and that average ranking is the way to go, means that in practice you are always free to use whatever quote you want any day you want.

Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I will state again that for many reasons I do believe it is actually important to ALWAYS have an option for last minute additions and selections, by whoever now or in the future selects the QOTD — and will state that the most common occurrences of such incidents have always been simply quotes added in regard to the recent deaths of notable people. You state that the use of averaging, and the options of last minute additions means "in practice you are always free to use whatever quote you want any day you want" — but in all the years since 2003 it has certainly has NOT been my practice to disregard the clear preferences of most others, but to nearly always choose from the arrays of the highest ranked suggestions available. As I have always been the most actively engaged in the not only the selection but suggestion processes, on MOST pages MOST of the suggestions are actually those I have made over the years — but I always genuinely seek to use what I believe to be the best quotes available for a particular day, by whoever suggests them, and USUALLY those used are those among the most generally preferred as measured by the average rankings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard discussions

For a clearer flow presentation of recent events and discussions, this is a copy of subsequent discussions with the above editor on the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard AFTER most of the above discussion.

Request semiprotect Template

QOTD Ranking

Please semi-protect Template:QOTD Ranking (currently it is protected). I would like to add a few sentences encouraging participation in ranking QOTD suggestions and setting expectations regarding the role of the ranking in the QOTD selection process. Thank you! JessRek6 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@JessRek6: You could just add the text here an admin will post it in if it seems like a good edit. Does that work? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I am a registered editor in good standing. I would prefer to edit boldly, and would prefer not to discuss content here on a noticeboard. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. As Kalki has already been pinged as is the one who first protected it, I'll at least give him some time to respond as a courtesy. If he hasn't done anything in a couple of days (he usually edits here every day), then ping me and I'll reduce protection. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is transcluded on around 250 pages, but they're all internal page and not public-facing. No history of vandalism, not that anyone had a chance, since it was only unprotected for six minutes. @Kalki: Thoughts? GMG^talk 18:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A request to suddenly open this template to general editing because of expression of a will and personal preference "not to discuss content here on a noticeboard" by someone who in the last few days has been repeatedly derisive and apparently resentful of my judgement in not choosing her suggestion and preference for the QOTD on the 17th of this month is not indicative of a request I believe to be entirely reasonable or justified.

I believe any reasonably warranted changes to be made to that template can be made by admins after discussions of suggestions either here or on the talk page for that template. The template is a simple summary of the QOTD ranking process which is presented on each and every QOTD suggestion page, and I see no need to unprotect it and open it to sudden changes by general editors.

I can concede some very slight additions might perhaps be appropriate. Prior the the last few days, I had assumed that the act of assessing the relative rankings of quotes by averaging out the available rankings of each quote would be a sufficiently familiar and obvious process to most people as to not require explication, but can accept that a more explicit clarification of the use of that process on the template page, while I don’t believe it actually necessary might conceivably be helpful to some. More extensive elaborations on some of the conceivably more extravagant, very rarely or never actually used possibilities and potentials innate in assessing quotes through the averaging processes, or perhaps even personal opinions on some of these potentials, would probably not be helpful additions on a summary template on each suggestion page. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We agree some modest additions to the template to set the expectations of participating editors regarding the selection process might help avoid misunderstandings going forward. Please reduce the protection to semi, and then let us collaborate in good faith to document the existing process, as accurately and fairly and as concisely as possible, with no elaborations or enhancements. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I started to comply with this request, but I actually think that Kalki's request for further elaboration of what might be changed is a valid one. Once any potential changes are discussed and agreed, they can be made. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am specifically proposing that interested parties collaborate on a modest addition to the template to summarize the existing selection process. I am not proposing any new policy or guideline or process or change to any policy or guideline or process. Further elaboration is more appropriate at the template discussion page as part of a collaborative editing effort. I am an editor in good standing and I respectfully request the privilege due any editor in good standing of bold editing. Kalki is an admin, I am not, and this is an issue of content, so as an expression of good faith I would like all interested parties to participate as editors. The exposure is extremely limited; changes to the template will only be visible to those brave few who make QOTD suggestions or who read and rank others' QOTD suggestions. I will voluntarily limit myself to one template edit per day, in order to accommodate my colleague's editing style. I will commit to BRD including of course talk page discussion; I am not a vandal, please do not fear an edit war. JessRek6 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your points seem valid to me. I will reduce the protection to allow the requested collaboration - please continue to discuss proposed changes before making them. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

---

I actually definitely disagree with the reduction of protection of the template.

I believe that this editor's responses can easily seem to have something of the character of the legendary Greek armies before Troy suddenly declaring "please open your gates" so we can eventually better collaborate after you accept our beautiful gift of a wooden horse. The results here could certainly not be so disastrous as that of the legendary tales, but I have the impression it is very likely they would not be much more welcome to anyone of genuine good faith and good sense. Anticipating changes of a basic instructional template "limited to" one per day is something that definitely seems extreme, and extremely contentious.

The existing templates read very simply:

Ranking system

4 : Excellent - should definitely be used. (This is the utmost ranking and should be used only for one quote at a time, per person, for each date.)

3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used.

2 : Good - some desire to see it used.

1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used.

0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.

In reviewing the above, I believe that perhaps the statement regarding the "4" ranking could be entirely in bold text to denote the definitely imperative nature of it, in regard to any other options considered, thus reading: "Excellent - should definitely be used."

In addition to the simple straightforward presentation of the ranking options a very brief summation of the selection process could also be added, something along the lines of:

An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day.

OR, at most, a somewhat more extensive elaboration, perhaps reading:

An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day. The selections made are almost always chosen from among the top ranked options existing on the page on the date prior to their use, but the provision of highly ranked late additions, usually in regard to special events (most commonly in regard to the deaths of famous people, or other major social or physical occurrences), always remain an option for final selections.

