User talk:Goethean/2008

Bodymind

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bodymind, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of nondual

Nondualism, Or Dualism, Or Duality, etc. etc. come from the Latin 'Duos' meaning Two, Sorry to break your Bubble, You seemed to really be on a roll with the New Age edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.254.135 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on being unhelpful and insulting in equal parts. You think I don't know that the word nondual derives from dual? But nonetheless, if there are no examples of the English word nondual before the reception in the West of the Sanskrit term advaita, then the term nondual is probably a translation of advaita. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky

An editor has nominated Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your User:Goethean/Human (disambiguation) subpage

The subpage shouldn't be around because of: "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." which is found on Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages. If you have no interest in the page, I suggest using {{db-author}} on it, instead of leaving it inactive. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia subpages aren't permanent storage for articles. I suggest some cleanup and db-author tags to a majority of the pages in [1]. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer

Good work! Thankyou.Andycjp (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy)

User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy), a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-rational

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Post-rational, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Post-rational. Mattisse 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mother zieht uns hinan

Sup Goethean. I see you editing Sri Aurobindo, and I just had to drop you a line. I only know what Wikipedia tells me about the Supermind and Supramentalisation, so I'm a bit newb here, but I couldn't help but see the linkage between some of the Sri's lovely (if intimidatingly mystic) ideas and a commentary I've recently read on Goethe's Faust. This wonderful Texan liberal arts prof TK Seung has a text Goethe, Nietzsche, and Wagner, in which he contends that the defining works of each is a "Spinozan" deification of the world/nature.

I wonder what you'd have to say to this? Also, I wasn't quite sure if Dr. Seung was being madly radical in proclaiming that Romanticism blossomed from Spinoza, or from the thought embodied by Spinoza. Have you read this or considered this yourself? Also, as you apparently are interested in both Sri Aurobindo and the G-man, what do you envision as linkages between the two? When I read in the Supramentalisation section of supermind about Aurobindo's conception of descent and a return to Earth, it echoed as Seung's consideration of Goethe and his "mystical naturalism".

I'm rambling, but I don't think there are many people who are interested in Sri Aurobindo and Goethe, so I thought I'd harass you a bit. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting exchange. Although I think one may contend that Goethe was no mystic (or vice versa), to flatly declare that he had a "disgust for mysticism" is either not sustainable, or just pointless. I mean, c'mon, there's a freakin Earth Spirit. And I also tend to prefer not to prod and poke at the artist behind the work so much, anyway--Goethe's cool because he made this wonderful work, not for gossipy speculation about his true personality.

I'm glad to mention this Spinoza thing, it was really kind of disorienting. My dear TK Seung just opened up in the first sentence with, "Spinoza's pantheism was the chief inspiration of the Romantic conception of nature", as if I should have already known that; that was the foundation of his argument, not his argument! So that made me think there was some important text I was unaware of. But it's a very fascinating thesis, especially if you word it less strongly than the professor has: could Spinozism's God/Nature and Romanticism each describe the same phenomenon? Is to recycle, piety--piety to perhaps an 'Earth Spirit'?

It's been years since I've read Faust, but I tend to think back to it as the man Faust embodying the dialectic, the man amidst the storm of dialectic, and for that reason amenable to diverse readings. Of course, on teh internets, you're most likely to find argumentative anti-social readers, like your abrasive Do-Re-Mi friend! DBaba (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Holism in science

Hi, remember me from Holism in science? I don't do much editing on Wikipedia anymore. It's gotten too Nazi for my taste. You can't post a new article here anymore; everything gets summarily deleted. (Well, I just tried posting one again -- H2PIA, the first hydrogen city (www.h2pia.com if you're interested) -- presumably the internal link will be red in a few minutes.) Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Holism in science article has survived and even seems to have found a place for itself here, although I see someone just slapped another "article doesn't cite its sources blah blah blah" banner on it. Smithfarm (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New section

Don't ever show your face where I live and don't ever let our paths cross in this life or the next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.178.110 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I didn't know. I was doing a bunch of things quickly, checking my watchlist, and the word "weasel" didn't seem to make sense, but I see that I made a mistake now. Sorry. David G Brault (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ramakrishna_close.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ramakrishna_close.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU≈talk 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I FOUND A NEW BOOK

Wikipedia Bureaucracy and “Culture”

1. Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.

