User Talk: Kwamikagami

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:Kwamikagami/FA}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = User talk:Kwamikagami/Automated archive
}}
{| class=wikitable align=right
|-
|''Your comments may be archived '''here''' after 48hrs''
|}

Word/quotation of the moment:

:{{blockquote|Astrology has no effect on reality, so why should reality have any effect on astrology? – J.S. Stenzel, commenting on astrological planets that astrologers acknowledge don't really exist}}

{{collapse top|left=true|(Previous quotes)}}
thumb|center|link=Flag of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast|The official state rainbow flag of Russia (official in JAO since 1996) ↗
{{blockquote|Do you think the liberals are using these school shootings to further their anti-tragedy agenda?|Col. Erran Morad, ''Who Is America?'', s01e01}}
{{blockquote|yod-dropper|(when you need something that ''sounds'' like an insult)https://specgram.com/CLI.3/02.letters.html ↗}}
{{blockquote|ALL keys matter ↗|response to the scale-wandering rendition of the national anthem at CPAC ↗ 2021}}
{{blockquote|The Lunatic-in-Charge becomes the Lunatic-at-Large}}
{{blockquote|Lame duck à l'orange ↗ (AKA ''canard ↗ à l'orange'')}}
{{blockquote|It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. [...] The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world.|Washington Irving, ''Knickerbocker's History of New York ↗''}}
{{blockquote|''Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço.'' For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap.|José Saramago, ''Death with Interruptions / Death at Intervals ↗''}}
{{blockquote|It is now generally accepted that the megaliths that make up Stonehenge ↗ were moved by human effort.|as opposed to by ''what''?}}
{{blockquote|Anybody who says you only have yourself to blame is just not very good at blaming other people.|It's Happy Bunny ↗}}
{{blockquote|''When poppies pull themselves up from their roots and start out, one after the other, toward the sunset – don't follow them.''|Slavko Janevski ↗, 'Silence'}}
{{blockquote|And the dough-headed took their acid fermentation for a soul, the stabbing of meat for history, the means of postponing their decay for civilization.|Stanislaw Lem ↗, ''Return from the Stars''}}
{{blockquote|''The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church.''|(commonly misattributed to Magellan)}}
{{blockquote|In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot.|from the WP article Nancy Dorian ↗}}
{{blockquote|Mikebrown ↗ is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown.|from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown ↗}}
: ''Ecce Mono ↗''
right ↗
:Keep Redskins White! ↗
:"homosapiens are people, too!!"
:a sprig of spaghetti ↗
:"I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."
:awkwardnessful ↗
:anti–zombie-fungus fungus ↗
:"Only an evil person would eat baby soup." (said in all sincerity)
{{collapse bottom}}

":Mare-mayor merger ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mare-mayor_merger&redirect=no Mare-mayor merger] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 26#Mare-mayor merger}}''' until a consensus is reached.  Un assiolo (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Aplucas0703

Hi. I hope you're having a good day. I wanted to report a user for prematurely adding Nepal to same-sex marriage article. They provided "NextShark" as a source, but it literally says: "Court rulings and daily reality have not kept pace. Many ward officials have not complied. Same-sex couples continue to face bureaucratic obstruction and institutional resistance". The source (NextShark) literally proves otherwise. Can you revert their edit, please. Boar2017 0 (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:Done.
:AFAICT we also don't have the actual ruling, and there's nothing to indicate a change in law. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Need sources

Since binding court judgments and pieces of legislation are not sufficient sources anymore, let's review the entire template to make sure everything is properly sourced.

: Israel: do we have sources that foreign marriages are properly recognized? Yes, we have a Supreme Court ruling, but decisions of high courts are not sufficient anymore.
: American Samoa: we have a law passed by the U.S. Congress here, but do we have sources that this recognition is applied on the ground?
: Bolivia: do we have sources that civil unions are actually valid? Again, we only have a binding Constitutional Court ruling, but you said it best, we need a source "that says this is the law, not just that it should be the law".
: Lithuania: same situtation... we only have a miserly Constitutional Court ruling ordering recognition.
: Cambodia, India, Japan, Philippines: is recognition here even binding and universally applied?
: Namibia: again, we only have a binding Supreme Court ruling. So insignificant...