The available options for potentially sudden additions outranking previous options in considerations seems to be what this editor most objects to — but I believe that such should ALWAYS remain an option available to whomever makes the final selections for QOTD, now and in the future, so as to be ALWAYS be able to be swiftly responsive to any major contemporary developments, such as notable deaths or disasters, and also as a potential fail-safe measure against "invasive troll work" which are conceivably very plausible actions on this and many other sites in the present era of social media contentions and clandestine political subterfuge. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 17:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Please join the discussion at Template talk:QOTD Ranking. JessRek6 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for FULL protection being restored on Template:QOTD Ranking and established on Wikiquote:Quote of the day presentation page

I clearly objected to removing the protections, and I believe sufficient and probably helpful alterations have now been made to this template, and that the FULL protection of it should NOW be RESTORED. Other activities of the person requesting the lessening of the protection leave me very wary of genuine good faith intentions in regard to many matters. I put up a single day block to the Wikiquote:Quote of the day page, after she, without ANY prior discussion, posted AS IF they were official summaries of official policies and procedures "Maintenance instructions" which were somewhat redundant with presentations already available on that page, though I could conceive of incorporating some of these into the prior expositions in a more simple way, and "Deployment instructions" which I very PROMPTLY removed, as ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE which implied it to be official policy and procedure for ANY editor to make FINAL selections for the QOTD and seek to POST them as such. She seems to presently be very intent on promoting such a practice as a policy. I believe most admins can appreciate that such IRRATIONAL assertions are more of an invitation to TROLLING and even more extensive vandalism activities than any actual viable procedures here. Having technically been accused of simply being involved in a "content dispute" by TWICE removing such improper material and open invitations to trolls from the page, I do not wish to further protect the pages myself, but request that the Wikiquote:Quote of the day also be FULLY protected, perhaps permanently at this point, from what I believe to be a strong possibility of further potentially very disruptive and BAD FAITH edits. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I made the above request after she posted the "Deployment instructions" on the Quote of the Day talk page after I protected the main page from such insertions. I did NOT remove these from that page, as not so inappropriate a placement — but I responded to her assertions that her rather extreme proposals should simply be posted and accepted as "official policy" here. I obviously quite strongly disagree. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For the convenience of anyone wishing to examine many of the issues involved in this dispute in a more unified form, I have compiled most recent discussions involving myself and JessRek6 (talk · contributions) into a few subsections on my talk page. (I have recently completed a long delayed archiving of that page, so it is not so oppressively extensive as it was just a few days ago, and only these discussions, and one other I have not yet attended to remain in the talk sections). ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For clarity and ease of navigation through what have been gradually growing discussions of recent days I have left the discussions which began on my talk page in white, the subsequent discussions here tinted blue, those on the Template talk:QOTD Ranking tinted green, and those on Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day tinted red. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Well I'm certainly not reading through this wall of text. But I still don't see where the disruption is that requires protection. There was a single edit by a non-administrator during the unprotected period, half of which is still there. Moreover, something like this is difficult to interpret as anything other than an extended personal attack. GMG^talk 18:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The "wall of text" had some formatting errors which were corrected with subsequent edits, but it was an extensive response to what I believe were clearly false claims and characterizations of circumstances which I believed had to be specifically and extensively addressed. In the response you seem to object to more strongly I myself was responding to what I truly believe to be the quite evident distortions, dishonesties, false assumptions and false assertions which were evident in many recent posts, and in the most recent acts of attempting to post certain procedures AS IF they were accepted and established policies when they certainly were NOT, and I believe that they were actually nothing less than entirely new innovations in trolling and invitations to trolling. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 18:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to repeatedly accuse someone of trolling, disruption, arrogant and asinine vandalism, bad faith exposures, misleading distortions, outright lies, disingenuousness and dishonesty, then you better come bearing some pretty convincing diffs. GMG^talk 19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Though I certainly examine them regularly, I usually do not confine my arguments or assessments to presenting or comparing "diffs" which can themselves often be chosen to present very select and narrow windows on circumstances. In consideration of anyone who is inclined to examine many of the stages of the assertions and contentions which have developed in the current disputes, I have presently cleared my talk page of nearly all other material, and it now consists primarily of an extensive presentation of discussions on the pages in which these current disputes have developed, in color coded subsections for ease of perusal. I certainly am not in any way inclined to advocate a neglect or disregard of this editor's valid concerns or assertions because of present disputes with her, and I believe I have accommodated some of them, and am willing to accommodate more, but I do believe that major project pages should not be open to her sudden alteration, to post such sudden innovations as "Deployment instructions" AS IF they were approved and accepted procedures here, in total disregard, defiance and denigration of those which actually exist. I have indicated in some of my previous responses specific ways in which I genuinely believe many of her assertions have been misleading or simply false, whether by mistake or by design, and to my discernment even many true assertions seem to have been mixed or tinged with false ones or appeals to false assumptions in deliberately deceptive ways, but I am well aware that this is always something difficult to actually prove. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have read through the discussion (with the exception of the 4,200 word wall of text), and their comments seem cordial and fairly within reason (not to mention comparatively concise). Your responses do not. If your evidence is confined to your own personal beliefs, then stop making personal attacks and explicit assumptions of bad faith. If you want to accuse someone of vandalism, disruption, and trolling, "I don't fancy diffs" does not constitute evidence. GMG^talk 20:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We are all somewhat limited by our own beliefs, but I believe that you are asserting as your apparent belief that my "evidence is confined to your own personal beliefs" — but if you actually examined the "4,200 word wall of text" where I detail some of the errors, distortions and deceptions which I assert were evident in the comments and "audit" which prompted that very extensive and detailed rebuttal, I believe that such an assertion would not be rationally maintained. I actually have NOT been inclined to accuse her of direct and deliberate vandalism, though I confess that was something I have been inclined to suspect at times, but I definitely believe some of her postings were innately promotional of greater opportunities for vandals and trolls, and some of my statements asserting that could be read ambiguously. I am well aware very skilled trolls and vandals do not need such information, but many more casual and incidental trolls could begin to make use of it when posted to prominent pages. I am NOT inclined to view her or ANY person as an innately "bad person" but I do definitely perceive that there are evident inclinations, intentions and activities I consider it proper to object to and oppose, and I have simply done so. I have no problem accommodating what I perceive to be reasonable suggestions and requests from her or anyone. I will probably not have time today to do much work on merging some of the comments she posted to a project page which I did not believe it necessary to remove, with such information as was already there, but I might get around to that tomorrow, or at least within a few days, and simultaneously refine and update some long obsolete presentations on the page, whenever I do get around to it. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"I will state that I definitely have increasing contempt for what I hold to be your increasingly evident DIS-INGENUOUSNESS and DISHONESTY, and apparent intentions to further disrupt this project in various subtle or overt ways." (diff). GMG^talk 20:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I was attending to other matters for a while, and just saw your posting. The statement you quote is bluntly honest, and I was expressing and asserting a bit of anger and genuine and increasing contempt for what I perceived to be qualities which were evident in actions and expressions I was immediately and directly responding to. Even so, I am extremely aware that such qualities as are immediately evident in circumstances are NOT the only ones which exist in ANYONE, even the people who are most habitually dishonest, deceitful or conniving, but to the extent I discern such qualities to be becoming increasingly evident or persistent in any situation or set of actions, I am sometimes very inclined to make note of that in various overt or subtle ways. I am very well aware all people and all circumstances are complex, and am NOT prone to seek to characterize people as "ONLY" manifesting ANY qualities which might be immediately apparent — I consider such inclinations themselves quite foolish, and all too common. While I was attending to other matters I actually had some thoughts pertinent to some matters here, but in assessing my own limited capacities to explicate and indicate many of them in ways that might be easily understandable or appreciated, I will simply decline to complicate matters further, other than to state they inclined me to amusement and tolerance and certainly not to bitterness or resentment. I do have to attend to other matters more extensively now, so I expect my presence here today to become even more sporadic. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not a suggestion; it is a requirement. You are expected to work collaboratively with others. Being a long-term user or an administrator does not exempt you from this requirement, neither does it exempt you from being blocked for making personal attacks or casting aspersions without providing evidence. Being a long-term user and administrator requires that you should understand and model this above and beyond the average user. I trust you will take this mandate seriously going forward. GMG^talk 22:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