2. Wikipedia’s culture of anonymous editing and administration results in a lack of responsible authorship and management. Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an ever-changing set of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining conflicts of interest, canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article editing. Wikipedia’s adminsitrators are similarly anonymous, shielding them from scrutiny for their actions. They additionally can hide the history of their editing (or that of others).

3. Wikipedia’s administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for misbehaviour.

4. Wikipedia’s numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted. Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia’s numerous “policies”, such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.

5. Wikipedia’s quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent, operates on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access to all editors. It will reject cases that threaten to undermine the Wikipedia status quo or that would expose powerful administrators to sanction, and will move slowly or not at all (in public) on cases it is discussing in private.

6. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently independent from Wikipedia’s remaining founder and his business interests. The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders, resulting in an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture. Because of inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired incompetent and (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy Wales’ for-profit business Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its association with the non-profit Wikipedia.

This is what I know about wikipeidia

also I have been reading a fascinating book by a Chicagoan...Saul Alinsky and there some thoughts for which I can apply to the swamp of lies in wikipeidia and the critters that float in it's dank, dark waters...

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it."

"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract."

any rate, this go around you will not win....

PS...PM your meat puppet friend.... btw I have time and friends too...

Page Protection will not work

I have a army of well ripen sockets as well as meat puppets.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.181.136 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A Dose of Misinformation about You

Assuming you have not already, look over this, if you please.

I found this and thought of you. Take it for what it's worth -- the guy seems to dislike you with a sprinkle of misunderstanding. In my opinion, at the very least it is best to be aware of an attack when it is being made. NobodyThatParticularlyMatters (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you google "user goethean" (without quotation marks), you will even come across another attacker by the name of Joe in Google's cache. It is funny to see how he attempts to rally others on www.donmurphy.net boards, for example. NobodyThatParticularlyMatters (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, but I am well aware of both of these people. I'm not sure which is worse. User:Joehazelton is only semi-literate, but very persistent. As far as I'm concerned, Geoff Falk's screeds are self-refuting. I have no inclination to be pulled into his psychodrama. Please read some more of his e-book and let me know if he comes off as an honest or well-adjusted person to you. I think what really made him angry was the fact that I temporarily frustrated his attempts to use Wikipedia to promote his e-book. — goethean ॐ 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To some like you, you think your a god and anyone else is a liar which is the sin of pride. and you and your kind demonstrates that so well.

You are a hateful, hurtful, little man, misguided in the arrogant notions that your beliefs, and you, are better then any one else and you are justified to fill wikipeidia with your lies, slander and libel and to look down your nose at any one that don't kiss you feet and ass because you think your better and right and justify censorship because you think you are the only one with the wisdom for the masses.

You are an arrogant, and over educated nitwit, so full of wrongheaded ideas and hate filled non-sense which would be incomprehensible to an average person. You seem educated, but your actions are that of a petty thug nevertheless, and your record speaks for it self loud and clear (on wikipeidia and other places on the web) and any words you may say are pale in comparison to your deeds.

"I vomit", (An "educated" term you used on "YOU TUBE" to describe another person (Mr Roskam)and his family. You such a well spring of eastern elitest balony and love, I guess the fruits of your religion,politics are lies, hate, and hurtful slander and libel, with your wikipedian tool, which you use like a coward in the dark.

I qoute..."