Looking forward to deleting half the template. Panda2024 (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:Don't be as ass. If we have RS's that a country has SSM, we mark them as having SSM. If we don't, then we don't.
:Also, vandalizing WP because things aren't going your way and you're throwing a tantrum is, well, vandalism, and will get you blocked.
:Find a RS that Bulgaria or Slovakia have accepted or implemented the EU ruling and we can put them back on the list. If/when they do this, it should be covered by the news, so it shouldn't be difficult to find (though you may need to know the language).
:Also, the country articles should be updated so that when people follow the link for the refs and details, there will be something there. Also, that way we won't need refs in the info box. Those notes should be for odd details such as the US tribal jurisdictions, or the Chinese and Romanian laws not being intended for SS couples. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

::Here is a source confirming that Slovakia and Bulgaria are member states of the European Union: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/eu-countries_en
::Here is the ''Trojan'' judgment: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62023CJ0713
::Here is a source explaining that rulings of the European Court of Justice are authoritative and binding on all member states of the European Union: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/european-law/european-court-justice-treaty.php
::Here is a source explaining the situation for Czechia and how the ruling is immediately applicable to that country: https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/foreign-same-sex-marriages-must-now-be-recognized-in-czechia
::Hopefully, this should do it. Let's now hope you stop vandalising the template due to your limited understanding of EU constitutional law... As for all country articles, I updated them all months ago. I see you clearly didn't bother reading them... Panda2024 (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::The train of logic you've outlined above is called WP:SYNTH ↗ and is not acceptable on WP.
:::The question is simple: Have Slovakia and Bulgaria implemented the ruling? If we can't show that they have, then we can't claim that they have. Countries refuse to follow court rulings all the time. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Slovak and Bulgarian courts are bound to apply the ruling. I honestly believe I have explained this five times already. Any couple can approach the courts in those countries and the courts will be obliged to recognise the marriages. EU constitutional law is not original research. The ECJ ruling is authoritative and takes precedence over conflicting national law (even in Slovakia where the PM denounced the ruling and announced vague plans to ignore it, which haven’t been implemented yet). This is Europe, not the US or some other third world banana republic. Further, as already stated multiple times prior as well, Slovakia provides limited rights to same-sex couples through a "close person" status, which makes removing Slovakia from the template all the more absurd. Panda2024 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yes, you "explain" the same thing over and over and over again. That isn't any better evidence the fifth time than it was the first time. Repeating a claim doesn't make it true.
:::::"Bound to apply" doesn't mean that they ''have'' applied the ruling. It doesn't mean that as of today someone can get married. Even if they will apply the ruling at some date, you need sources that they already have.
:::::I have explained that to you multiple times. I honestly don't understand what is so difficult about the idea that you need sources that confirm what you claim "must" be true. — kwami (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Yes, they have implemented the ruling. Again, it is binding and immediately applicable. And I have provided sources… that Slovakia and Bulgaria are EU member states, are judicially bound to the European Court of Justice and that its judgments are directly applicable. Panda2024 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Wait, you claim that they have implemented the ruling, but then say you don't have to show that because they are "bound" to implement the ruling. Which is it? Do you or do you not have a RS that Slovakia and Bulgaria have implemented the EU ruling? — kwami (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The court ruling is immediately applicable to both countries, since they are EU member states. Couples can ask any court in both countries to have their marriage recognized. This is the principle of EU law… Panda2024 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Great. Provide a source that marriages have actually been recognized. Or is there zero demand in these countries? — kwami (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I do not know if any couple has approached the courts yet (similarly, I do not know if any couple has married in the Pitcairn Islands despite it being legal since 2015 or Irion County, Texas, for instance, where marriage has been legal since 2015 but officials illegally refused to issue licenses until 2020). But this is of no concern, because the ''Trojan'' is law in all EU member states, whether the individual governments want it or not. EU law has primacy over conflicting national law. The law is the law, regardless of demand… and the law here is clear. Panda2024 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::The category is "recognition". If there is no recognition, then it doesn't matter what the law says.
:::::::::::Back when Irion County refused to issue licenses, we did not claim that SSM was available there just because they were legally obligated to comply. — kwami (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, we did. The Texas article ↗ states clearly that marriage has been legal since 2015, not 2020. Again, the law is clear. Bulgaria, Slovakia, any EU member state must recognise marriages performed abroad. Panda2024 (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"Must" doesn't mean "does". It's fine to say they must, but not acceptable to say they do unless we have a RS that they do.
:::::::::::::This is very very simple, and basic WP policy. I don't think there is any point discussing it with you further.
:::::::::::::The articles are nuanced enough that it shouldn't matter much, but if you continue to post these claims in the nav box I will continue to revert you, or maybe better report you for edit-warring so you're blocked. That would be a shame, though, as most of your edits are worthwhile, and I'd prefer it if you could continue adding sourced material.