As you stated you were not inclined to examine the "wall of text" which I assert is in many ways actually a wall of EVIDENCE, such as you imply I do not provide, presented in response to her derisive assertions and claims regarding an "audit" of a week of my selection processes, in which I refute her specific allegations and also tabulated up circumstances and actions regarding many years of edits in February, I have extracted just a few of the more clearly expository statements which most directly refute some of her explicit accusations against me in her putative "audit". I will also note that one general aspect of her "audit" and other comments which can be summarized as deceptive is continually remarking on ALL the rankings of quotes as "support" for them, when quite often this is quite CONTRARY to facts, and the rankings often do NOT actually indicate positive support, and sometimes not even acceptance but actual REJECTION, and that is actually the case in some of the incidents she remarks upon, and this is certainly a significant form of falsehood to note. In refuting her statements I confess I also clearly occasionally used a few "harsh" words like "deceitful", "deceitfulness" and even "hypocrisy" while providing evidence in response to her harsh accusations — which most people are aware can be made without using harsh words at all. I will confess I could be easily considered guilty of extreme idiocy in that particular skill.

To try to keep things relatively brief I provide simply extracts and NOT the complete information regarding THREE of the dates "audited" focusing only on parts where I was responding directly to several of her accusations against me, where against her allegations and innuendos I definitely establish that there was no impropriety on my part in making these selections. I am aware the details of these assertions are somewhat tedious, and probably not easily understood by all, but they definitely refute her assertions.

February 10 : I have already observed that in recent years many quotes do not have rankings other than those provided by those who post them, and I believe you are rather deceitful in characterizing my selection for this date on this year with the crude summation: "2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself." The selection you disparage was a significant statement by a significant author which I had first posted in February 2017:

I believe that cruelty, spite, The powers of darkness will in time Be crushed by the spirit of light.

~ Boris Pasternak ~

I had ranked it as a 3 on posting it, and I finalized it as a 4. Though I sometimes post a "2" or even very rarely a "1", I actually seldom post quotes I do not consider a 3, and I believe that over the years I have had more people agree than disagree with my assessments. The 8 remaining options provided by others have actual current rankings of 2.25, 2, 2, 2.3, 2, 3, 3, and 2.5. Most of those rankings on the lower scale date from prior to 2009, and the last 3, which include my own rankings of good quotes suggested by a well appreciated contributor date from 2013.

February 11 : "2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself." • In this case I believe that rank hypocrisy and deceitfulness are RAMPANT: I actually chose a quote from another editor — and ALL of the remaining suggestions save one are those I myself provided — some of which had rankings by other editors, but one of which I myself came to rank "0" as I eventually could not find a reliable source for it, and the other with other people's assessments only ranking a 2.6. The one other suggestion other than my own which remains as an option only has a ranking of 2.25 — while the one I selected by a well respected contributor was ranked 3 by himself on posting it in 2012, and also a 3 by me, until selecting it this year, at which point I boosted it with a 4.

February 14 : This date's selection you summarize with the statement: "2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — again these 2 that were valid suggestions have for many YEARS ranked LESS than most of the other available suggestions on the page — and ALL the other options are currently my own suggestions.

In closing, I also wish to note that some of my harshest comments were responses to what I considered to be improper actions that had taken place only moments before my comments, and that at no point did I seek to unjustly constrain her from making suggestions, comments, or even further denigration of my integrity. I simply at one point took action to prevent further posting of what I considered improper and deceptive material to a significant project page. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 05:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Template talk:QOTD Ranking discussions

For a clearer flow presentation of recent events and discussions, this is a copy of subsequent discussions with the above editor on the Template talk:QOTD Ranking after much of the above discussion.

Brief summary of selection process

Proposed addition to the template to offer participants a brief overview of the selection process, and to set expectations regarding the weight of making suggestions or ranking suggestions:

The Quote of the Day (QOTD) is the most prominent feature of the WikiQuote Main Page. Thank you for submitting, reviewing, and ranking suggestions!

As with many processes on Wiki projects, the selection of QOTD is not simply a matter of vote counting. The average ranking is the primary factor in the selection; other considerations in the selection, independent of the expressed rankings of any number of editors, include: an assessment of the grammatical correctness of the suggestion, agreement with the sentiment or idea expressed by the suggestion, whether the statement made by the suggestion is considered true or may be read as false or partially false or hyperbolic, connection to this date in history such as the birthday or anniversary of death of the speaker of the quote, how often or how recently suggestions from the same speaker or from the same editor have been used, and personal preference.

Thus, a suggestion with a lower average ranking than others, or with fewer editors expressing supportive rankings, may be selected.

The selection of the QOTD is not considered closing a discussion, and the editor making the selection is not required to impartially assess consensus or to be an uninvolved; they may make suggestions, rank suggestions, select one of their own suggestions, or select any quotation of their choice.

The selection of QOTD is currently made by User:Kalki, typically around 00:00 UTC daily.

Thank you for participating!

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Edited for length and clarity JessRek6 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

---

I was just about to leave, having already made a QOTD selection for today, and perhaps not having time to get back for further editing anytime soon, but noticed your additions here, and am delaying slightly. All in all your suggestions are more moderate than I feared they might be, but also a bit more extensive than I believe is actually necessary. At most I would prefer to extend them to such a layout as I mentioned earlier on the Admin noticeboard after the protection levels were reduced here. It would display somewhat in this form:

Ranking system

4 : Excellent – should definitely be used. (This is the utmost ranking and should be used only for one quote at a time, per person, for each date.)