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7, 15~20

It don't take much education to see what you are about... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.182.12 (talk • contribs) 2008-04-29T08:34:25

Vital articles

I appreciate your interest in representing various places on Vital Articles, but please discuss changes on the talk page first. Thanks! Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gaudapada

I have nominated Gaudapada, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaudapada. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MBest-son (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sup

I really enjoyed that Aurobindo link you gave me. Given the proliferation of fashionably atheist-scientist wankery these days, it's pretty salient stuff. I much prefer to read in paper form; where should I start with Aurobindo? What's a reasonably priced publication? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NRSC Pledge

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article NRSC Pledge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Avruch ^T 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

Thanks! Good move to self-revert that.  :-) --BenBurch (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama '08

Sir, Your characterization of my edit was less than civil in the edit summary and bordered on an attack. If you want to revert, then let us talk on the talk page. Very cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Integral Movement

Hi Goethean. I was wondering if you have or can supply a citation/reference for this sentence from the intro of Integral movement:

"Wilber begins by acknowledging and validating mystical experience, rather than denying its reality. As these experiences have occurred to humans in all cultures in all eras, integral theorists accept them as valuable and not pathological."

The page is looking pretty good, but obviously the more footnotes it has the better. Cheers M Alan Kazlev (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Sock Obama

A tag has been placed on Sock Obama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ~Meldshal42 20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I guess you are right. ~Meldshal42 21:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sock Obama

I have nominated Sock Obama, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sock Obama. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Loonymonkey (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Paglia a Catholic?

Goethean, regarding my dispute with you over whether Paglia should be labelled a Catholic, it might be a good idea to ask for a third opinion. I have again removed the Catholic label, because it is a serious piece of misinformation. It remains misinformation regardless of whether Paglia insists on calling herself a Catholic. Skoojal (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

For future reference, please assume good faith, as it's a wikipedia guideline. Also, please steer clear of abstract, loaded terminology like "the rich" when making edits. Trilemma (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Prospect Polls

Goethean, you may want to see the following [2], which explains why polls such as the Prospect's are not to be taken seriously. Skoojal (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nisargadatta Maharaj

Saw your comment. I (uninterested and ignorant of these topics) am glad someone else has noted this. While some of these deletions are reasonable, by deletionist standards, some like the above are outré. Long, referenced articles, about topics which have drawn academic attention, with whole chapters in books, sometimes extensive, being called passing mentions. The names are a headache, which has probably kept many from more consistent opposition.John Z (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Afds

• Thank you for your your message on my talk page. I appreciate your concern, but do disagree with you in your statement that I, "believe it is better for Wikipedia to delete every article that you can talk your fellow deletionists into voting for." This was made in your comments Deletion drive. This is quite an extreme statment. I am sorry if I offended you by nominating an article you created for deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi. It was not my intent to hurt you or your inspiration for the articles you edit. I hope that we can all learn from these Afd discussions on what is the role of Wikipedia in telling the stories of notable individuals. Thanks again and happy editing. Ism schism (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi

• I listed the above under another deletion sorting to try to get more editors comments on the article. This listing should get more website concerned editors to comment on the article. In the meantime, let me know how I can help you improve the article. Thanks and happy editing. Ism schism (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

New Afds

• Note Ten new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion. The articles are; Living Essence Foundation, Madhukar (author), Nancy Freeman Patchen, Swami Sundaranand, Linda Johnsen, Luc Venet, William McKay Aitken, Yogi Marlon, Anthony Fernandes, and Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the fact checking. It was pretty late when I put that list together, and certainly make more than a few errors. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful...

Careful... poking them with a stick may not be the best way to go about it. All you'll succeed in doing there is bruising egos and helping to push the project back toward open conflict. – ClockworkSoul 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to be more patient. If somebody is less than civil with you, it makes you the better person to not necessarily respond in kind. Granted, I'm not perfect, but I've learned that a little diplomacy can go a long way. – ClockworkSoul 22:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Word of Warning