:::::::::::::If you want these claims to stand, you'll need to start a discussion that comes to a consensus that your edits do follow WP policy for RS, SYNTH, OR, TRUTH, etc. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Any court in Slovakia and Bulgaria will recognise a same-sex marriage. There is no "must", "does", etc. They simply will. That is how binding court judgments work. Your poor understanding of law, especially EU law, should not be preventing Wikipedia readers from getting a good picture of the legal situation of same-sex marriage. I will be readding both countries to the template. The law here is clear. Simply because you cannot understand it does not make it less true. And please, we all know you will ignore any majority consensus. You always do. I do not believe you have ever accepted a talk page consensus that didn’t go your way. Panda2024 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::"Will" is a violation of CRYSTAL. You need to show "does".
:::::::::::::::If the matter is that obvious, it should be easy for you to find a RS that shows it.
:::::::::::::::You have shown that you don't understand what consensus is on WP. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I wish I had this level of arrogance. So confident in your poor understanding of EU constitutional law. I saw you removed the stripes for Slovakia on the map. I will be reading them because as explained multiple times Slovakia grants legal rights to couples through a close person status. This is something I have noticed with you countless times over. Random edits without proper understanding of the situation. Panda2024 (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::This is called 'projection' -- saying it's others that do what you do. This seems to be a pattern for you.
:::::::::::::::::You may be right about Slovakia, but several others have rejected your claims, and given that you don't understand how WP works, there's only so much time I'm willing to invest in verifying. If you are willing to quote [or copy-paste] the relevant part of the Slovakia situation, or provide a link and a page or section number, I'll take a look. Also, if others think you got it right, it would be worth looking into it further.
::::::::::::::::::"Several others"… one user, that has been blocked. The absolute laziness one must have to not even verify information, when you literally claim to be a WP editor. 😭😭😭 Panda2024 (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Several users. One blocked because someone didn't like a box on their user page, not for anything they did as an editor. Someone who I've argued with in the past, but whose caution in accepting claims of SSM without secure verification I've come to respect, because over and over they've proven to be correct.
::::::::::::::::::As for verification, you're the one who claims to have the sources, so up to you to provide them. If you can't be bothered to justify your arguments, but only want to argue for the joy of it, then I'm not interested, and ask you to stay off my talk page. — kwami (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::The sources are on the respective WP articles. Being too lazy to go check them out is in no way a me-problem. Panda2024 (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::For the EU ruling, it's not a matter of EU law, but of sourcing requirements for WP. As has been explained to you multiple times. It's very simple: you need a source for your claims. Unsourced claims get reverted. And a 'source' is something that says what you claim it says. So far you haven't provided one. — kwami (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::The ruling is not limited to Poland: "Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, on the ground that the law of that Member State does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex, does not permit the recognition of a marriage between two same-sex nationals of that Member State concluded lawfully in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, in which they have created or strengthened a family life, or the transcription for that purpose of the marriage certificate in the civil register of the first Member State, where that transcription is the only means provided for by that Member State for such recognition." https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/423/oj/eng/pdf ↗ The judgment expressly states that EU member states must comply with EU constitutional law when regulating foreign marriages, and as a result, courts in all member states must apply the interpretation given in ''Cupriak-Trojan'' when confronted with equivalent facts. Panda2024 (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

":Tabancara language ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tabancara_language&redirect=no Tabancara language] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 1#Tabancara language}}''' until a consensus is reached.  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 ↗ 07:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Need citation for Neso ↗ pronunciation, adjective, and Greek spelling

Hiya! I recently finished revamping the Neso ↗ article, but I noticed that there's no citations for the pronunciation and Greek spelling (with the accented omega). I'm not sure if it has an adjective too. If you have time, could you do me a favor and find citations for these? Thanks! '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 05:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:(actually, I noticed that the other Neptunian irregulars are missing citations for pronuniciation, adjective, and Greek spelling. Can you find citations for these as well? Thanks again!) '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 19:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::I see you've found a ref for the Greek orthography.
::I haven't been able to find an adj form.
::I'll see if I can get around to the others this weekend. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Errors in List of Solar System objects by size

Your edits in the "From 20 to 49 km" section of :List of Solar System objects by size ↗ describes as "2 digits max in error" had some syntax errors. You should be able to see a large red error in places where your edits cause issues. Can you please fix these? Thank you! — SkyLined (talk ↗) 17:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:Fixed it. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)