3 : Very Good – strong desire to see it used.

2 : Good – some desire to see it used.

1 : Acceptable – but with no particular desire to see it used.

0 : Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.

An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day. The selections made are almost always chosen from among the top ranked options existing on the page on the date prior to their use, but the provision of highly ranked late additions, usually in regard to special events (most commonly in regard to the deaths of famous people, or other major social or physical occurrences), always remain an option for final selections.

I could see possible addition of some of your above suggestions as well, among the above assertions, but I generally would prefer to keep the instructions as short and simple as possible. Possibly an alternate coloration to the section in a pale yellow or blue might also be used, to make it stand out a bit more on the page. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• "almost always chosen from among the top ranked" This wording inadequately describes the many various conditions under which the selection is not "among" the top ranked, which I think is sort of the point here, to be fair to participants to understand before investing time and energy in order to prevent misunderstandings going forward.
• "on the date prior to their use" Let us collaborate to document the existing process; this wording makes it seem like our community has 24 hours advanced notice of the selection, which it does not.
• "usually in regard to special events" Again, let us reflect the existing process; it is simply not the case that, when a quotation is selected that is not the highest ranked it is "usually" related to events. JessRek6 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I was literally about to leave, and am currently in my outdoors clothing, but am again delaying slightly.

I believe it IS the case that the final selection is "almost always chosen from among the top ranked" — but on many and perhaps most pages the rankings tend to be rather FLAT, making shifts in rankings or additions of rankings often very significant as alterations. On the pages with prominent extremes the least favored quotes are simply not selected, and choices ARE usually made from among the most favored.

I can accept a dropping of "on the date prior to their use" from my summary as not actually necessary, but certainly did not intend to use it in deceptive way, and in the "existing process" I believe it IS actually usually the case.

You finally assert that "it is simply not the case that, when a quotation is selected that is not the highest ranked it is "usually" related to events" — and I reject that claim entirely. Again I will state that MOST pages have SEVERAL or even MANY quotes in ties for "highest ranked" — and thus alteration of a rank on ANY of these can be decisive — but that does NOT make the assertion false that the final decisions are from among the highest ranked — and certainly does NOT make true the assertion or implication that most late additions are not actually related to recent events — I assert they USUALLY are.

I have summarized a few objections to your above assertions, and now actually do have to get going. I do not intend to remain here more than a few minutes, at present, but presently believe I will probably be back within a couple of hours or so. So it goes. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

As we discussed previously on your talk page, since you focus on average ranking, and since no average will ever exceed 4, and the way you reserve the right to involve yourself and make a fresh suggestion at selection time and rank it a 4, means that in practice, yes, I agree, the quote you select will always be "among" the top ranked, and so you effectively always reserve the right to yourself to literally select any quote you prefer on any given day. I believe in fairness to participants we need to be as explicit as possible about this aspect of the current process. JessRek6 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

An audit of one recent week:

• 2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself.
• 2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself.
• 2/12 - On Lincoln's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from other editors.
• 2/13 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 4 with support from an editor other than yourself.
• 2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.
• 2/15 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.
• 2/16 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 3 with support from two or more editors other than yourself.

To characterize this process as "almost always" or "usually" or "except on special occasions" selecting from "among the top ranked" would be misleading to participants. JessRek6 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I had several more things to attend to than I was initially considering earlier, and this remains the case, but I will definitely make a response to these assertions within the coming day or so.

I will state that I do believe you definitely seem to be extremely intent on mischaracterizing my actions in a very skewed and hostile manner, and with all manner of deficiencies or clear errors in assertions about the facts, in declaring your assessments. In response I will assess some of your criticisms and assessments of these pages and actions in regard to them, but I know it will take some time to meticulously expose what I believe to be some of the deficiencies and errors of your assertions, and I will likely expand the scope of the examinations extensively. There are perhaps some facts which you do accurately state, but there are more extensive facts you are clearly ignoring, and some assessments which I believe to be extremely incorrect. I do not plan to begin doing this immediately, as for at least a few hours there will be many other matters I will be attending to, and it is very possible that I might not post anything further on this matter till sometime tomorrow evening. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a noticeboard, it is a talk page, you need not defend the selection process here or anywhere else. After all, no one is complaining. My point in examining one week was to look together at what really happens, in service of suggesting that in the text we add we avoid constructions such as "almost always" or "usually" or "occasionally" that characterize how often a consideration enters into the selection decision. I am heartened that you view the above proposed text as moderate and an improvement. Based on your comments, I have edited it for length. I hope that there is some area of agreement. May I propose that the content, indicated above in italics, mainly the greeting and salutation, the invitations to participate, and some simple statements of basic facts, is non-controversial, and may be added to the template as we continue to collaborate on a concise summary of the considerations that enter into the selection decision? JessRek6 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Extensive responses to misleading assertions

I believe I quite definitely need to defend the selection processes here, and I believe that you have definitely been implicitly or explicitly complaining in your present and recent statements. As I have already indicated I believe many of your assertions are VERY misleading, in some cases perhaps deliberately deceitful, and your final comments earlier that what I believe to be my quite honest and accurate assertions regarding matters "would be misleading to participants" to be among the most misleading of your own statements, and prompted me to attempt to expose how erroneous and FALSE I believe many of your assertions have been. In rebuking and refuting what I consider the very warped, skewed, unjustly derisive and simply FALSE assertions you have provided above I will make a few very relevant observations. You seem very skilled at using polite and considerate language in conjunction with some of your VERY impolite and inconsiderate actions and innuendos, and after you twice posted info which I believe far more likely to be exploited by vandals and trolls than any good faith editors I will adapt the Emma González statement which you had suggested and I happened to decide against using as QOTD on the 17th: I call BS.

On your User page you post 6 incidents of having made QOTD suggestions, and have checked off fully half of these as quotes which I had actually selected for QOTD:

QOTD suggestions

• February 17 - Emma González in Fort Lauderdale (2018)
• Y Done March 24 - Emma González at March for Our Lives in Washington D. C. on March 24, 2018
• June 12 - Obama after Orlando (2016)
• July 20 - Obama after Aurora (2012)
• Y Done November 5 - James Fallows in The Atlantic after the Sutherland Springs church shooting (2017)
• Y Done December 14 - Obama on Sandy Hook

You seem to have become irate regarding my assessments and decisions after I did not provide you the opportunity to check off a 4th on your very acceptable but very targeted agenda on the 17th. In relation to this you have cast aspersions on my judgement and procedures and long years of work on this project, and prompted me to spend a substantial amount of time and effort in recent days, between other tasks and duties, in beginning to counter what seems to me to be some of your perhaps casual but intense disparagement of my moral integrity and some of the conscientious and simply practical processes I have developed over the years, dealing with a preparations against a wide range of actual as well as potential problems.