Dont think I am picking on you or stalking you, but I have been going through a lot of the articles you have contributed to and I just have to say ..... not cool. This isn’t your own personal blog and you don’t get to trash people’s reputations because you don’t like them. CENSEI (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. — goethean ॐ 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No need for the snark. And are you saying that I am you? Thats an interesting way to look at this. CENSEI (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI wrote: "I have been going through a lot of the articles you have contributed to and I just have to say ..... not cool." Please CENSEI refrain from WP:STALK. Seriously, your edits are sloppy, you are confrontational, your edit summaries are often misleading and you are focusing on removing left-leaning criticism while boost up right-leaning criticism. This isn't NPOV editing, it is merely partisan editing, not an effort to improve Wikipedia. Bring up your concerns with Goethean on the WP:RS talk page and get others involved otherwise you are violating WP:STALK and creating a disturbance. Wikipedia should not be a contest of wills, no matter how strongly you feel about things. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles

, so I certainly dispute the stalking accusation. My edits may be sloppy for now, but I am a quick learner. Please point to an example where I removed left leaning criticism and boosted right leaning criticism? All I have done so far is to decreas all criticism, especialy when it violates policy. CENSEI (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: bring in others and aim for consensus. Wikipedia isn't a contest of wills and if you just go around reverting Goethean's edits in a sloppy fashion while treathening and berating him, you are just creating an unpleasant atmosphere that isn't going to conclusively solve things. I think your removal of Goethean's unsourced addition to the Brian Ross article earlier was a good one since it wasn't at all sourced. But arguing about WP:WEIGHT is not a clear-cut battle and saying that TPM and Glenn Greenwald aren't valid sources is I think going too far. I think you are editing too fast in the case of Milbank as there were good sources that supported that material, including Politico, but you were just removing it wholesale while being confrontational with Goethean. You aren't aiming for consensus, you are trying to dominate via a contest of wills, just what I was saying that Goethean shouldn't try to do earlier. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed nothing from the Milbank article, I just trimmed it down to an approproate length, as pwe WP:WEIGHT. Consensus does not trump policy. CENSEI (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? This is what I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Milbank&diff=230028885&oldid=230026286 --John Bahrain (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question, here is an edit that I felt boosted up a right-leaning take on things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Halperin&diff=next&oldid=230050033

Notice how you emphasized the "reinforce long standing beliefs of media bias" based on a reference for which the text isn't even available online. That struck me as strange. You are doing some research for some positions. You just said yourself that you come from Conservapedia. You are also removing TPM and Gleen Greenwald links, which are left leaning sources (and I've seen you remove DailyKos links, but that is more understandable and it is an open blogging site.) You are also ridiculing MMFA. This is unfortunately partisan talk. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting gentlemen but Goethean has engaged in unacceptable behavior here on wikipedia for years. His edit warring, personal attacks, frustrating conduct and article squatting is nothing new, but defending him is taking wikipedia to a whole new level of hypocrisy. I mean this is the same Goethean editor who had to clear their talkpage here because they were using it to post personal attacks. Somehow Goethean is now not Goethean? I mean he told me to leave after he was told by a Neoplatonism society member I was posting A. H. Armstrong "word for word". Goethean was posting in Plotinus and not able to even provide sources while blanket deleting my "word for word" entry as (Goethean called)- trash. Just one more example of why when real competition pops up wikipedia will be in serious trouble.

You can't imagine how shocking his conduct really is, but then its equally shocking to defend it. And remember at least I apologized, apologize for my behavior.

LoveMonkey (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Standardization of Americna nationality

Hi Goethean, I have had to revert you since the standardization for American nationality is "American", not US or United States. Some politicians handle that differently but that is another matter. Thank you. If you disagree, maybe take it to talk or lets get other's imput. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to the Wikipedia policy you are referring to. — goethean ॐ 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would start with WP:MOSBIO. US citizenship usually equates to "American" nationality for bios but of course there are exceptions :). --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, that page says nothing about whether to use "U.S." or "American". — goethean ॐ 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just a starting point, you are correct. I don't see an policy per say, but "American" does seem to be the current standard for describing US nationality in bios. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The most common practice on WP is to link [[United States|American]] like so, when describing nationality. I'm not specifically aware of a policy page saying so, but various discussions over the past few years have strongly supported the practice, looking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive ("U.S." or "American"), Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American, and one I coincidentally started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 100#American. I'm not especially interested in this issue, but just happened to be watching this talk page after a recent incident on another article and thought this post might be helpful. Cheers to you both~ – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(out to left) Thank you Luna, I was looking for those past discussions, but with no luck. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Personae