I have stated that in doing daily work here in providing QOTD suggestions and selections for the many years since 2003, I have actually not only done MOST of the work of making selections, and nearly all of them since early in 2004, but also the work of seeking and providing MOST of the suggestions on MOST pages, and nearly all of them on some, and having already used what few suggestions others have provided on some pages, currently the ONLY suggestions remaining available on some are entirely those I have provided. This is the actually the case on the suggestion page for the upcoming QOTD for February 27, where other than the 23 suggestions I have posted, 13 of them already chosen, ONLY 3 other suggestions by ANYONE ELSE have been provided AT ALL, in ALL of the years in which it has been available, 2 of them very welcomed and already used additions by a broadly discerning contributor of many quotes to many pages, and one of them, actually the first QOTD for that date, was one simply posted by an anon IP in 2004, prior to any formalities at all having yet developed in the selection processes. I believe that the ACTUAL STATE about THIS PAGE and MANY others, and the actual quality and quantity of my contributions relative to those provided by others should definitely be taken into account and not a simplistic tally that is apparently aimed at implying or misleading others to assume that that I tend to choose primarily my own quotes AS IF that were simply indicative of an "unfair bias" or a devious procedure on my part — rather than very often a definite consequence of a relative paucity of well-ranked or even existing alternatives on MANY pages.

In seeking out the "last moment changes" which have occurred because of sudden events so far this year, I found that there have thus far been only 3. I scanned the January 2020 summary page, and the first was in regard to the death of Kobe Bryant, posted as QOTD of the 27th of January. I am not actually an avid fan of any spectator sports, but even I was familiar with many of the admirable qualities and accomplishments of Bryant, and I wept many times on that day at the circumstances of his death, and that of his daughter and their companions in that helicopter crash, and have wept many times since in many of the tributes which have been given by others regarding his life. On hearing of his death I immediately cast all other considerations aside, and sought out a quote of him to use for the upcoming QOTD. There were at that point NONE actually available upon his page, only quotes about him, and in searching the internet I found several admirable statements attributed to him, but could not sufficiently source them, but finally came across a very good one with a reliable source, and used it:

When I was young, my mindset was image, image, image. I took that approach with the media. As I became more experienced I realized: No matter what, people are going to like you or not like you. So be authentic, and let them like you or not for who you actually are. At that point, I started keeping all of my answers blunt and straightforward. I would mix in some humor and sarcasm, too. I think fans and reporters came to appreciate that, came to appreciate the real me.

~ Kobe Bryant ~

• Correction  : there were actually 4 such "last moment changes" because of sudden events — I had very clearly remembered the death of both Bryant and Douglas altering my procedures, and had been scanning for Bryant's QOTD, but actually in my quick scanning of the pages missed the earlier QOTD of Jim Lehrer just a few days before, on January 24th, after his recent death, when I posted:

If we don’t have an informed electorate we don’t have a democracy. So I don’t care how people get the information, as long as they get it. I’m just doing it my particular way and I feel lucky I can do it the way I want to do it.

~ Jim Lehrer ~

Reviewing the summary page for February 2020 I observed that the next "last moment change" after the death of Bryant had not been in regard to a death, but of a rarer event in the prominently historical statement made by Mitt Romney on his decision to vote in favor of convicting Donald Trump on one of the impeachment charges against him. I believe that only after using that for the 6th of February I learned of the death of Kirk Douglas, and the next day once again cast aside other considerations and used a quote of Douglas in regard of his death.

I start my larger exposition of activities and assessments with providing what I believe to be a broader, deeper and more accurate sweep of things with a more extensive and meticulous INDICATION of actual circumstances, starting with the very beginning of this month's edit's, and facts about the various options available, the relative rankings of available prospects, and perhaps sometimes some aspects of the considerations I have made in choosing one quote from among others, or seeking out further options beyond those initially available. I will also provide indications of the tallies of quotes from PREVIOUS years in relation to EACH of those dates, so that a far more extensive range of facts and considerations about them can come into play to anyone taking any note of our contending assertions about matters.

For many years in working the suggestion pages, I tended to rank nearly ALL the quotes which were provided by anyone, and many other participants did that also, but as I perceived fewer and fewer people actually showing any inclination to do that, or rank others than their own, and some acts of extremely skewing all the tallies to favor their own suggestions or preferences, I myself began to more seldom rank the suggestions of others in bulk, and now, for various reasons of time and circumstances, probably quite often provide many of them a ranking only when I actually select them, or actively choose not to do so, in favor of some others of similar ranking. In your above "audit" of a few days this month you apparently seek to denigrate me by declaring such assertions as "You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself". I believe that in the last few years, and perhaps even the last decade of additions, MANY quotes, and perhaps MOST of the quotes added probably don’t have any rankings by others than those who posted them. As the years pass by, though there certainly are exceptions on some pages where good suggestions have been bountiful and even remain so, many of the remaining quotes which have been passed over for selection for many years on many pages are increasingly those which have NOT been highly ranked by anyone, save perhaps the person who posted them.

You seem to seek to imply or insist that I act regularly or even primarily in favor of my own suggestions, and do not provide fair or sufficient regard to the suggestions of others. I do not believe that claim is born out by the actual record of my many years of activities here. I have provided a link to the QOTD suggestion pages as the links of the birth and death dates of nearly all authors pages. I certainly have not attempted to impede others from making contributive suggestions to these pages, but over the years relatively few have done it, and personally aiming to maintain an abundance of riches on most pages, rather than a paucity of prospects, this has left the bulk of the current suggestions available on most pages as my own. I here provide a summary of the characteristics of the options available and the resulting choices annually made upon these dates in February since 2004 :

February 1 : Other than the 18 suggestions I provided, 10 of them already used, there have been only 7 suggestions by others, 6 of them already used, and only 1 currently left unused.

February 2 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only been 10 suggestions, 5 of them already used.

February 3 : Other than the 70 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been 16 other suggestions, 6 of them already used.

February 4 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 15 of them already used, there have only been 4 suggestions, 2 of them already used.

February 5 : Other than the 41 suggestions I provided, 15 of them already used, there have only been 3 suggestions, 2 of them already used, and the remaining one currently sustaining a ranking of a 1 and a 0.

February 6 : Other than the 27 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 2 suggestions, 1 of them already used.

February 7 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, 2 of them already used.

February 8 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 7 already used, there have been 18 suggestions, 9 of them already used.

February 9 : Other than the 22 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 3 of them already used and one of those remaining ranked only 1 by me and 0 by another admin.

February 10 : Other than the 25 suggestions I provided, 14 already used, there have been only 11 suggestions, 3 of them already used. I have already observed that in recent years many quotes do not have rankings other than those provided by those who post them, and I believe you are rather deceitful in characterizing my selection for this date on this year with the crude summation: "2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself." The selection you disparage was a significant statement by a significant author which I had first posted in February 2017:

I believe that cruelty, spite, The powers of darkness will in time Be crushed by the spirit of light.

~ Boris Pasternak ~

I had ranked it as a 3 on posting it, and I finalized it as a 4. Though I sometimes post a "2" or even very rarely a "1", I actually seldom post quotes I do not consider a 3, and I believe that over the years I have had more people agree than disagree with my assessments. The 8 remaining options provided by others have actual current rankings of 2.25, 2, 2, 2.3, 2, 3, 3, and 2.5. Most of those rankings on the lower scale date from prior to 2009, and the last 3, which include my own rankings of good quotes suggested by a well appreciated contributor date from 2013.

February 11 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 7 suggestions, 6 of them already used. I believe you again QUITE DERISIVELY and with DELIBERATE DECEITFULNESS describe this year's choice for this date with the summation: "2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself." • In this case I believe that rank hypocrisy and deceitfulness are RAMPANT: I actually chose a quote from another editor — and ALL of the remaining suggestions save one are those I myself provided — some of which had rankings by other editors, but one of which I myself came to rank "0" as I eventually could not find a reliable source for it, and the other with other people's assessments only ranking a 2.6. The one other suggestion other than my own which remains as an option only has a ranking of 2.25 — while the one I selected by a well respected contributor was ranked 3 by himself on posting it in 2012, and also a 3 by me, until selecting it this year, at which point I boosted it with a 4.

February 12 : Other than the 18 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been 22 suggestions, 5 of them already used.

February 13 : Other than the 25 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, 1 of them already used. Of this year's selection you state: "2/13 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 4 with support from an editor other than yourself." ALL of the remaining suggestions on this page have a current ranking of "3" and thus ranked very good and eventually will likely be used. MOST of these are my suggestions, and in reviewing the page of the author of many of these statements I encountered one which I considered superior to any I had yet posted of him for that particular day, and posted it with a ranking of 4, and used it.

February 14 : Other than the 61 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 4 proper suggestions out of 7, 1 of them already used on this date, 1 already used on another, 1 with a ranking of 2.25, 1 with a ranking of 2.5, the 3 others actually improper posts of insufficient notability or sourcing. This date's selection you summarize with the statement: "2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — again these 2 that were valid suggestions have for many YEARS ranked LESS than most of the other available suggestions on the page — and ALL the other options are currently my own suggestions.

February 15 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 4 of them already used. In summary of this year's edit you state: "2/15 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — those 2 remainders have rankings of 2.5 and 1 — and that one is not even properly sourced.

February 16 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 17 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, none of them extremely high ranking at 2.3 and 2.5 for over a decade, and one of them marked "0" as unsuitable since 2012. In summary of this year's edit you state: "2/16 - You selected a quote of your own preference that was not among the previous suggestions, even though the previous suggestions included 3 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." In fact, seeing only a couple relatively poor alternatives to the relatively low ranked or unsuitable quotes, I searched and added several more by Henry Adams several hours before the deadline, most ranked as "3" and one of them ranked as "4".

February 17 : Other than the 20 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been 8 suggestions, 2 of them already used. As I have already indicated my inclinations for this date had shifted from originally one to use a quote of Emma González towards at least a slight preference for one by Hans Morgenthau: "Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over which it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter's minds. That influence may be exerted through orders, threats, persuasion, or a combination of any of those." In seeking definite sourcing of the quote prior to using it, I encountered several other statements by the same author which I found to be even better, and resolved to use one of them instead, but failed to format and post any of these earlier in the day, and when I did arrive to make the postings, briefly considered prior options, but went with what I genuinely believed to be the best of the statements available for usage on that day, which reads:

Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. And it is unwilling to gloss over and obliterate that tension and thus to obfuscate both the moral and the political issue by making it appear as though the stark facts of politics were morally more satisfying than they actually are, and the moral law less exacting than it actually is.

~ Hans Morgenthau ~

February 18 : Other than the 53 suggestions I provided, 15 already used, there have been only 6 suggestions, 2 of them already used.

February 19 : Other than the 17 suggestions I provided, 16 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 1 of them already used, one remainder ranking at 2.5, and none of the others ranking more than 2 and two of them ranking less than that. This is one page which I believe will definitely require an influx of new and better options within the next couple of years.

February 20 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 10 already used, there have been 15 suggestions, 7 of them already used.

February 21 : Other than the 16 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been 12 suggestions, 4 of them already used.

February 22 : Other than the 31 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 6 of them already used.

February 23 : Other than the 23 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 5 suggestions, all 5 of them already used.

February 24 : Other than the 26 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been 14 suggestions, most of these added only within the last 5 years, with 4 of them already used.

February 25 : Other than the 28 suggestions I provided, 11 already used, there have been only 9 suggestions, 6 of them already used.

February 26 : Other than the 7 suggestions I provided, all 7 already used, there have been 15 suggestions, 10 of them already used.

February 27 : Other than the 23 suggestions I provided, 13 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, all 3 of them already used.

February 28 : Other than the 15 suggestions I provided, 12 already used, there have been only 8 suggestions, 4 of them already used.

February 29 : Other than the 11 suggestions I provided, 3 already used, there have been only 3 suggestions, 1 of them already used.

In summary of the above tallies:

I myself have, over the years, provided 740 suggestions on the 29 pages of this month, used 362 of these, and there have ONLY been a total of 342 suggestions OTHER than my own, and from this much smaller base, 114 of them have already been used, for a ratio of exactly one third of their total. I am not tallying the relatively low rankings many of the remainder have, but I believe that to be the PRIMARY factor in regard to why most of those remaining have not been used. I am here emphasizing the slightly surprising fact that over the years, though I have supplied a substantial SURPLUS for most pages, there have actually been, in total, FEWER suggestions even made by others than have actually been NEEDED to provide quotes for the month of February.