Goethean, I have a couple of questions about your recent edits to Sexual Personae: why did you remove the table of contents, and why did you de-wikify 'leather'? Anything special about that word that means it can't be wikified? Also, the article says that Paglia equates Christianity with the Apollonian and Paganism with the Dionysian; I suspect that this isn't accurate and wonder whether it should be changed? (I pointed this out on the talk page, but nobody replied. Just looking at the first couple of chapters of the book should settle this question). Skoojal (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism

In your recent edit summary on The Obama Nation, you characterized the edit you were reverting as "vandalism." I deeply resent that accusation and demand that you withdraw it at Talk:The Obama Nation immediately. Wikilost and I were negotiating a compromise and my offer - posted on the Talk page before I edited - was to reduce his laundry list of trivial fact errors from seven paragraphs to 3-1/2, which is precisely half. Then I did exactly what I had offered to do. It was a good faith edit and your accusation violated the article probation. Retract it and apologize or I will seek adminitrative action against you, to enforce article probation. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your note on my User Talk page. Please review WP:BOLD. Consensus on the Talk page favors some moderation of Wikilost's laundry list, and even Wikilost had offered to remove the entire list with a link. So don't pretend there was anything "aggressive" about it. It was a reasonable, good faith attempt at compromise and your continued misrepresentations violate article probation. Apologize. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

I agree with you that my remark was unwarranted. Not because of the editorializing but rather the flippancy. I've worked on articles with a number of aggressive cranks and I'm realizing thats not the situation on this page. Thanks for the fair call. I agree with you about voicing the enemies words and had a few issues with that myself. Much respect.--OMCV (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

At least its clear that we understand each other. I always assumed that talk pages are places to explain ideas without as many citation constraints but I'm sure you know that. I hope its clear that I agree with you on the need for citation. You can even have the last word on the talk page. No need for a Zoolander style "Earth to Hansel" conversation. Do you have any input on the intro. After looking at the intro for Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm I found its wording to be better than what I had included for Rupert Sheldrake and altered Rupert Sheldrake accordingly. Let me know if you have an ideas.--OMCV (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Helen Thomas

What do you think about including the Tom Shales piece in the article? My concern is that singling out the particular criticism of only one person gives undue weight to that criticism, and thus it's a violation of NPOV. I'm wondering what you thought about the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama Nation

I provided a source for the information on the talkpage. I think it is reliable. Could you comment there please? CheersDie4Dixie (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramakrishna / Keshub Chunder Sen

A user NVineeth is POVing on Ramakrishna and Keshub Chunder Sen and undoing some of my effort so as to insert quotes from Romain Rolland's hagiography (1929). I am not expert on wiki mediation so dont know what to do about this. 65.49.14.82 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hagiographies are not reliable sources. Therefore, mark each claim cited to a hagiography with the following: {{cn}}. — goethean ॐ 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Swaminarayan Invitation

I noticed your edits on the Delhi Akshardham page. I was wondering if you were interested in joining a wikiproject that is still being constructed. As of right now, we need more members to make the project. If you are interested please go to my sandbox and sign your name. Again, thanks for your edits.    Juthani1   ^tcs 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude! You ROCK!

Brilliant oservation. Just Brilliant! I quoted you on my user page.

"Namely, that it is a free-for-all in which those who can control content tend to bring it in line with their point of view, and to prevent others from doing the same."

Thanks. It really expresses the intent and source of wikipedia for what it really is. --Artoftransformation (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Stab-in-the-back legend

I see you worked on Stab-in-the-back legend a while back, making significant changes. So perhaps you're familiar with the topic. An editor just made many changes with little explanation.[3] I'm concerned that the changes may not have had the effect of "Neutralising some opinion" but rather adding new opinion. It's not a topic I'm interested or expert in, but if you can review the edit I'd appreciate it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)