Though as I have stated, currently it is increasingly common for suggestions to have few or no rankings other than that of those who provide them, I believe that the rankings of others of many of my own suggestions which have been already used have generally been higher than that of most others, and especially so in regard of many of those which remain with relatively low rankings after many years, and which I now very seldom take into primary consideration, although I have very occasionally altered my own assessments of the incidental suitability of some of them for specific dates, and actually shifted my own low rankings to high ones to use a few of these.

In two of the pages listed in this month-long sampling I have already actually used ALL of the suggestions other than my own which have been provided.

— I believe that all of this indicates I have given very substantial consideration and use to the suggestions of others, and remain very conscientious in making assessments and any selections for QOTD, whether suggested originally by myself or others, or even people who have been extremely adversarial towards my own or most people's preferences.

I believe that only very skewed perceptions or conceptions of things would produce from the above facts any contention or efforts to imply that I am regularly or even primarily unjust or unfair in making selections. I have provided many suggestions, nearly all of which I believe to be worthy of eventual use in the years to come, and have very eagerly chosen many of those provided by others which warrant prominent consideration — and especially those clearly favored and not merely commented upon or ranked in the lower ranges by a majority of others. I again emphasize that the number of rankings of a quote is NOT a primary consideration, and I believe should not be — but rather the actual QUALITY of the quote for the date, as indicated by the average rankings, or in the case increasingly of many suggestions — their only rankings. Though prompted in part by some anger at some of your assertions, I actually am NOT resentful of having been impelled to make this response, because it has actually provided me an opportunity to meticulously review some things in ways I had never before done, get a clearer gauge of what many of the states of things on many of the suggestion pages actually have been and presently are, and develop greater sense of some of the actual statistics regarding the choices provided and decisions made. I am now likely to make a choice for the current QOTD soon, and then attend to other matters. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 19:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day discussions

For a clearer flow presentation of recent events and discussions, this is a copy of subsequent discussions with the above editor on the Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day after much of the above discussion.

Maintenance instructions

I've added some notes toward documenting the mechanics of how to maintain the QOTD. Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As you have noticed I have edited these. Some of the info on providing suggestions might be useful, but I believe posting explicit procedures involving creating future QOTD pages would far more likely be exploited by vandals and trolls than by any good faith editors. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please relax the protection on this page to at least semi. There has been no vandalism on this page. With your deletion of content you involved yourself in a content dispute regarding the content of a project page. The use of your administrative tools in a content dispute is inappropriate. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have definitely involved myself in a content dispute, and removing what I am prone to consider malicious vandalism of such postings to a very prominent page as indicate very rash, imprudent provision of such information as represents procedures NOT commonly used by general editors, and far more likely to be exploited by vandals and trolls than good faith editors. Your apparent intention of persisting in such postings does NOT bode well in any assessments of you as actually committed to prudent good faith editing. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC) + tweak

Please revert or reduce the page protection you imposed, then in good faith we can discuss the content you deleted. JessRek6 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Why should I expose the page to further editing by you at this point? I put a single day-long block to prevent further repeat of postings of such information and instructions as I believe are NOT appropriate to this page and do NOT reflect any generally used or or even discussed procedures here, but only a sudden assertion of suppositions of what is or should be appropriate by someone I perceive to be a extremely contentious and apparently extraordinarily resentful because I did not use your suggested proposal for a QOTD last week. I was just about to be leaving, but do not need to do so immediately, but I definitely believe the information you were seeking to post certainly does NOT belong on this page, and it IMPLIES as routine for general editors such procedures as have NEVER actually been so. I expect that other admins should weigh in on some of the occurrences and proposals which have occurred, and I believe insistence on posting such material here is simply NOT a reasonably acceptable proposal, by any admin who examines the issue. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not examine them closely earlier, but even the "Maintenance instructions" you suddenly posted WITHOUT discussion, and which I did NOT remove are rather redundant in regard to some of the links and information already on the page — I can see that some revision of the previous content, perhaps incorporating some adaptations of your statements or intentions might be used, but I again assert a strong conviction that the further procedural descriptions which you had posted simply do not belong here, and I believe do NOT reflect ANY procedures which have ever been, or should ever be, standard ones for general editors. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deployment instructions

Recent contribution to Wikiquote, reverted, moved to discussion page. This is the second half of the maintainence instructions, and describes the mechanics of setting up a QOTD for a future date.

2 Deploy the selection

1. Create a new page for the date of interest, for example Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 14, 2020. This page will be transcluded onto the Wikiquote:Main_Page at 00:00 UTC on February 14, 2020. This step requires an autoconfirmed account.
2. Edit the quote. As a starting point, cut and paste the contents of a recent quote of the day page. Locate the "quote of the day" template and replace the "quote" and "author" parameter values. Format the quote appealingly with line breaks. Optionally, add a relevant image. Preview and save the page.
3. Protect the quote. This step requires administrator privilege. Add, or ask a Wikiquote administrator to add, a wikilink to the new quote to page Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day/Protect. Cascading protection will fully protect the quote.

General interest in participation in the QOTD selection process is evidenced by the immediately preceding section of this discussion page, #Selecting_quotes_for_Wikiquote, an unanswered request from 2011. Documenting this process is long overdue.

Fundamentally, Wikiquote is a Wiki. Our project is an expression of our belief in good faith. We expose ourselves, it's what we do. The QOTD is a highly visible feature of our main page, but the QOTD is not Wikiquote; any potential exposure to the QOTD is not an existential threat to Wikiquote.

We offer extensive online help documentation on every other aspect of editing the Wiki as an expression of our invitation to open collaboration. Every time we make something easier for good faith editors we make it easier for vandals. No content or process is so mission critical that it must be reserved solely to the purview of any one editor.

Security by obscurity is the weakest form of security. These instructions do not include anything that could not be discovered with a little clicking around. Documenting this process does not significantly increase any exposure. A manual editing process that ideally should be performed once per day must be able to be performed routinely by many editors, and must be able to be staged ahead of time, not at the stroke of midnight by one and only one editor.

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"General interest in this process is evidenced" by ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. {I posted this remark using quotation marks around a statement she had posted in her above comments — subsequent editing of the above statements after my post here does not leave this fact as so evident, but I am simply inserting this comment here to clarify that matter. ~ Kalki 2020·02·27}

I believe MUCH of your activity in recent days has been encouragement and promotion of disruption and even arrogant and asinine vandalism. I twice removed your posting of the above "Deployment instructions" as to a procedure which has NEVER before been advocated as one available to general editors. It is has NEVER been discussed at ALL by ANYONE, until you suddenly of your OWN initiative posted it AS IF it were an AUTHORITATIVE declaration of POLICIES and PROCEDURES here — which it DEFINITELY is NOT.

You seem to seek VERY EAGER to speak AS IF you were already an official spokesperson for this project, and declare "Our project is an expression of our belief in good faith. We expose ourselves, it's what we do." Our project is indeed developed as a product of good faith activities — and NOT one that accepts or condones what are QUITE evidently insincere assertions, BAD FAITH exposures, misleading distortions, and outright lies — and invitations to potentially greater activities along those lines on the part of others by advocacy of activities such as are NOT standard practices here, and are NOT generally approved as such — and never before have such ridiculous suggestions been so asininely presented AS IF they should be "standard procedures". I will state that I definitely have increasing contempt for what I hold to be your increasingly evident DIS-INGENUOUSNESS and DISHONESTY, and apparent intentions to further disrupt this project in various subtle or overt ways. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 15:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Request strike-through of personal attacks

Please strike through the personal attacks you posted at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day and Template talk:QOTD Ranking. Thank you for your commitment to Wikiquote policy, to civility, and to focus on content. JessRek6 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I might actually to some extent consider, and even conscientiously negotiate the striking out many of my harshest but sincere and I believe generally accurate statements in response to many of your actions, including your derisions and denigrations of me and my assessments, such as you characterize as "personal attacks" though I might be more inclined to characterize them as sincere declarations of observations of situations, IF you yourself strike through all of your definitely REFUTED allegations against me, which are just as validly characterized as "personal attacks", though perhaps less harshly worded ones. I am actually inclined to only request that of those I perceive to be clearly refuted and thus clearly unjust derisions or denigrations, even if they might also perhaps be validly characterized by you as having been "sincere declarations of observations of situations" even if many or most of the contentions made in them have now been DISPROVEN, or proven to be fallacious or deceptive, even if not actually proven to be deliberately deceitful or dishonest. I am actually less inclined to characterize them as that, for several reasons, which I might to some extent explicate in coming days. I have actually been reconsidering some of my assumptions in recent responses and comments in regard to a few things, and am genuinely inclined to be a bit more tempered and moderate in some of my contentions, and think it more than likely I will review anything I am inclined to compose at least a couple times to minimize the retention of any assertions which might be overly or imprudently harsh, and easily perceived as unfair or unjust.

Having attended to other matters much of the day, I certainly have not had time to examine things sufficiently to propose any lists as yet, and I intend to be leaving again soon, so it might take at least a day or two to for us to come to compare any proposals, let alone come to any agreements, but with all of those which we could agree upon we could also post visible and/or hidden notices that these strikethroughs were done as the result of negotiations between us toward mutual agreement to strike-through these remarks as among the less prudent or justifiable of our previous statements.

I also request that you desist or at least begin to reconsider your present actions which I would sincerely characterize as evidently a developing trolling campaign against me. Specifically, at present, such actions as extending the summations on the suggestion pages to what I believe are meant to be derisive or accusative additions of "proposed and selected" to all my own recorded proposals. It is a simple FACT that I have long been the selector of ALL the quotes for many years, and by far the most extensive providers of OPTIONS, and I certainly have the right and sometimes no other choice than to select those I myself provided as suggestions. You might choose to be incredulous toward my assertion, but the fact that your proposal of the 17th was NOT my own was actually one of the STRONGEST and most enduring reasons I was actually inclined to use it this month, though I certainly would not have considered doing so if I did not also perceive it to have substantial merit as a statement.

In making this request I assert I am certainly not ashamed of having been the selector of most of the QOTD proposals since 2003, and nearly all of them since early in 2004, as in all of those years I have had VERY FEW objections to my particular selections. There is actually only ONE which I presently remember very clearly, very early on, probably in 2004, though I believe there was probably at least one other, and perhaps even a couple, prior to your present objections and apparent hostilities which I would gauge as CERTAINLY the most extensive and intense that have EVER existed in reaction to my suggestions, assessments and selections.

Quite aware that you seem to be someone inclined to be very hostile to many of his expressed opinions on many matters, I actually hesitate to note that in what is apparently the spiteful ranking of my own and other editors clear preferences for the QOTD of February 29 with a "1" you are actually repeating one of the most prominent strategies of the previously mentioned prolific suggester of militaristic, pro-authoritarian and Nazi quotes to the pages, and that is simply a FACT, whether perceived as ironic or not. I also wish to emphasize that despite my disagreements and contentions with that previous user, and his often adversarial relation against me and many others, I actually accepted and approved many of the suggestions he provided which had evident merit to me and to others, but not his most bizarre proposals, which remain poorly ranked or rejected by most others. I actually hope we can eventually come to more extensive agreements on many matters than ever occurred with him. He sometimes actually still edits here, but very rarely now.

I will also note that your addition of apparent objections to quotes specifically BECAUSE they come from the "same source" as previous quotes as has been used, or been have been suggested by editors who have had previous suggestions used seems innately irrational and unjust and seems to imply that at some point, it would be fair and proper if all the best sources, and most chosen contributors should be EXCLUDED, and perhaps even the poorest ranked suggestions should eventually be favored, if they have been proposed by editors who have not yet had their proposals accepted, or whom provide quotes from sources not yet used. You actually rank a quote an exceptional 4 specifically for that reason stating "source […] not previously used on this date; suggestion from editor not previously used on this date". I believe most people, and you yourself, after a moderate amount reflection, can recognize that an inclination or desire for such a practice to be irrational.

Some of your above actions reveal one of the reasons that after years of experience, even I myself have usually become more reluctant to rank quotes generally until I am ready to select them, despite having previously ranked nearly all quotes soon after they were posted, for many years. I have simply learned that doing that, it is far too easy for trolls or hostile agents of some agenda to deliberately negate and nullify the genuine consensus which develops on pages, and to impede the selections of the generally most admired and admirable quotes, as you presently seem to becoming inclined to do in what is actually a definite recurrence of the prior strategies of Zarbon (talk · contributions). Thus some of your current behavior to that extent does resemble some of his, but I genuinely hope that with further consideration and reflections you will eventually abandon those similarities and proceed to activities and contributions here of a more broadly welcomed character.

I also genuinely hope that with good fortune and opportunities you soon can expand your awareness and observations into paths of greater charity and good will towards others, and grow in the profound happiness and joy ever to be discovered in the beauty of Awareness, Life and Love of ALL — and despite our apparently strong current disagreements on substantial matters, I seek to extend genuine assertions and expressions of charity and good will towards you, now, and in coming months. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)